Good day, everyone. Welcome to the conference call covering NBT Bancorp's Q1 2024 financial results. This call is being recorded and has been made accessible to the public in accordance with the SEC's Regulation FD. Corresponding presentation slides can be found on the company's website at nbtbancorp.com. Before the call begins, NBT's management would like to remind listeners that, as noted on slide two, today's presentation may contain forward-looking statements as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Actual results may differ from those projected. In addition, certain non-GAAP measures will be discussed. Reconciliations for these numbers are contained within the appendix of today's presentation. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will follow at that time. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to NBT Bancorp's President and CEO, John H. Watt, Jr., for his opening remarks. Mr. Watt, please begin. Thank you, Victor, and good morning, and thank you all for participating in this earnings call covering NBT Bancorp's Q1 2024 results. Joining me today are NBT's Chief Financial Officer, Scott Kingsley, our Chief Accounting Officer, Annette Burns, and our President of Retail Banking, Joe Stagliano. As we announced in January, I will step down from my role as President and CEO on May twenty-first. At that time, we will complete what has been a very thoughtful and disciplined succession process led by our board of directors. I could not be happier for our shareholders, customers, employees, and communities that my successor is Scott Kingsley, a highly regarded professional who will make this a seamless transition. In addition, Joe Stagliano will assume the title of President of NBT Bank, and my colleague of over 15 years, Annette Burns, will become our Chief Financial Officer. Each of these internal promotions will help assure that NBT maintains its momentum in 2024 and beyond. And, as I have said many times since the January announcement, all the constituents of NBT are averaging up in every way with this team. I want to take this opportunity to thank the institutional investment community and the sell side analysts who covered Alliance Financial while I was there and NBT over the years for your interest in our story. It has been a pleasure to get to know you and to work with you for over 20 years. As I turn over the leadership of NBT, the wind is at our back, and NBT is poised to participate in the transformational growth that will occur in the core markets we serve in upstate New York as the result of multiple game-changing investments in semiconductor manufacturing. Last week, it was announced that the U.S. Department of Commerce has entered into an agreement with Micron Technology to provide a $6.1 billion grant under the CHIPS Act that will, in part, support its plans to invest as much as $100 billion in a complex of semiconductor fabrication plants in the town of Clay, near Syracuse, New York. Additional support for the Clay complex includes $5.5 billion in jobs tax credits from the New York State Green CHIPS Program and significant infrastructure investments by the state and Onondaga County. This follows an announcement in February by GlobalFoundries in the Capital District that the CHIPS Act will provide direct funding of $1.5 billion to build another fab manufacturing facility in Malta, New York, and to upgrade its facility in Essex Junction, Vermont. New York State will also provide $575 million in direct funding for the Malta project. Combined, an additional 1,500 manufacturing jobs and 9,000 construction jobs are projected from this investment alone. NBT is uniquely positioned to play a significant role in providing financial services to all types of customers and prospects living and working in the Chip Corridor. So now I will turn over to the team for discussion of our financial performance in the Q1, and in doing so, assure you that our shareholders are in very capable and experienced hands going forward. Scott? Good morning, and thank you. John, we have sincerely appreciated your support and guidance and look forward to your continued engagement as board vice chairman, as well as your energy and leadership in capitalizing on the exciting opportunities in our markets in the Upstate New York Semiconductor Manufacturing Corridor. Our Q1 operating results, including earnings per share of $0.68, were in line with our expectations. Our team generated $78 million of incremental loan growth, or 3.6% annualized, in the Q1 in our core portfolios. Customer health and sentiment continues to be favorable. We grew deposit funding in the Q1, primarily from seasonal municipal inflows, while importantly adding net new accounts.... Our non-interest income generation continued to improve and represented 31% of total revenues in the Q1. Despite some AOCI declines related to higher midterm interest rates, our tangible equity ratio ended the quarter higher, and our Tier 1 leverage ratio of 10.09% is more than two times the regulatory required level. The team is productively working through our planned leadership transition, and I am very grateful for their continued focus and discipline. With that, I will turn it over to Annette for some more detailed comments on Q1 financial results. Annette? Thank you, Scott, and good morning, everyone. Turning to the results overview page of our earnings presentation, our Q1 earnings per share were $0.71. Operating earnings per share were $0.68, which excludes $0.03 per share of securities gains. Our net interest margin in the Q1 of 2024 was 3.14%, which was down 1 basis point from the linked Q4 of 2023, as our 5 basis points of earning asset yield improvement nearly offset our increase in funding costs in the quarter. Tangible book value per share of $22.07 at March 31, was up $0.35 per share