Andy Sullivan: Yes, Ryan, it’s Andy again. I’ll take the question. So given the rise in the US dollar and the weakening of the yen, we have seen an elevated level of surrenders in the business. The effect there is really some customers are looking to monetize their gains out of their non-yen products in yen terms. That being said, we saw this effect begin to decelerate in the month of December, and that deceleration has continued here in the month of January as the yen appreciate it. So we would expect as the yen starts to stabilize, this effect will stabilize in the business.
Ryan Krueger: Got it. And then on the FC well charge, is there a chance that some of that could reverse from AAT subtest from higher interest rates when you do the look back in 2023?
Ken Tanji: Ryan, it’s Ken. I think you’re referring to our asset adequacy testing. We’re not expecting any significant change in our AAT reserves in light of the higher rate environment.
Ryan Krueger: Okay. Got it. Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is coming from Tracy Benguigui from Barclays. Your line is now live.
Tracy Benguigui: Thank you. A follow-up on your statutory reserve charge for your assumption update. Last quarter, Ken, you mentioned it would be absorbed within PICA’s excess capital position. Has that changed in the quarter where the ultimate size ended up being higher than your expectations and also on like GAAP reserve charges, I understand that funding for a statutory reserve charge does not have to come in all at once in 4Q. So can you share if you booked a portion of it before 4Q?
Ken Tanji: Hey, Tracy, no, in terms of the assumption update, that is recorded in €“ that was recorded in the fourth quarter, again, consistent with established practice for statutory reporting. And nothing new there to report came in as expected, and we did not €“ we did not need to fund PICA with capital from Holdco as €“ also as expected. So, nothing really new there.
Tracy Benguigui: Okay. And your latest buyback authorization levels suggest you’re not meeting your objective over three years of $11 billion of capital returns. So I’m just €“ if you could walk us through what has changed since you set that objective. Was it just the reserve charge, or is it something else like PRT? I guess, my broader question is from this experience, are you rethinking the idea of coming up with a multiyear plan versus a singular year plan?
Ken Tanji: Yeah. Tracy, it’s Ken. Just looking back here and as a reminder, we set that a three-year objective in 2021 and the target was initially $10 billion over the three-year period. Later in 2021, we increased that objective as cash flow for 2021 was very strong. And as I kind of highlighted earlier in the call, in 2022, last year, we managed through a number of significant items, which was our assumption update in our life insurance business, the jumping rates and the non-economic impact on stat accounting and then we had the major PRT transactions. And again, when we put that all together, we think we end up to €“ at the end of 2022 in a very competitive position from a capital standpoint and a healthy outlook for our businesses with sustained cash flow going forward.
So yeah, that’s what got factored into the decision along with the outlook of the economy with the recession uncertainty. So the $1 billion will put us a little shy of the $11 billion, but it will only take about another quarter to achieve that.
Tracy Benguigui: Okay. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Jimmy Bhullar from JPMorgan. Your line is now live.
Jimmy Bhullar: Thanks. First, just could you talk about your sales pipeline in PGIM in both the retail and the institutional side and how that’s looking?
