Operator: [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from the line of Tracy Benguigui from Barclays.
Tracy Benguigui: Is the impetus selling the Health and Benefits business really to unlock capital and to restore some of your contingency capital? Or was the impetus to become a more lean organization and focus more on core offerings?
Tom Wilson: Neither. And nor was it in relationship to any shareholder asking us to pursue a sale. I know a few of you wrote about. Let me just tell you what it is. So — we’re selling the businesses because it’s the best way to capture the value credit. They’re terrific businesses. I mean we make almost $0.25 billion a year. And we get a good platform, they have low capital requirements. We like the businesses. When we look forward to the future, though, we said we think we can harvest more growth from it if we had more complementary distribution, a broader set of products, capabilities such as network management of a health network like manage that. Those are things that we don’t have today. We said we can build those it would take us time and money.
On the other hand, we could access those that already exist. But that requires us to let go the success we’ve created. So we decided to choose the latter path. It had nothing to do with a shareholder coming to us and saying, you should sell this had nothing to do with needing the money, it has everything to do with this is the right way to manage your company to optimize shareholder value which is sometimes you have to let go of the success you’ve created.
Tracy Benguigui: Okay. But maybe as a byproduct, assuming you could hit whatever valuation target range you have in mind might be early but would you have any kind of implied capital relief from your internal model from the sale?
Tom Wilson: These are low capital businesses. So this First, I would say, on the price high would be the appropriate message I’d like you to carry out there because we do like the businesses a lot. Secondly, they’re pretty low capital businesses. So whatever the sale price is, will generate additional capital. And then we’ll decide what we want to do when we get there. We’ve got plenty of other growth opportunities. We’re doing a lot with to grow market share and profit liability. We don’t need to make that decision right now, so we’re not going to.
Tracy Benguigui: Okay. Or could it potentially move down to AIC or accelerate your path to resume buybacks down the road?
Tom Wilson: There’s — we have all the options that you would have to use capital. Organic growth to buying shares back. All those options are out there. We have no set plans for the capital. Right now, we’re focused on — this is a great business. We can help it be an even greater business by letting go of it. So that’s what we’re going to do.
Jesse Merten: And I would add, Tracy, we — our capitalization philosophy, as you know, we tend to keep the capital at the holding company to the extent that we can. So I don’t believe we have a capital need at AIC that would cause us to want to do that. So I think we would remain with the philosophy of keeping the capital where it’s at the holding company level to the extent we have capital management decisions to make, as Tom said, we’ll make him when the time comes. But I don’t think we have a need for capital in AIC. So I don’t know why we would go away from the philosophy of keeping it up and holding company.
Tracy Benguigui: Got it. And just quickly on your commentary of extending your asset duration now at 4.6 years. I mean you don’t have a life business anymore. You plan to divest the Health and Benefits business. How you think about the optimal asset duration relative to your pro forma duration of your remaining liabilities?
