Mark DeFazio: And Chris, I should — I really should point down and should not go unnoticed, two deposit verticals that we developed internally and the property management business, which is a nationwide business, and the U.S. Trustee business, and there’s only a handful of banks that actually could hold U.S. Trustee’s deposits on balance sheet. You got to keep in mind, we chose to let those deposits runoff. We replaced them. We decided to be a much leaner, operate as a much-leaner balance sheet. We can dial that up anytime we want. We can bring those deposits back. We have wonderful relationships with these companies. When we find that that’s an efficient source of liquidity for us to maintain the discipline we have toward knowledge and management, we’ll bring it back.
So, it’s not like it’s an investment. There’s no capital investment to bring on and replace those deposits. And we’re working really hard to add to our supply of deposit verticals. And by the way, this rate cycle will pass. Those rates will and they’ll find their sweet spot. We have a significant advantage as being one of the few banks in the country that actually can hold U.S. Trustee deposits on balance sheet based on the investment (ph). So, those are just deposit verticals we can fill up anytime we want, so we can bring that loan to deposit ratio down anytime we want. But we are a bank that likes mid-teens and higher return on tangible common equity. We think that’s our mandate and that’s where we’ve been historically and that’s where we’re going to stay.
Chris O’Connell: Got it. Circling back to one of the earlier questions on the crypto runoff over — in the next couple of quarters, and whether the offset of that is coming from cash or securities. Can you just walk me through what the decision-making process is, and how you guys landed on the decision to do solely cash, given where the securities yields are on the (ph) book?
Greg Sigrist: Yes, we — I think in part, Chris, it goes back to just the opportunity we see in the deposit side. I mean, we obviously have $7 million or $8 million a month of principal cash flows coming off the securities portfolio that’s available to us. We’re still generating a tremendous level of cash just on an operating basis, it will be part of the mix. GPG, if you’re looking at the banking-as-a-service deposits, those have continued to tick up quarter-on-quarter and we still see a lot of runway for growth in that vertical. And we feel that we don’t have to rush out to fill the bucket, right? We are targeting between $200 million and $250 million of on-balance sheet cash at any moment in time, such as part of using the FHLB advances, as an example, to fill that bucket.
But we are thinking over the balance of the year that we’re going to be able to continue to support loan growth and replace crypto deposits with existing verticals and initiatives we’ve touched on.
Chris O’Connell: Okay, understood. Thank you. And then, last two quick ones from me. One, is there any discussions internally, or have you guys thought about the potential for a buyback authorization? And then, two, I believe that the office book for you guys is around 8% of total CRE. But maybe if you could just walk us through some of the characteristics of that book and where it’s located, et cetera, that’d be great.
Greg Sigrist: All right. I’ll start with the buyback, and then Mark, I think, can pick up the composition on the CRE side. Obviously, we evaluate a lot of capital alternatives, including dividends and a lot of things. I think anytime you trade close to book value — your tangible book value in this sort of the market, you really have to think hard about it. All I can say is, yes, we’re absolutely having the conversations. And if anything becomes actionable or reportable, we’ll let you know about it. But it’s certainly been on our mind.
