Jason Tyler: Every year we come into it and we don’t expect there to be–to trigger settlement accounting, and it’s ironic because in 2021, we had the thresholds but then we did a larger RIF, and those ended up triggering, and then this past year, it was interest rates going up significantly that led to a higher level of retirements than we anticipated. In no year do we anticipate it at this time, but the bad news is we’re in the exact same boat this time, which is that we look at the thresholds with our outside actuaries, with our consultants, but we can’t predict with high degrees of certainty what the experience will be from a retirement perspective. We have to let that play through. That said, what we experienced in ’21 and ’22, we had not experienced prior to that, and so it’s not like this is something that–it’s happened the last two years, but if you look over the last 10 years, it hasn’t happened outside of these last two years.
That’s how we think about it. It seems like more of a trend certainly than what we’re planning or anticipating.
Jim Mitchell: Okay, and maybe just on capital, you had a nice sequential improvement in capital ratios. You didn’t really do much in the way of buybacks in ’22. Do you see that being a bigger part of the EPS story this year?
Jason Tyler: Yes, at some point. If you think about the framework we’ve used historically, and I’ve talked about it a lot, there’s no red flags there. We don’t have to have all of those components of the framework saying green. We look at it in combination at any given point in time, and we’re at 10:8 right now. We also still have $1.6 billion in AOCI – that will come down a little bit, actually in a chunk because of the securities repositioning, because we did that after the quarter, so we’ve got, call it a $1.4 billion that’s going to be accreting into capital over time. The returns in the business are still strong, and so there’s no reason we wouldn’t be back at some point.
Jim Mitchell: Okay, thanks.
Operator: Thank you. We’ll take our next question from Rob Wildhack from Autonomous Research.
Rob Wildhack: Good morning guys. On the fee side, I just wanted to check in on organic growth and the competitive landscape, you know, this quarter and into ’23 for both the institutional and the wealth businesses. Thanks.
Jason Tyler: Sure, so I’d say different stories there. We talked about wealth a little bit earlier, and if you think about just the core underlying business, really focusing more on the account management side, then the business had a very strong first half of the year and the second half of the year was weaker. We’ve also noted GFO was much stronger than the regions, but again that’s going to ebb and flow over time; but organic growth the way we have calculated it and communicated it historically was negative in the regions for the quarter, and call it flat for GFO–actually, slightly positive GFO if you think about it on a year-over-year basis. It at least gives you a sense of where that business is. But then again, from the advisory side, even both for the year-over-year and at the end of the quarter, the advisory fees did well, and so the core business there is strong.
