And so that’s the kind of client behavior. What we have seen is that if you decompose our book, some of this activity is in the non-interest-bearing deposits, which have come down. And some of it is in the interest-bearing back-book because some clients with non-interest-bearing deposits come to us and say, look, can you make them now interest-bearing at a certain rate. And what we’ve seen is some real segmentation of that book. As an example, the average account in non-interest-bearing, there’s about 30,000 accounts. The average account is barely over $1 million. What you can do in some of the analytic work we’ve done is separate out the higher balance non-interest-bearing clients and client accounts from lower balance ones. Not surprisingly, the higher balance accounts are down year-over-year in balance terms by 70%, right.
The large number of smaller accounts are down by 15%. And so this is where what we’re starting to work through with the — what I’ll describe is the burn down. How much of the larger deposits and non-interest-bearing have migrated to interest-bearing, right, at what rate. And our perspective is that we are now working through, I’ll describe as a catch-up on the back-book. Some of that is non-interest-bearing deposits moving to interest-bearing and some of that is interest-bearing being priced up. And as we think about it, we think that the peak of that catch-up will play out in third quarter as we scan the deposit types, the larger, more sophisticated clients versus the smaller clients. And that’s why we expect both the catch-up to continue into the third quarter and likely peak in the third quarter and then begin to moderate in the fourth quarter and to burn down.
Alexander Blostein: Got it. And then like just the end game in terms of what you ultimately think US deposit cost is going to look like relative to kind of the 3.5 and the Fed funds at 5?
Eric Aboaf: I think it’s — I’ve not calculated directly on a cost versus rate basis, on a NIM basis, but I guess we could back into it if it’d be helpful to you. As we think about the long range view of NII on our book, I’ve given some guidance for 3Q NII, for 4Q NII. I think our instinct is that NII will settle in this $550 million to $600 million range per quarter. And if it’s helpful, we can try to calculate that back into spread on assets or a spread or a cost of funds on deposits and follow up with you.
Alexander Blostein: I got you. That’s helpful. Thanks. And my bigger picture question for you guys and to Ron as well as I think you mentioned productivity efforts in light of the fact that NII has clearly become a bigger headwind over the next several quarters and you guided servicing fees down in the third quarter. So as you think about measuring those productivities, are you solving for overall pre-tax margin stability? Are you solving for kind of fee margin stability sort of like ex-NII? How should we think about sort of measuring the productivity efforts in light of a more challenging revenue backdrop?
Ronald P. O’Hanley: Yes. Alex, I mean, where we start with is, I mean, because what you’re describing is outcomes of the productivity efforts where we’ve — and these are not new, these are ongoing. We really start with how do we create more scale in our business. How do we increase speed, lower error rates, increase client satisfaction, take out manual interventions. So the measures that we’re using would be the traditional productivity measures and this has been underway now for several years. You’ve been seeing the results in our — and we’ve been able to manage costs certainly relative to others. But in terms of how we think about the business going forward, particularly given that NII is no longer a tailwind in terms of an outcome basis, we really think about the operating leverage, I think, is the key outcome we’re managing to, if that’s the question you’re asking.
