That said, given all of that look, I think, what we do is challenge ourselves into how do you succeed regardless of the volume of movement. And I think we continue to see our win rates improve despite the lower level of movement. And with the diversification of our models, right, that mix shift that I spoke to is more of a neutral point for us as, again, we try to compete competitively [ph] for all 300,000 advisers that may move. So the overall churn we’ve overcome those lower levels of churn. We do think that they will come back over time. There is lots of reason to believe that that number begins to pick up and more trend back towards the norm. And so if we can sustain higher win rates because we’ve got a more appealing model, we’ve gotten better at recruiting matched with the flexibility of our model, I think, we think that positions us well as we go forward.
I think if you look at the competitive landscape, again, we haven’t seen significant changes or material changes across the playing field there. That said, what we talked about in the last question, there are moments in time in the marketplace where there may be some elevated movement because an organization is going through some strategic transition. And we always try to position ourselves there to get a bit of an over index gain on those opportunities when they may occur. I think if you add all of that up and you look out over the intermediate term, if you look at our growing pipeline, the growing sort of appeal of our different affiliation models, the strength of our adviser recruiting matched with the nice complement of bigger mandates in the enterprise marketplace.
And we feel good about our short and intermediate opportunity for recruiting. And then longer term, I think, we go back to our structural advantages and really back to our strategy where we continue to see a growing appeal and demand for advice, the attractiveness of the adviser or the independent model matched with the desire to receive that model from a financial professional. The overall demand for advice continues to give us a big tailwind. You take our market leadership in the independent model singular focused on really understanding and innovating in it, robust feature platform we have to jump off from in our capacity and commitment to invest back into the model. And we think that certainly positions us long term to capitalize on current large demand that exists today, but the growing demand for advice is going to create more opportunity going forward and our ability to differentiate.
Hope that helps.
Dan Fannon: Yes, that’s helpful. And I guess, Matt, just a follow-up here on expenses. So first is the promo expense missed the guidance for the third quarter. So curious about what drove that. And then as we think about G&A, I know there’s elevated spend because of the environment and the solid organic growth. If we – in looking at Slide 24, it’s obviously been on a trajectory higher for several years. If we think about longer term, not so much for just 2024, what is a reasonable growth rate do you think for G&A spend to maintain that these solid levels of organic growth?
Matt Audette: Yes. I think just, I’ll hit the promo first. I think when you look at our guide for Q3, which was in the 130 to 135 range, we came in at 140. Really just a factor of the timing of the large enterprise onboarding expenses. We had both Bank of the West and Commerce come on board in the quarter. That’s the quarter where those expenses are typically the highest. And then we started the integration onboarding work for Prudential, which we’ve got an overall estimate of $125 million and that is still our estimate just ramped up a little bit faster. So it’s simply the timing of expenses associated with those I think [indiscernible] highlight for Q3. I think to your second question on overall core G&A growth, I mean I think we plan those investments and spend in each and every year with a focus on making sure we’re investing to drive and support organic growth.
Making sure we’re balancing that with delivering operating leverage. And then I think perhaps to the core of your question, adjusting those levels based on the macro environment. And I think that’s where we get to what we’re doing this year is having an up level of investment and spend that I think really helps improve our value proposition, our capabilities to our advisors and is one of the drivers of our success in organic growth. And I think when we think about that over the long term, the things like that would be dependent upon the environment, right? So if you remember from the guidance of 13% to 15% growth this year, about 4% to 5% of that was really based on the opportunity of the environment. So I think when you’re thinking long term, I think that’s a bucket where you can put aside and say we’d just be opportunistic at for that amount if the environment was there.
And I think when we get back to what we’re spending on and what we’re doing this year, we think it’s been a quite the right decision and a good use of capital.
Dan Fannon: Thank you.
Operator: One moment for our next question. And our next question will be coming from Michael Cyprys of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open, Michael?
Michael Cyprys: Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Maybe just continuing with expense related questions just on the promotional expense, we’ve seen an uptake in recent years. Understand there’s been some investments made to support that. Just as we look out over the next couple years, how should we think about sort of an underlying true run rate of expense growth for on the promotional side in order to maintain the organic growth that you guys are looking to achieve? And I think on the promotional side, you also called that about a 100 million of onboarding for next year. Should we think about that all fully coming out in 2025?
