Betsy Graseck: Right. Got it. Okay. Thanks. And then just shifting the conversation a little bit towards the capital. I see — your slide 15 on the significant capital momentum and flexibility that you’ve got, maybe you could just frame for us how you’re thinking about what’s the right level for you as we’re thinking through what regulation could come through here next week supposedly, we’re going to have some new proposals come out and then give us a sense as to buyback capacity and where you’re thinking about that at this stage? Thanks.
Bill Rogers: Yeah, Betsey. This is Bill. So I think the position right now as we continue to build. And so, the targets are developing, more information is coming, and we’ll know more over the next 90 days in terms of different proposals and impact on us. And really what this slide was meant to do rather than show sort of an absolute level or a target was really to show the flexibility and the organic creation of capital that we have. So we start from a good position of 9.6 will be organically at 10 end of this year without sort of doing anything dramatic related to risk-weighted assets sort of staying on the process that we’re on. And then we just have a lot of flexibility that the AOCI sort of runs off, and then we have — and we just have other flexibility.
So we’ll know more as it develops. But I think we’re in left lane of capital accretion and we’ll stay in that mode until we’re not. And that same thing applies to any buybacks or whatnot. We sort of have to understand where the stopping point is before we make any comment about buybacks. And today, that would be short-term, not on the table as we’re building capital.
Betsy Graseck: Okay. Thanks and appreciate that AOCI burn down. Very helpful. Thanks.
Bill Rogers: Yeah.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Mike Mayo with Wells Fargo Securities. The floor is yours.
Mike Mayo: Hi. I want to recognize that accelerated capital pass CET1 10% by year-end. So certainly progress with capital. But otherwise, Bill, I need help in understanding how you can say you’re on the right path. One, you had a merger, an end-market merger, an end-market merger predicated on cost synergies, and here we are over three years later and your efficiency ratio in the second quarter is 63% worse than peer. Second, your new guide is for ’23 operating leverage — negative operating leverage of 500 basis points to 600 basis points and to build the revenue guide was lowered by 500 basis points in your expense guide, what’s the high-end of your prior range, your personnel expenses are up 3% quarter-over-quarter and 7% year-over-year.
And then three, you talked about bending the cost curve, but over the past three years, you’ve mentioned when I hood was open, you said let’s invest more than it was investing more for growth. Now I hear you say you’re investing more in enterprise tech. So, from the merger is predicated on cost synergies, the guide is for big negative operating leverage, you are still spending more. So I understand the employee should be happy. They are being paid more. The customers are happy. You have strong relationships. The communities are happy. You’re immersed in them. But the shareholders, I think, I can safely say are not happy, I mean, not happy about the expense growth, and they’re not happy about the negative operating leverage. And it just seems like — I love you personally, but I just wonder if you’ve just been a little too soft and not taking the tougher actions like some of your peers have.
So correct my logic or thinking or my observations, if you would.