from the end of the Q4 and up $0.55 from the Q1 of 2023. The next page shows trends in outstanding loans. Total loans were up $37.4 million for the quarter, or 1.6% annualized, and included growth in both our consumer and commercial portfolios. Excluding the other consumer and residential solar portfolios that are in a planned contractual runoff status, loans increased $78 million, or 3.6% annualized. Q1 loan yields were up 7 basis points from the Q4 of 2023, reflective of continued higher new origination rates. Our total loan portfolio of $9.69 billion remains very well-diversified and is comprised of 52% commercial relationships and 48% consumer loans. On page six, total deposits of $11.2 billion were up $226 million from the linked Q4 due to inflow of seasonal municipal deposits during the quarter. Generally, in most of our markets, municipal tax collections are concentrated in the first and Q3s of each year. The company continues to experience some remixing from no interest and low interest savings and checking accounts into higher-yielding money market and time deposit instruments. Our quarterly cost of total deposits increased to 161 basis points, up 10 basis points from the prior quarter. We have included a summary of our deposit mix by type, which illustrates the diversification and deep granularity of our customer base. The next slide looks at detailed changes in our net interest income and margin. The Q1 net interest income was $4 million below the linked Q4 results. The primary drivers to the decrease in net interest income was a decline in the company's quarterly average Fed Fund sold position and one less calendar day in the Q1. Although we experienced a slower rate of growth in the cost of funds in the quarter, we expect modest additional funding pressures to continue. The trends in non-interest income are summarized on page eight. Excluding securities gains of $2.3 million, our fee income was $43 million, up $5.2 million or 14% from the linked Q4, and up $6.8 million or 19% from the Q1 of 2023. Revenues from our retirement plan administration business were up $3.1 million from the Q4, comprised of actuarial and other activity-based fees in the Q1, customer account growth, and positive market performance. The Q1 wealth management services benefited from favorable market performance and organic growth. Insurance agency revenues are also seasonally stronger and reflect a higher level of policy renewals in the Q1. The diversification of our revenue generation sources continues to be a core strength of the company and represented 31% of total revenues. Turning to non-interest expense. Our total operating expenses were $91.8 million for the quarter, which were $4 million or 4.6% above the linked Q4, excluding acquisition expenses and an impairment charge in Q4 2023. Salary and employee benefit costs of $55.7 million were 11.4% higher than the linked Q4. The increase can be attributed to seasonally higher payroll taxes and stock-based compensation expense, merit pay increases effective in March, and higher incentive compensation costs compared to the very low level of incentive costs recorded in Q4 2023. The higher Q1 benefit costs accounted for approximately $0.03 per share, which will be partly offset by a full quarter impact of merit increases for the remainder of the year and one additional day of payroll in the last two quarters of the year. The quarter-over-quarter increase in occupancy expenses was expected, driven by increases in seasonal costs, including utilities and higher maintenance costs. Professional services and other expenses were lower due to timing of initiatives. The elevated occupancy expense in the Q1 is historically offset by higher other operating costs in the remaining three quarters of 2024. On the next slide, we provide an overview of key asset quality metrics. We recorded a loan loss provision expense of $5.6 million in the Q1. which was $500,000 higher than the $5.1 million provision recorded in the linked Q4. Net charge-offs to total loans were 19 basis points in the Q1 of 2024, compared to 22 basis points in the prior quarter. Reserve coverage of 1.19% of total loans was consistent with the linked Q4. We believe that charge-off activity will continue to trend toward more historical norms, and expected balance sheet growth and continued mix changes will likely be the drivers of future provisioning needs. Non-performing loans were also consistent with the prior quarter. In closing, in this interest rate environment, we would expect to see the continuation of slowing NIM compression as our earning assets continue to reprice higher, mostly offsetting increases to our cost of funds. Our well-balanced organic loan growth, granular deposit base, positive results from our recurring fee income lines, and solid credit quality have allowed us to productively offset a portion of the challenges on net interest income generation. Lastly, our capital levels continue to put us in a favorable position as we consider future growth and deployment opportunities. With that, we're happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you. Anyone with a question at this time can press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. One moment for our questions to compile on our Q&A roster. One moment for our first question. Our first question comes from the line of Steve Moss from Raymond James. