Ronald Kruszewski: Yes. So that’s all mixed in. And I’ll say that one of the things that I am pleased with because we anticipated at some point, rates were going to rise. We didn’t necessarily anticipate how rapid they would be in 2022. But we built the balance sheet, we’ve actually sort of gave up some NIM to build an asset-sensitive balance sheet. So what we’ve been able to do is watch our NIMs expand while we’ve been what I think is fairly dealing with cash sorting and deposit betas. And so we feel we’re in a good position as we continue to provide a product, to keep deposits on the platform, attract new deposits, which is important, while also forecasting NIM expansion next year. So I think that this is sort of where a plan came together, and we thought about it.
And now we’re trying to maintain a deposit franchise. What I see across The Street in many instances, is NIM is being driven by lower net interest cost because deposit betas are lower and our deposit beta is what we originally anticipated. At the beginning of the cycle, if you remember, we said it would be 25% to 50% through the cycle north 41% including $8.7 billion in a nice high yielding savings account.
James Marischen: Yes. And just maybe to add that a bit, we didn’t €“ we gave some pretty granular expectations of the assumptions, a full year NIM of 405 to 425 basis points in that beta between 40% and 50%. Now we didn’t give specific mix composition between Smart Rate and the Sweep Program. What I would say is the higher deposit beta assumes a pretty aggressive amount of remixing and the lower deposit beta more along the lines of what we’ve seen over the last few months. And I think that should kind of be able to get you some of the detail on how we came to that calculation.
Alexander Blostein: Got it. Great. Thanks so much guys.
Ronald Kruszewski: Thanks, Alex.
Operator: And our next question will come from Brennan Hawken with UBS.
Brennan Hawken: Good morning, Ron. Good morning, Jim.
Ronald Kruszewski: Good morning.
James Marischen: Good morning.
Brennan Hawken: The question sort of high level. You’ve touched on it a couple of different ways from a couple of different directions here on that Slide 5. Ron, when you think about the recent history, the institutional deals, you’ve been active there, and they’ve been accretive. And so they certainly help drive returns and they help drive earnings growth. But I think they also could end up keeping investors focused on the institutional business at Stifel, which might impact perception despite the case that you lay out on the slide. So how do you plan to strike a balance in thinking about where you’re going to be allocating growth capital to each of these businesses?
Ronald Kruszewski: Well, again, we €“ I picked these two peers, the high-quality peers and one has a little bit more Wealth Management and Institutional but still has significant Institutional. The other has more Institutional than even Wealth Management today, and so they’re very similar in terms of their mix. We will focus and continue to focus on building Wealth Management. That’s what investors want to hear, and we certainly have the platform to scale that business, and we will do that. We will not do that at all cost. One of the things that we focused on is our return-on-tangible common equity, which you can see here. So despite even our €“ the focus that we’ve had on Institutional, we have great returns here and great returns across €“ what was just a difficult market cycle.
