Charles Scharf: Yes. Listen, I think — I mean, I think that your point on headcount versus peers is one that we’ve made. And so, yes, we are all different in terms of the businesses that we’re in and what we do. But we do — and some insource and some outsourcing things. But when you look at it, we still have higher headcount and higher expenses than people who are more complex than us. You know, some of that is explained by the work that we’re doing and the expenses and heads that are building out the control infrastructure, but there’s a lot more beyond that. That’s the work that we’re doing to peel that back piece by piece by piece. We still have a huge amount of manual processes inside the company. We have duplicate systems, and that is — that’s the work that we’re on.
So, when I say that we still have gross expenses to be reduced in the company, we — there’s — that’s exactly what we’re talking about. On the — the question is when we get to a net basis, where does that come out? As I said before, I think that’s a decision that we want to be able to make at each and every point in time when we look at what the overall performance of the company is. So, again, I just want to repeat what I said. We’re not going to spend under any environment at all costs. That’s not the way we’re thinking about it. If we don’t see net improvements in performance of the company, we’ve got the ability to ration back the discretionary spend so that we do continue to see improved performance of the company. What we’d like to see is that these things are paying off.
We’re seeing real sustainable revenue growth based upon these things and the ability to invest. And so, that’s just kind of how — that’s the framework that we’re using to make the decisions. And as we get to each point in time, and it’s not even just an annual decision. I mean, Mike and I and the operating committee are going to have these discussions regularly about how are things panning out, what does it look like, and how do we feel about our willingness to continue to invest in these things? And have it — it’s got to be living and breathing.
Steven Chubak : That’s helpful color, Charlie. And for my follow-up, just also as it relates to the discussion around the buyback. You guys are uniquely positioned in that you aren’t migrating into a higher G-SIB bucket. Because of the asset cap, you’re not going to necessarily see quite as much expansion in terms of balance sheet. And you’ve conveyed a high level of confidence around a 15% ROTCE, where your stock is trading today, at least on price intangible, reflects a pretty healthy degree of skepticism and your ability to get there. Just given the strength of your capital position, why not get a bit more aggressive with the buyback here? Just recognizing the significant amount of capital you’ll generate, some of the concerns around AOCI seem to be abating. Would be helpful to get some perspective as to whether you might be willing to step it up meaningfully closer to 100% type payout here?