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. This is Thomas pinch-hitting for Steve. Morning, Thomas. Morning. Hey, morning, John and Scott. Sounds like there was a lot of seasonal noise in the fee income line this quarter. I was wondering maybe you can provide us with a range for a run rate for that through the rest of this year. Sure, Thomas, I'd be happy to answer that. Our run rate or the seasonal activity in the Q1 was probably about 1-2 cents in the quarter. Thinking forward, you know, another tailwind for the quarter, we had some very strong market performance in both our wealth management and our retirement plan businesses. So if that continues, you know, or that's a variable when we think about our run rate for non-interest income. Okay, thank you for that color. I guess then just maybe moving to credit here. I see that indirect auto charge-offs stepped up a little bit, you know, 20-ish basis points, you know, off, still really low. But can you maybe provide us with a normalized charge-off ratio for that line and maybe any color on trends you're seeing there? So sure, Thomas. We really haven't seen much of an inflection. You know, those levels, you know, higher than the 2022, 2023 levels, which were exaggeratedly low by any historical comparison. If we were to go all the way back to 2019, charge-offs and indirect auto were closer to 30 basis points. And, you know, it doesn't look like our trends will take us there instantaneously. But if you think about it on a long-term basis, we would still think the portfolio was performing very close to our expectations on a longer-term basis if that, low 20s moved closer to 30. You know, as we start to forward project that, you know, the customer still looks like they're very healthy relative to serving their obligations. And again, as a reminder, if you think about most of the geographies that we are in, there's not a big plethora of public transportation, so people are servicing their, you know, their auto obligations as they're trying to get to work. Okay, great. Thanks for that. And then, just one more from me. It looks like the residential solar reserve continued to build, you know, aided by continued runoff. Can you maybe share with us where you see that reserve ratio peaking out? Sure. I wouldn't expect it to change significantly from where it's at today. We continue to... It's a longer-term asset, so some of that increase is just the extension, you know, given prepayment assumptions. We're very comfortable with the level of reserves at today and probably wouldn't expect it to tick up much higher. Okay. Thank you for all those details. I'll step out. Appreciate the questions, Thomas. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question will come from the line of Matthew Breese from Stephens. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. Hey, good morning, Matt. Good morning, Matt. I'm not sure who should answer this question. But I was curious on the solar portfolio. What is the ultimate goal there in terms of, you know, runoff? What are we defining as kind of like the appropriate size for that as a percentage of total loans? So I would frame it this way, Matt, is that, as you know, our strategy, even a couple of years ago or even before that, was to bring the assets on the balance sheet, you know, to some number just below $1 billion, you know, depending on market demand. We reached that. You know, initially, we thought from that point in time, we would inflect and become more of a servicer of obligations, you know, that with our partner, that we would probably be selling or they would be selling, future originations. It's probably an understatement to say that, the solar residential industry has been under assault since rates started to go up. And it's really just a function of liquidity capacity to be able to service or to be able to add people, you know, to the roster of, you know, a forward liquidity source. So for us, I would say at this point in time, you know, we don't think we'll be adding to that line. In fairness, we think contractual runoff, just based on, you know, terms and conditions of the loans we've already made, will bring those portfolios down over time, like we experienced in the Q1. That, combined with, we still have about $100 million of some consumer specialty credit on the balance sheet. So I would frame it this way: there's probably $1 billion that's currently sits on the balance sheet that we would not expect to grow at a mid-single digit rate like we talked about with most of our other portfolios. And instead, we'll probably experience contractual runoff. So again, similar to what we experienced in the Q1, where we said we had 1.6% annualized growth across the whole portfolio, but 3.5% or 3.6%, upon the portfolios we're actually anticipating growing. Understood. Okay. And then just looking at the components of the NIM, you know, one thing that does stand out is, you know, your securities portfolio is well behind current market rates. And I was curious your thinking around potential restructurings or even nibbling at restructurings to kind of accelerate how fast you can get that to market rate levels. Yeah. Matt, we continue to evaluate that from an opportunity standpoint. And again, we evaluate that against other utilization of capital today. So, I think where we stand today, you know, is we look at that portfolio and say our portfolio is dominated by amortizing mortgage-backed instruments. So we have natural cash flows coming off the portfolio, probably to the tune of $14 million-$16 million a month. And those have been excellent sources to fund incremental loan growth, you know, or some of our other liquidity needs. We don't have plans in the near term to change that approach. Yes, you know, the yield on that portfolio is in and around 2%. And certainly, so it holds us back relative to NIM expansion. But again, if we can't make a solid case for taking that essentially risk-free asset and using capital to restructure it, you know, we're fine where it sits today. It helps us from an interest rate risk management. And, you know, we just think that today there are still better uses for our incremental capital other than, you know, turning out some portion of the investment securities, only to