Jay Brogdon: Yes, Matt, I’d say that we don’t have any sector specific portfolios that are due up in terms of the deep dive coming into the balance of the year here this year. We’ll probably prioritize those going into next year and determine what, if anything, we’d want to dig into further. I’d say the one maybe stepping away and just — from sector-specific or we’re looking at different buckets within the portfolio and just more broadly, we do continue throughout the year, and we’ll continue to stress our customers, our borrowers at higher rates, higher for longer rates, et cetera. And again, we’ve done that all through the year this year and continue to feel good about the results of that. We’re not seeing any kind of broad-based stress from that.
But that’s kind of the flow of our loan review and where we sit right now around those portfolios. As it relates to working out credits, as you asked there at the end, I think that’s something we’ll continue to be opportunistic around. I mean, we’re really doing that, again, all across the portfolio. There’s a number of factors that we think about. Again, one is just the rate that we have the loans at, maybe the biggest factor is the relationships that we have or the relationship opportunity that we believe we have. Now is the time where, as Bob mentioned a while ago, we’re very, very focused on full relationships. The stuff we’re bringing into the pipeline is relationship heavy. The stuff we have on the books, if it’s relationship light, it is getting a lot of scrutiny, particularly at renewal dates.
But even if there are opportunities that we see to move those out, we’re willing to do that. So I don’t think any of that really looks like necessarily big portfolio sales or anything like that as it relates broadly to the portfolio, but more opportunistic and more kind of a granular level of analysis.
Bob Fehlman: Yes. And just a little bit of expansion on that, $160 million payoff. Most of that happened right at the end of the quarter. So there was little impact to margin during the quarter. Most — as we said, some of those loans were lower rate. So we’re kind of glad to see them go off the books for the spread that we had on them and the risk wasn’t worth it. A few others had some elevated, the risk rating was moving up, wasn’t in the nonperforming or concerned area. But when you looked at it and the change, we were glad to see those move especially where their pricing was for the risk rating. So we’ll continue to look for those opportunities. And if we can help them out the door. If not, we’ll continue to work through them. But I agree with Jay, we’ve done several deep dives, and we haven’t seen any other areas that we have that concern.
Matt Olney: Okay. Thanks for the commentary. And just as a follow-up to that and kind of on Bob’s point around some of the fixed asset repricing opportunity. Any more color you can give us there as some of these loans come up for renewal and you look to reprice those higher? Any kind of color or any commentary on that?
Jay Brogdon: I’ll mention a few things and I’d point everyone to slide 16 for some information around interest rate and interest rate sensitivity. But I already mentioned in my remarks earlier on the funding side that I think Q4 and Q1, again, subject to sort of moves in the market, it would be unexpected. I think Q4 and Q1 will be kind of the biggest periods of repricing that we have left to go here on the liability side. But on a go-forward basis, we continue to see a lot of really good opportunities, both in terms of repricing and in terms of pipeline opportunity on the asset side and we gave you some statistics there on 16. One in particular that I’d call out, we’ve got $1 billion in fixed rate next 12 months, $1 billion dollar in fixed rate loans at a weighted average rate of 5.78%.