Scott: I think we’ve had a disciplined approach to M&A that goes back for a number of years. I think we’re going to continue to keep looking for franchises within market, contiguous county, contiguous state that makes sense for National Penn. Probably, a little bit larger in size, just due to the fact that we’re close to the $10 billion threshold.We want to make sure that we go over in a significant way if we do and I think our team internally to National Penn, it’s a knowledgeable, very solid team of technical and operational experience. And I think, just as you stated, we were able to evidence the strength of that National Penn team in the way that we work through our process to close that transaction in less than five months.So, I think, that all has benefits to National Penn and to partners that end up looking to join National Penn. But I would tell you, we are still going to hold to our disciplined approach. Mike?
Mike: I think your comments are very fair, Scott. I think what drives more of what we look at from an acquisition standpoint is that $10 billion threshold. So, I would think it’s a $1 billion or north of a $1 billion type of institution.
David: Got it. And then in terms of the, I got on late, any sort of guidance there in terms of the net interest margin there and if so, potential impacts from purchase accounting accretion from the TF Financial acquisition?
Mike: Yeah. The guidance we gave on the margin was in the 3.25 range, what was — is the seventh year of prolong below interest rates and I think the industry will continue to see some pressure there. As relates to the TF acquisition, the mark was net mark on that balance sheet was relatively insignificant, maybe a basis point or two, but nothing significant as I said.
David: Great. Thank you, guys.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from the line of Matthew Kelley with Sterne, Agee. Your line is now open.
Mathew: Hi guys. Just on your margin guidance for 3.25. Talk a little bit about some of the assumptions that are baked into that and you are you are thinking on interest rates and when that was formulated, obviously, the last couple of weeks was seems to pretty big decline in the long-term rates? So, just kind of give us a sense of what’s baked into that 3.25?
Scott: I think the big assumptions in that, Matt, are this loan growth that we talked about and ranges comparable to 2014. Our assumptions as to rates and as you know that forward curve keeps getting pushed out. Our assumption as to rates for 2015, our rates are flat on the short-term. If we get some benefit later in the year, we’d gladly take it, but it’s not factored into it.The long end coming down a little bit on the positive side. We hope that we see some incremental swap income. We hope we see a little bit more in incremental refinance activity on the mortgage side as it relates to the investment portfolio. The fact that the redeployment rates come down, somewhat impacts us, but not significantly.
Mathew: What is your thinking on premium amortization expense of the MBS book?
Mike: Yeah, our premium amortization has been relatively constant. We have a guideline of not buying at greater than like 102, 103. We don’t have much in that — volatility in that, it’s less than a couple million dollars on a quarterly basis.
Mathew: Okay, got it. And then, what was the dollar amount at the pipeline at year end versus September 30th?
Scott: We’ve not really disclosed the pipeline in regards to total dollars. I think I have been commenting that throughout 2014 coming off of the end of ’13. The pipeline has continued to grow quarter-over-quarter based on customer confidence. And I would say it’s throughout all of our lines of business too.
