Johnny Randel: Yes. Just to clarify, it’s more on the comp line than the G&A line, just given the €“ our comp cycle is on a calendar year. So it’s January 1, new base, new bonus accruals begins. It will be in the comp accrual line. So, I guess in terms of €“ I guess if you look back at the change a year ago between the fourth quarter and the first quarter, that percentage increase is about the same. I don’t know we have a guidance percentage, but something beyond the normal quarterly increase driven by staff. It would be quarterly increase driven by new hires plus some adjustment on the base.
Ben Budish: Okay. That’s very helpful. Thanks so much.
Operator: Our next question comes from Michael Cyprys with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Cyprys: Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. So, you guys have been quite active over the years building out a global diversified platform. So, I guess as you look at the business today, what strategies, geographies, channels, would you like to see added to the platform as you look out over the next 5 years to 10 years, that could make sense or ones that you think could be more meaningfully scaled? And you have also been quite active on M&A over the years. I guess how much time are you spending on that today versus on recent years?
Scott Hart: Yes. So, maybe I will start and then hand it to Mike to touch briefly on M&A. But in terms of some of the white space or some of the areas that we expect to grow over the coming years, I won’t kind of rehash our focus on the private wealth channel. I think we spent quite a bit of time on that in prior quarters. But clearly, as we not only make progress with SPRIM, but now launch SPRING and think about how that channel may prove helpful and successful to us in other parts of our business. That will clearly continue to be an area of focus. I think the other opportunity that we see probably fall within any of the given asset classes. And so not to come back to secondaries again, but I think it’s a pretty good example where today, when you look at how fundraising has evolved over the last several years and the resulting net asset value that is in the ground across each of the asset classes where we operate, something like 30% of the current private market NAV falls in the infrastructure, real estate and private credit asset classes today relative to private equity, yet when you look at the secondaries market within any of those asset classes, it’s probably closer to depending on what sources you look at, probably under 15%.
So, I think there is room as those asset classes mature, for the secondaries market to follow suit. And again, it’s sort of one example. But I think in a lot of other ways, as we look at how the non-private equity asset class have been evolving, there are similarities. It might be in terms of the specialization amongst managers where initially you had a number of generalist funds operating across the entirety of the infrastructure space, for example. But over time, you see more funds specializing in whether it’s energy transition or even within energy transition in a number of different specialty areas. And I think as you see the number of funds grow, it presents opportunities for us to develop more specialized mandates, which we have already started to do today.
So, I think that’s where we see some of the biggest opportunities is probably within each of our asset classes. But why don’t I turn it to Mike just to comment on your question about M&A as well.