replace it with like-minded instruments that are 300 or 400 basis points higher. Got it. Okay. And you know, I was curious in your thoughts around the NIM, the NIM outlook, and when do we finally hit that kind of, the parity moment between deposit cost increases and earning assets increases? Now, I'll run at that, and if Annette has more comments, she can chime in, too. I think what we're pleased with is that the pace of decline has slowed down, you know, a 3.15 to a 3.14 outcome quarter-over-quarter, you know, is promising relative to "finding a floor." But that being said, you know, if you looked at us from just a sheer interest rate risk profile, we're very, very neutral. So as much as, you know, I think there's a school of thought out there that lower rates would allow for a, you know, a huge pickup relative to, you know, the banking industry. For us, we thought it could have a positive impact, but that positive impact is almost more tactical, which is, if the Fed were to lower rates, it would create an opportunity for us to go to our customer base and say, "We have to lower some of our funding costs." Costs that we have supported or we've supported our customers' outcome for the last year and a half, we would have a reason to be able to say, "You know, the Fed's coming down and so are we." We're having that dialogue today on a tactical basis, but it's more centered around, you know, our inability to be able to say if we're gonna offer competitive loan rates, and those are typically priced off the midpoint of the curve. If incremental funding sources are coming from the front end, you know, that inversion is just not very pleasant, and it's been out there for quite a while. You know, so from that practical standpoint, you know, I believe we think, you know, margin management in and around where we're at today is probably likely to continue. And if the opportunity presents itself for our assets to reprice a little bit faster than any kind of mix change in the deposit side, we could be the net beneficiary of that. But I think we're pretty happy that we again, we've sort of reached a point that we think is sort of stable and supportable. Okay. And then, understanding there was some, a few one-time or I should say seasonal items and expenses, I would just love kind of an idea of what we should expect expenses to shake out in the Q2 and then for the remainder of the year, given some of those seasonal aspects? Sure, Matt. You know, the seasonal costs, we said, was about $0.03. So, you know, you back that off, and then we know that, you know, the occupancy, we're expecting that to be offset by other upticks in costs like travel and training as those, you know, kind of resurface after the winter. So I think, you know, where we are at today, you know, plus or minus a few hundred thousand, depending on the, you know, the activity going forward, probably the Q2 being down from the first, and then, as we said, additional payroll days will impact the back half of the year. Okay. Then the last one for me, and John, I think this is in your ballpark is just, you know, optimism around Upstate New York and the chip dollars that are, you know, flowing towards Micron and GlobalFoundries. It's hard, it's hard to fathom how much money is actually going to these companies. When do you realistically start to see some of the benefits, you know, permeate down to your customers? Are Micron set to break ground, I believe, by the end of the year. Do we start to feel the impacts sometime in early 2025? Is that a good guess? So, I think first Q 2025, the shovel goes in the ground. And I think, depending on what sector you're in, on the commercial and small business side, you're gonna start feeling lift, right around then. The number of subcontractors that are gonna be necessary to accomplish this, you know, is, is very large. The planning around, additional housing needs is well underway, and, projects will go in the ground next year. Market rate, workforce housing, all of those things, pick up momentum with this announcement, of the grant, last week. So, you know, it'll build. It'll build in 2025, 2026. You know, I think the first fabricated chip rolls off the line up there, end of 2026 into 2027. That means there's probably 9,000 workers who have been hired and/or will be hired, and that will also generate a lot of activity. That's just Central New York. Think about also bringing a fab plant out of the ground next to the existing GlobalFoundries plant in Malta, New York. You know, I've cited the number of construction workers and full-time technicians that are gonna be necessary to man that plant once it's operational. So that also creates momentum. So on the consumer side, you know, every one of them needs a car and a truck to get to work. Every one of them needs a house to live in or apartment to rent. All of that is gonna generate positive economic activity. You know, I think Scott and Annette have given some thought about, you know, when to start quantifying that. We still have to give that a little bit of time before we get out there with actual percentage growth forecast. But, it's coming, it's real, and, you know, that shovel's going in the ground in Clay, New York, in first Q 2025. I appreciate that. And John, just congratulations on retirement. Well deserved, and I'm excited to see what you have in store for the next chapter. Thanks, guys. Appreciate that, Matt. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. And as a reminder, that's star one one for questions, star one one. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Christopher O'Connell from Keefe, Bruyette, and Woods. