Greg Sigrist: My crystal ball is broken, Chris. I mean I think you’re still going to see — I think you’ve already largely seen the pull-through effect of rate impacts to this point. You might see a little bit more impact in the third — in the fourth quarter in October potentially. But I would actually expect to see that number start the whole steady, particularly if you think we’re through the rate hike cycle, right? We are liability sensitive state that as it is. But over the next two quarters, assuming the rate hikes kind of settle out, I think we’re pretty close to the high end of that number.
Christopher O’Connell: Got it. And just given that outlook and some of the borrowing dynamics that you discussed in the prepared remarks, how do you see the NIM progressing near term into the fourth quarter? And over the next several quarters if the rate environment kind of remains steady?
Greg Sigrist: Yes. I really truly feel we might have seen the inflection point in the third quarter on NIM, Chris. I think that’s going to go back to your kind of your embedded last question, which is, is there any upward pressure on the existing interest-bearing deposit side? I’m not seeing it right now. I would expect us, frankly, to start that inflection point, if not already, then into the fourth quarter, you might see some modest uplift in the fourth quarter in NIM. But by the time we get into the first quarter next year, again, a combination of a more stable rate environment and the connotation that would have on our funding cost, combined with just the ability to continue to reprice the asset side, you’ll start to see that uplift certainly by the first quarter at the latest.
Christopher O’Connell: Got it. And on the GPG pipeline, I know you guys announced that partnership and have some things that you look of data at San as we get into 2024. But how do you see with GPG fees trending into the fourth quarter? Should we expect those to be up on a quarter-over-quarter basis?
Greg Sigrist: I would still expect to see GPG revenues trending as they have historically, Chris. If you call that 15%, 20%, whatever range you’re looking at historically, I’m not seeing anything that would say otherwise. I mean, we’re obviously still continuing to focus on the quality clients we want to have in the portfolio there. And I think, as you know, though, anybody we onboard now, it’s really — you’re not going to see any substantial revenue generation, fee generation for at least 12 to 18 months. It takes some time to get them to the process and ramped up. But just with the existing portfolio of clients we’ve got, you’re starting to see — I called out in my prepared remarks, the corporate disbursement clients you’re starting to see some of those partners really hit their stride and as they’re building out their client base, it’s filtering through. But I would say continue to look at the historic run rate, I think that’s a good place to start.
Christopher O’Connell: Got it. And then just lastly, on the consent order and the impact going forward. Obviously, the actual monetary penalty came in below expectations. How — do you have any color or detail as to how much of the kind of internal investments related to that are needed on a go-forward basis?
Mark DeFazio: I think I don’t think there’s any more additional internal investments. We have been working on improving the policies and procedures, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks. So there will be no incremental increase in costs associated with addressing the concerns of the regulators. We may have some outside validation done through some consulting work to validate what we have done, but we’re in a pretty good shape to address the concerns of the regulators.
Operator: We’ll take our last question from Alex Lau with JPMorgan.
Alex Lau: Good morning, everyone. Just a follow-up on the previous topic. Can you talk — walk through the two consent orders and how you expect to respond to these if this changes how you approach the GPG business at all?
Mark DeFazio: Well, the consent orders are pretty straightforward. They’re specific to different areas of compliance oversight, specifically for the consumer-facing part of GPG. And we have been addressing — as you know, this is a 2020 matter. So we have been addressing and working alongside very productively with our regulators. So we have a very good relationship with the regulators. Open communication, good transparency. They’ve had some very good ideas and some suggestions on how to address these type of business relationships. You saw recently, there was joint agency guidance that came out on third-party oversight for these types of relationships. So that’s been very helpful. and we’ll address them one by one. It’s no different than findings in any report of exam.
We’ll address them. We’ll evaluate them. We’ll have discussions with the regulators. And then we will make the changes necessary. We will likely get some of the changes looked at by outside companies to validate and then we’ll present them to the regulators for their review and consideration. But we don’t find it to be a heavy lift. We’ve addressed many of these already because this was in a very acute challenge in March of 2020, specifically because of the global pandemic and the circumstances around that. But no, we’re in a good place, and we have good dialogue with the regulators on this.
Greg Sigrist: Yes. And the only thing I would add, Alex, is I mean we, from an investment perspective, with human capital, we’ve almost doubled the number of folks in that the control function since that time, since early 2020. And I think that speaks to Mark’s point in terms of the level of focus on this internally since that time.
Christopher O’Connell: And just a follow-up to that. Does this impact the near-term growth potential of the GPG business with regards to gathering deposits and fee income at that historical growth pace?
