Keith Waddell: Yes. Tech is interesting. Tech is interesting. On one hand, you’ve got big tech that over-hired that with great fanfare is announcing all their layoffs. And while we’re not directly impacted much by big tech, I’d say there’s a psychological and sentiment impact to all tech and that there’s a perception that there are a lot of tech people on the market that the tech market has loosened a lot. The reality is a lot of those layoffs aren’t even tech people. They’re recruiters, HR, back-office people at tech companies. Further those that are getting laid off, typically are finding new positions fairly quickly. And so we would say that the tech market, in fact, is stronger than the perception that’s being led by big tech, which has very specific, in many cases, company-specific circumstances.
Stephanie Moore: Absolutely. And then, sorry, last one for me. And maybe at this more if you can provide a little bit more of a history lesson just from prior down cycles. Do you feel like SMBs were in prior cycles slower to kind of respond or slower to see the impact in a weaker economic environment? Or how would you think that kind of played out throughout a cycle? And any reason why this cycle might be different from those in the past on SMBs? Thanks.
Keith Waddell: History would say SMBs are more nimble, more cost focused and would respond more quickly, not more slowly to macro uncertainty. By the same token, they would recover more quickly than larger enterprise organizations. That’s been the consistent experience we’ve seen at least across the last three cycles, and we have the reason to believe it wouldn’t be the case again.
Stephanie Moore: Got it. Thanks so much.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of George Tong with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
George Tong: Hi. Thanks, good afternoon. Your goal has been to replace COVID-related public sector Protiviti spend with other forms of public sector spend. How do you expect federal budget constraints to potentially impact public sector spending on Protiviti? And what’s your embedded assumption around public sector spend in your first quarter guidance for Protiviti?
Keith Waddell: Well, so first of all, just to kind of step back for public sector for a moment, going into 2022, there was all this concern that there was going to be this cliff event due to the absence of unemployment claims processing that would have to be replaced. As 2022 was ultimately reported, we were down 3% adjusted for currency 2021 for 2022. And so from where I come from, we were essentially flat in 2022 versus 2021, the feared cliff event didn’t materialize, and we were successful at replacing that work. As we move forward into 2023, we’re optimistic that on an enterprise basis, you can’t just look at Protiviti. You can’t just look at talent solutions. You have to put the two together that on an enterprise basis that we’re on solid footing.
We’ve got good foundational client relationships that we can leverage, and we feel good about that given its overall size relative to Protiviti and/or to talent solutions. We don’t plan to make a lot of specific disclosures about public sector going forward because, quite frankly, we have many sectors, many practice groups, many industry groups that are way larger than public sector. And given that this feared cliff event is behind us, we didn’t feel the need to do so, but we’re very pleased at how we manage through and replaced all that unemployment claims processing work. We’re effectively flat and we’ll build from there.
George Tong: Got it. You mentioned that lower 1Q margins reflects the seasonal impact from compensation and headcount. Your guide for 1Q Protiviti SG&A as a percentage of revenue of 14% to 16% looks like it comes above the prior year’s 1Q SG&A as a percentage of revenue of 13%. Can you unpack that a little bit? What’s driving that since it seems like it’s a little bit more than seasonality?
