Ian Ryave: Good morning and thank you for taking my question. Just firstly, on Senior Health, can you discuss the reason for the methodology change to marketing development revenues that’s resulted in higher LTVs? And then second, can you talk about how you’re thinking about increasing penetration of the underserved middle income market where you see the most opportunity? Are there regions, states or cities you’re targeting for higher growth? Thank you.
Glenn Williams: Sure. I’ll take a shot at both of those and see if it’s helpful. We had a change in our contracts with our product providers that provided a little more clarity and perhaps even slightly more certainty in those marketing dollars, because they now — the relationship we have around them is in riding now. It’s not that it can’t be changed. It can be changed, but at least I think it’s a little clearer and a little — slightly more ability to anticipate it. And so with that certainty and awareness, we could pull it into the LTV calculation, so it was primarily money we were already receiving in other lines. But with the certainty we moved it into the LTV, and I think that’s a pretty standard procedure. And of course, there are additional increases as there have been some commission increases.
So the change is not solely attributed to that of the increase, perhaps a little over 80% was attributed to the reclass and a little less than 20% to other increases. So that’s behind that. Just — and we like it better, because it provides more clarity to the financials of the business doing it this way. So we took it as a positive process change. But clearly, it’s not all financial impact, change is not that big since it’s just moving from one area to the other. And then secondly, Ian, on the question of where we target it’s interesting, our business grows where we have leadership on the ground, and we do move leadership around occasionally, but not that frequently. And so our business generally runs in line with population of the U.S. and Canada and as the middle income market grows, which it continues to do, we grow, but we have not found it worthwhile to specifically target areas.
If we don’t have leadership on the ground than us trying to artificially grow in an area that is underrepresented in our business, we’ve just not found success in doing that. Now when people ask us, if they want to move to a place with more opportunity, we can tell them, because we know where we’re underrepresented, but we’ve just not found it profitable to move people who choose not to move to a new location and have them struggle. If they want to move back home, where they came from and that’s an underrepresented area, that’s great. That works well for all of us, but we don’t try to do that artificially from the company level.
Ian Ryave: Got it. Thank you so much.
Glenn Williams: Certainly.
Operator: Next question is from the line of Mark Hughes with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question.
Glenn Williams: Welcome back, Mark.
Mark Hughes: Hey, glad to be back. I did want to clarify. I had framed that question badly about the expenses, the $40 million increase on a base of $570 million or so is a completely different matter. So using the $140 million was mistake on my part. And on that basis, it looks pretty reasonable. One question on the Senior Health. You said that 25% of the lead there coming from the Primerica sales force. Is that kind of full strength? Is that what you would expect over time, about 25%? Or should that continue to move up as you maybe do other internal initiatives?
Glenn Williams: Yes. There’s still room for growth in the numbers, Mark, but the percentage is artificially higher right now, because of the low sales levels in the main part of the e-TeleQuote business. I would anticipate that as we grow together as we grow that business, assuming that we — to determine that it can be grown in a profitable and sustainable way that we could grow the Primerica business or the Primerica portion of those leads that are referred in by our sales force at a similar rate. And our objective is to run in the maybe 20% range, a little either side of 20%, so it’s a little artificially high percentage wise, because e-TeleQuote leads were down in the quarter. But we do expect, again, assuming that we can demonstrate the profitability of the business and gain comfort in it that we would grow that.
There is more potential on the Primerica side, but we are not expecting that to become 40%, 50% of the total. That’s not the model we’re running to. It’s as we’ve described it, the Primerica piece is a unique advantage that we can have in this marketplace because we do have access to those leads in a unique way through the relationships of our Primerica representatives and those leads are extraordinarily high quality, as we’ve all talked about before. So we want a lot of them. But at the same time, we want that business to be successful on its own. So something in the range of 20%, a little higher than that a little lower as we grow would be a target, I would say.
Mark Hughes: Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. This will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
