Sarah Youngwood: In terms of the cost, we wanted to give you a guidance that is reflective of how we manage the place, which is on the total cost. And of course, I think ex FX and ex litigation is helpful in terms of the exclusions. The reason for the range is actually to consider different revenue outcomes as well as the different paces of investments that could be related to that. So that’s really on the first one. On the second one, what you’re seeing is exactly how you framed it in your question, which is that we are seeing some timing difference. So the total trip between the end of 2021 and the adoption of Basel is about that $30 billion that we talked about exactly a year ago. But we are able to offset the increases that happened along the way with reductions in the final adoption because it is addressing the same risks that have already been covered by some of the model updates that we put in place.
So it’s exactly as I think you expected, the framing of your question. In terms of where it’s coming from, there is also one element that is interesting, which is that as you are moving from 2024 to 2025, because of the operational risk and how it’s calculated, there is some of the exposure that just drops from the record, and so there is a little bit of help there.
Adam Terelak: Can I just follow up on operational risk? I know Switzerland hasn’t quite defined ILM, whereas Europe has gone to one. Do you know where the debate on that is? Because I assume you’ve got operational losses as part of the calculation on your Basel IV impact.
Sarah Youngwood: Yes. So operational losses is included, and the debate is still open on that in Switzerland.
Operator: The next question is from Amit Goel from Barclays.
Amit Goel: I have one kind of follow-on question and then one different question. The follow-on question, I guess, come back to net new fee-generating asset growth. I guess there have been a few moving parts in 2022 driving that strong performance. But I’m just kind of curious if in 2023, given the China reopening, you would kind of put it as a base case that net new fee-generating asset growth should be stronger this year than last? And the second question, just relating to the medium-term investment plans and, in particular, on the digital side in the U.S., just curious to your thinking in terms of investment there with the wealth fund transaction not happening. Is that an area where we should expect some cost growth? Or is that segment of the market not something that you’re looking to continue or looking to play into?
Ralph Hamers: Thank you, Amit. So on the first question, so you know that the way we look at net new fee-generating assets when we came out with our strategy over the last 2 years in thesis, but specifically also came around with guidance around net new fee-generating asset growth is that we expect this to grow around to 5%. Some years may be a bit below and some years a little bit higher, but it’s the 5% that you can count on, and that’s also the way we see things developing more or less. So that’s on net new fee-generating assets. Now back to the U.S., just to kind of make that case once again, I think it’s important that we are large in the U.S. We are a very well-recognized brand in the U.S. As I explained in my opening, we’re very focused on our wealth clients and on our family office clients there as well.
