Curtis Myers: Yeah, definitely. The focus part of that initiative is really to accelerate growth in areas where we deliver high value for customers, have more differentiation, and we feel we can — we’re doing well and can do even better with some of the initiatives and strategies that we’re contemplating. So that is the first priority for us, is how to grow the company effectively going forward. So we do think those accelerators exist, but there’s also an efficiency, an operating environment and tech benefit realization, things like that, that will enhance efficiency and productivity too. But that focused part is really on the growth side.
David Bishop: Got it. And I know there was some noise this quarter with some of the branch closures and such. Did that flow through to the — I saw occupancy expense was up as much. I don’t know if that was weather related or related to that initiative. I thought those were in other expenses. But I don’t know if that’s — any guidance in terms of run rate on the occupancy side of the equation?
Curtis Myers: I’ll let Betsy take this one because she loves this expense item.
Betsy Chivinski: I’m sorry, we’re laughing here. Yes, the increase in occupancy was weather related. So snow removal costs. So that should moderate.
Curtis Myers: It’s life in the Northeast.
David Bishop: Yeah. We’ve got to love it up here, you never know what’s going to hit. Also maybe a high level question, Curt, just in terms of capital allocation. Appetite for more M&A, I know the Provident Lakeland deal had some interesting appendages to it. I don’t know if that sobers your outlook for additional M&A. And maybe how comfortable you’d be maybe looking at maybe some distressed bank sales out there, just curious your M&A appetite at this point? Thanks.
Curtis Myers: Yeah. So our M&A strategy remains the same. I’ve talked about looking at it in two buckets, the $1 billion to $5 billion community bank, really additive to our organization, and we’re focused on those. We do think we have opportunity in that category. We also focus on the $5 billion to $15 billion, $15 probably being the largest, we would consider more strategic partnership. There’s a handful of those, but we would consider those as well. So the strategy is the same. The environment is — we feel we have opportunities for M&A. We evaluate those when we have the opportunities. And if we can work on something that positively impacts our shareholders over the long haul, we certainly would be active.
David Bishop: Got it. Appreciate the color.
Curtis Myers: You bet.
Operator: One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Manuel Navas with D.A. Davidson. Please proceed with your question.
Manuel Navas: Hey. Good morning. Can you just go into a little bit more detail on what’s kind of driving the, I guess, slower end of the guide on loan growth. I understand the pricing side. Does borrow demand at high rates also have an impact? And just is deposit gathering also slowing it at all?
Curtis Myers: So deposit gathering, we’re being — we’re doing a great job, I think, in that. That is not hindering our growth at all. If anything, I think it’s an opportunity to fuel our growth as we’re doing a good job there. The biggest thing on loan growth is our pipeline — commercial loans pipeline is up linked quarter and up year-over-year. But what we’re seeing is what we call the pull-through rate on that pipeline continues to be challenged. Customers are very cautious, and projects are not happening because costs are up, rates are up, things like that. So the biggest impact is not opportunity, it’s either borrowers deciding to move forward on a project or spending, or us making sure we get the right pricing credit terms.
Manuel Navas: I appreciate that. Does that mean that no cuts gets you to the high end of the NII range, but perhaps it would be an increase in loan demand if we did get Fed cut? Is that kind of the right way to think about it? And what would be — where you would be happiest?
Curtis Myers: We like stability, that’s the easiest thing to navigate. So just some level of stability would be good. We really positioned the company to effectively perform no matter what happens. We have puts and takes on rates up or rates down, rates up, we benefit in some ways and have more pressure in some ways. Rates down, we benefit in certain ways and have more pressure in certain ways. So there are a lot of different variables and what we really focus on is having the company in a position that we perform effectively no matter what happens to rates.
Manuel Navas: I have one last kind of like more specific modeling question. I had that you expected the non-interest-bearing mix getting around 22% by year-end. Has that changed at all with a little bit more outflows this quarter, is that still right around the same mix that you end the year at?
Betsy Chivinski: So we ended the quarter at 23.4%. I think for your modeling, 22%, certainly a reasonable. If you look back over the past 15 years, that’s a good range. You have to go way back to get much slower than that.
Manuel Navas: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Curtis Myers: Thank you, Manuel.
Operator: One moment for our next question. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Matthew Breese with Stephens. Your line is open.
Matthew Breese: Good morning, everybody.
Curtis Myers: Good morning, Matt.
Matthew Breese: Hey. I wanted to go back to Fulton First. How much more one-time costs do you expect and over what time frame do you think the majority of those one-time costs are going to occur?