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. Morning, Chris. Just wanted to circle back on the residential solar portfolio. Am I understanding it right? Is that going to run down to zero now, or is it just, you know, for the, you know, next few quarters, it's in runoff mode and kind of, you know, reassess at, you know, another point in time down the line? I think that's a great way to frame it, Chris, is, for the foreseeable future, certainly in 2024, we would not expect incremental originations to end up on our balance sheet. And then as we go forward, you know, we'll see if that becomes an attractive spot for us to, you know, allocate our capital to, you know, to quote, grow some of that back over time. We still like the asset class. It's performed very well, probably better than our expectations. You know, remember, this is a homeowner who has decided to put, you know, meaningful improvements to try to have a solar cost savings, you know, on their property. We like the, you know, the FICO band that that customer is in, you know, and we quite frankly think that's a customer that makes really good decisions. For us, you know, we've always had to look at that and say, you know, to the extent that not all of those originations were in the seven states that we operate branches in, it is somewhat difficult to bank the customer on a holistic basis. So but that being said, we like the asset class. You know, that asset class is capable of being pledged as collateral. And, again, to date, it has performed, you know, above our expectations relative to asset quality performance. Great. And is the quarterly, you know, you know, runoff similar to Q1, you think, for the rest of the year? I think that's a pretty good estimate, Chris. Great. And can you remind us what the yields are on the resi solar, and then also on the consumer specialty also running off, what the yields are on those? Yeah. So Chris, well, we should probably go offline to get that from a detail standpoint. But if you looked at our existing portfolio today of consumer loans, and we're around 6% in total, I would argue that solar residential probably fits right down the middle of that yield outcome. Some of the specialty stuff that we're in, our relationship with Springstone and LendingClub, that again, is in a runoff status, those rates might be a touch higher. But again, that's mostly unsecured credit. So we would have expected that. ... Great. And can you just give us an update as far as, you know, the loan origination yields, and what's coming on these days? Sure. In the, on the commercial and the consumer side, you know, we're in the low- to mid-7% range, you know, again, depending on the asset class. In residential real estate, we're probably 6.25%-6.5% currently. And that's really a function of mix, you know, 30-year versus 15-year instruments or adjustable rate mortgages versus, fixed long-term rates. To date, you know, because volume characteristics in residential real estate, you know, are certainly lower than certain past years, we've been putting all of that into portfolio. If, you know, rates get to the point where we start to see a, a productive pickup in that, you know, we always have the opportunity to sell to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Today, the amount of originations are not forcing us to do that from a liquidity sources standpoint. Great. And with the runoff of these portfolios and, you know, expected, you know, strong pickup on kind of the commercial book going forward, how are you thinking about holistic, you know, net loan growth for this year? Has that changed at all from, you know, the start of the year? So I think that the Q1 loan growth is a good proxy for how we're thinking about the rest of the year. The mix might change a little bit, but that's somewhere in the 3%-5% change, excluding the runoff portfolios, is a good proxy. Great. That's helpful. And just wanted to confirm the comments on the expenses. You know, there's some shifts from occupancy to kind of other areas and, you know, other in travel, kind of net out into the Q2. And, you know, some of the compensation, you know, still has a couple of months left, you know, to come in, and you're settling out, you know, pretty, you said pretty similar to the Q1, give or take, you know, a couple hundred thousand. Is that right? So Chris, let me. I'll jump in, and then Annette, please, feel free. That I think within the categories that are not, salaries and benefits, you know, we expect some modest shift between occupancy and other costs, you know, that are probably, you know, modestly net beneficial for us, in the out quarters. As it relates to the salary and benefits line, we did incur about $0.03 a share of equity compensation costs and payroll taxes that are Q1 higher than the natural run rate for the balance of the year on a quarterly basis. We think some of that will be offset, by, you know, a full quarter impact of the 2.5% merit range, merit raises that we actually processed in March. So, you know, a full quarter impact in the Q2 and then going forward. And then again, I think as Annette pointed out, and we're getting pretty granular, that there's one extra payroll day in the third and the Q4 compared to the first and the second, but there's also an extra day of earning asset improvement. Okay. All right, I got it. And then any thoughts around, you know, any appetite, you know, for share repurchases here? You know, I know you guys are, you know, probably, you know, looking at pretty strong growth, you know, down into 2025 and beyond. But, you know, you're now at an 8% TC, you know, regulatory capital is robust, and seems like net growth this year, you know, is still, you know, relatively contained. You know, do you guys have, you know, any thoughts on that? For sure, Chris. So, great question, and timely, by the way. So again, I would say that we look at share repurchases, you know, as probably something close to the end of our capital allocation process. You know, first and