David Solomon: Sure. In traditional investment banking services, we have leading share with sponsors across M&A and leveraged finance. These capital facilities are key to the way they operate their business. And while we’ve been in the business of capital facilities, it is an area of growth for us, an area of lending growth for us. One of the things that was interesting about these portfolios is the portfolios bring a series of new clients to us where we haven’t been a lender and we haven’t been engaged in this activity, and it gives us an attachment to them. So this was an opportunity to expand an activity that we run meaningfully. Again, I made this comment when we were talking about the Global Banking & Markets business, financing your clients strengthens your overall position with them because the financing is important to them. And so as we continue to finance sponsors, I think it strengthens ready, very strong position with the sponsor community.
Devin Ryan: Understood. Thank you.
Operator: We’ll move to our next question from Dan Fannon with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Daniel Fannon: Thanks. Good morning. I had a question on Platform Solutions. So for the quarter, if we exclude the write-down, is this a reasonable run rate for expenses? And as you think about achieving your target of profitability in this business, is this going to come more from the expense side or revenue growth? And if you could also just give an outlook for Transaction Banking, just given revenues are down both sequentially and year-over-year.
Denis Coleman: Sure. Thank you for the question. I don’t think it’s the right run rate. I think there’s a combination of things that we expect over the next 12 months in terms of growth in revenue, composition of the clients as well as ongoing efficiency with respect to expenses. So I think we should be outperforming any type of run rate analysis. I think on Transaction Banking, we’ve tried to explain the strategic focus for us for that business, which is to grow a higher-quality client business over the long term. We had grown quickly. We’re now focused on growing with high-quality clients, high-quality deposits. As you note, the revenues and the deposit balances were down slightly sequentially, I think, reasonably in line with the industry, given some migration to other higher-yielding opportunity sets.
But we did grow our client count. We remain committed to the business and we think that it works very well with our overall Investment Banking franchise and footprint, and we think it could be a good value unlock over the longer term for Goldman Sachs.
Daniel Fannon: Thanks. And as a follow-up, you mentioned in terms of alternatives and the fundraising at the private equity challenges. But maybe if you could talk broadly about fundraising and some of the bigger funds maybe that you’re in the market with today. And then also, as you think about the maturity of the business broadly within alternatives, how are you thinking about the contribution of incentive fees going forward? And when should we start to see those become a more material component of the overall revenue profile?
Denis Coleman: So on the alternative space, our fundraising activity, $15 billion in the quarter, $40 billion year-to-date has been broad-based. We have a broad-based platform. We have mentioned the secondaries fund. David covered some of the private credit spaces. These are big areas of interest for our clients around the world. They’re particularly relevant. We expect to continue to invest in those platforms as well as across the platform more broadly. Incentive fees come through as we get to the end of funds, we’re in a position to start to distribute carry. So incentive fees will be lumpy. It will depend on the performance of different funds, but we expect that there will be more incentive fees next year and beyond. When we laid out at Investor Day the building blocks for our performance in the segment, we put on the page, not only the top line target information that David covered earlier, but also estimated incentive fees sort of on an annual basis.
So I think that’s a source of upside for us.
Operator: We’ll move to our next question from Gerard Cassidy with RBC. Your line is now open.
Gerard Cassidy: Thank you. Good morning, David. Good morning, Denis. David, in the past, you — and you talked about the IPOs, the four that you guys were very involved with this quarter. But in the past, you talked about green shoots, and part of it was the convincing of private equity owners or companies that were owned by private equity that if they wanted to go public, they’re going to have to recognize that the valuations today are far below where they were in 2021 at the peak of the cycle. Are you finding those conversations easier today or are you finding more people are recognizing that’s correct? And if they want to go public, they just had to accept it?
David Solomon: Yes. I mean, I appreciate the question, Gerard. I think absolutely, they’re easier. And if you look at a handful of the companies that have gone public, you can look at their private market valuations two years ago versus the valuation now. But I don’t think those discussions are difficult. I think those discussions have a real sense of realism in them. And I think there are a number of companies that recognize the new environment and are focused on what they have to do to enhance themselves strategically.
Denis Coleman: And Gerard, I’d just add, it’s actually especially helpful to have numerous real data points in market, both space for equities and across the leveraged finance space. So the conversations that we’re having with our clients now who are looking to access the markets. They’re informed by our leading role in insights into most of the activity that’s been accomplished in the last several weeks. And so I think that is an incremental source of our optimism that we have those data points and that insight to share with clients and advise them on how and when they can get to market and what types of terms and pricing.
