John Rodis: Bob, I like your cautious view on things. I wouldn’t be apologetic about that. I think that’s environment we’re in. Paul, you made the comment just before on expenses, 200 — I think quarter or two ago, you talked about $265 million and you just said sort of full year ’24 sort of level. So, just reading between the lines, is that sort of implies flat to low single-digit growth for next year? Does that make sense?
Paul Egge: I think about it on a core basis flat to low single-digit, yes. And we’re still formulating around all that, but we seek to manage this effectively in 2024.
John Rodis: Okay, makes sense. Back to the yield accretion, certainly the higher payoffs been pulling some of the accretion forward. I think a quarter or two ago, you talked about $26 million to $28 million for the year, which would put you at, what, $6 million to $7 million per quarter. For modeling purposes, does that — well, it could come in higher, does $6 million to $7 million a quarter for yield accretion over the next few quarters still seem reasonable?
Paul Egge: I think it’s hard to predict these things that if you’re going straight on and we were conservative thinking that we wouldn’t get really much or any pay downs. And as it happens, we’ve gotten a lot more. So, I think that that’s been our conservative view and we’ve been surprised to the positive. So, taking recent path, I think it’s safe to say that our conservatism has been a little less warranted, but once again it’s hard to predict deposit — pardon me, loan repayment behavior, especially with these higher rates. It’s been interesting that it’s outpaced our expectations at this point.
John Rodis: Yeah. I get it. Back to the charge-off, can you guys say what sort of industry that company was in?
Bob Franklin: John, I think we should leave it as it is. We’re still in negotiation, still have some ongoing step with these guys. I don’t want to call them out in anyway. Being more specific is probably not a good idea for us right now.
John Rodis: I understand that. Just one follow-up on that, it was in the Houston market, correct?
Bob Franklin: Yes.
John Rodis: Okay. Okay, guys, thank you. It was a nice quarter. Thank you.
Bob Franklin: John, thank you.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Matt Olney with Stephens. You may proceed.
Matt Olney: Thanks. Good morning, guys. Most of my questions have been addressed, but I know the bank typically has some seasonality late in the fourth quarter and into the first quarter with respect to that deposit base. As it stands today, we’d love to hear about expectations of that seasonality? And if you expect to kind of maintain those normal seasonal patterns?
Paul Egge: Sure. We do expect a measure of seasonality, but I will say, especially given that we’re currently structured — currently using a higher level of wholesale funding than we’d like to, we kind of would see a substitution dynamic going on. So, we’re probably not expecting much by with asset growth more will seek to let certain seasonality on the funding side substitute away a measure of our usage of FHLB borrowings or broker deposits what have you.
Matt Olney: Okay, Paul, thanks for that. I assume those wholesale FHLB, those are all eligible to be paid down pretty short duration, it sounds like.
Paul Egge: It’s mixed, but we definitely have a certain amount that is on the short side that will — we’re kind of thoughtful about how we play that composition of both food groups in that wholesale funding and we’re able to manage that relative to the expectations around seasonality. To the extent it drives a little bit of asset growth, we’ll be enjoying a meaningful level of spread if we put that at the Fed — if we put the excess cash at the Fed.
