Ken Moelis: Yeah, those are two questions to fund future growth, yeah, but we have $190 million in cash right now. And by the way, there is another liquid investment that you didn’t include in that. We have 23 million shares of an investment we have in our Australian subsidiary that’s — it’s not completely liquid, but it trades and is a source of capital if we ever needed it. So, we’ve not discussed really going into debt to do either of those two. Look, if the right opportunity came along, given we have zero leverage, would I go into a line of credit for a couple of million dollars to accomplish something that would change the nature of the organization going forward for the next decade? Yes. But I don’t see a reason why we have to do that given our profile.
Ben Rubin: Got it. No, that makes sense. And then my follow-up is also as related to comp ratio, 80% you guys just gave. And obviously, it’s a result of the success and the recruitment and the 19 MDs obviously already hired and two more additional come on. Question for you is, what type of impact do those additional hires, especially at the senior level, have in terms of the different components of your fixed comp expense? And are you making any adjustments to your approach as to incentive comp or your policies because of the higher amount of fixed comp relative to those new hires? Thank you.
Ken Moelis: No. Our philosophy on comp will remain the same. And really, I guess it did change a little bit, by the way, is that we did exceed the comp ratio by a significant amount. The philosophy behind that is that the new investment we’re making in 20 new Managing Directors is a beneficiary that should be the equity investors — the producing Managing Directors who are on the field, my belief is they shouldn’t have to pay for that investment out of their current production. By the way, if you do that, you won’t retain your continuing Managing Directors your — for long. So, we decided to kind of bifurcate it into how can we pay the existing Managing Directors for what they’re producing and make room for the expansion. But that doesn’t — I hope that’s a bridge to 12 months from now when everybody is a continuing Managing Director and we’re all one team.
We are seeing it pretty quickly developed that way. Our technology backlog has improved dramatically. We’re already announcing transactions from the SVB tech team hire. So, we’re seeing it real-time and pretty happy with the results.
Ben Rubin: That’s great color. Thank you for taking my questions.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Kenny with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Connell Schmitz: Hi, good afternoon. This is actually Connell Schmitz stepping in for Ryan Kenny. My first question is on the backlog. Can you size the backlog versus the call back in April? And then on the SEBI-related mandates, is there any sizing to the number of deals and volume of deals associated with that revenue sharing agreement?
Ken Moelis: On the backlog, it’s — our gross backlog is up pretty decently from — I forgot which date you asked. Last earnings call, I guess? Up pretty significantly. Again, to the question earlier on, the gross backlog is actually — and I’m just talking the gross amount of transactions we’re hired to do is up near the highest levels it’s been. I just handicap that. I think in this environment, you have to handicap that as having more fragility to completion. And so I don’t want — I’m not sure the 2 numbers are completely comparable given the environments. And then what was your second question again?
Connell Schmitz: It was just on the SEBI-related deals. So like we know there’s a revenue sharing agreement with the 40 or so bankers that came on. Like is there any way to size the potential deal flow that could come from that?