foremost, you know, we're committed to the shareholder getting a better outcome on an annual basis. So trying to keep our streak of 11 years of dividend improvements in place, that's clearly a function of making sure the earnings can support that. But if we were to just use our Q1 as an example, you know, we're paying $0.32 a share. We made $0.71. That's a 45% payout ratio. If you went back to operating earnings, it's 47%. We're very comfortable with that level and think that, you know, the ability to continue to improve on that still persists in you know, for our environment. I think you pointed out a good thing. In 2024, because we know we have some planned runoff on the loan side, the balance sheet probably does not grow holistically at 4% or 5%. It probably grows less than that. So we will accrete capital again, most likely, hopefully. And you know, again, how to use that capital, we're really happy that we are now back to the point from a capital ratio standpoint, that we enjoyed prior to the Salisbury transaction closing, you know, at least on the tangible side. So we don't think we have any you know, sort of restrictions or limitations around that. You know, I, I think most people understand that the dynamic of economics around M&A transactions are challenged at the current time, but we're still having very productive conversations with like-minded, smaller community banks, you know, across our seven-state franchise. You know, and if something presents itself that we think is actionable, I think we feel like we have the capital to support to do that and support our primary organic growth objectives at the same time. So, don't think that there's any limitations, just where we are from a capital standpoint. ... Great. Thanks, Scott. I appreciate you taking my questions, and congratulations on the retirement, John. Hey, thank you, Chris. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question will come from the line of Bader Hijleh from Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Hey, good morning, guys. Just filling in for Alex today. Morning. Morning. I just want to touch on the NIM. Can you guys give us, or at least from, the loan yield side, can you guys give us a sense for the lift in loan yields that's left, you know, moving forward? You know, I see the loan yields have been slowing down a little. So Bader, if I go back and look at, you know, sort of the period of time post the Salisbury transaction, you know, just to think about it for the last three quarters, we've been picking up somewhere between 8 and 9 basis points on the loan yield on a quarterly basis. I think that that's probably sustainable back to that whole idea of new originations being, you know, 100-125 basis points above what expiring loans are going off, you know, the balance sheet at. So, you know, no reason to think that that can't be sustained. And again, I think in terms of, you know, on the higher for longer side, does it make it easier to actually generate new loans, you know, with that construct behind them? You would think, yes. The question is, does that stifle demand a little bit? So, you know, I think that's the holistic trade-off that we're looking at. We've had some opportunities in our market for some additional growth, and I would argue that we're, you know, turning away single asset opportunities that we don't think meet our pricing characteristics, and instead promoting our best sponsors and using our balance sheet to fulfill full relationship banking for them. Got it. Thanks. And do you think that is sufficient to drive the rebound in the NIM, or does the funding side also need to experience easing pressures for us to see the inflection? Yeah. I mean, we've been really close for the last, 2 or 3 quarters. You know, so I, I think we're, you know, optimistic, that that opportunity presents itself. But that being said, you know, that means that, you know, we're out in front of our customers. And remember, we're providing treasury management services to those same customers. You know, we're providing timely and appropriate advice to our customer base, and we're never gonna ask our folks to change that as their primary focus. So it's incumbent upon us to have competitive products, to be able to hold funding levels in, and at the same time, you know, create, profitability, opportunities for us as a company. Got it. Thanks. And one last question on the other side, on the funding side. You know, assuming mini deposits flow out next quarter and you guys replace that with borrowings, is it fair to assume that at least until next quarter, we continue to see NIM decline, and a delay in the NIM inflection, you know, as cost of borrowings push up the costs on the funding side? I would say that cost of borrowings are definitely higher than most of the deposit classes that we have on the balance sheet today. But again, that's tactical funding management 101. And hopefully, we're pretty good at that. You know, we're not just conceding that everything that leaves the balance sheet becomes replaced by a borrowing instrument. We have objectives to grow our funding base, and that's consistent with historical results. Got it. Thanks. Thanks for answering my questions. Congrats on retirement, John. Scott, Joe, and Annette, congrats on the promotion as well. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thanks, Bader. Thank you. I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to John Watt for his closing remarks. Thank you, Victor, and thank you all for your interest and your time this morning, and thank you for all of your questions. I'll end where we started. The shareholder is averaging up here, and the wind is at our back. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watt. This concludes our program. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.