Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Pinnacle Financial Partners Q2 2024 earnings call. Hosting the call today from Pinnacle Financial Partners is Mr. Terry Turner, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Harold Carpenter, Chief Financial Officer. Please note, Pinnacle's earnings release and this morning's presentation are available on the investor relations page of their website at www.pnfp.com. Today's call is being recorded and will be available for replay on Pinnacle Financial's website for the next 90 days. At this time, all participants have been placed on a listen-only mode. The floor will be open for your questions following the presentation. If you'd like to ask a question at that time, please press star one on your touch-tone phone. Analysts will be given preference during the Q&A. We ask that you please pick up your handset to allow optimal sound quality. During this presentation, we may make comments which may constitute forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other facts that may cause actual results, performance, or achievements of Pinnacle Financial Partners to differ materially from any results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Many of such factors are beyond Pinnacle Financial Partners's ability to control or predict, and listeners are cautioned not to put undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. A more detailed description of these and other risks is contained in Pinnacle Financial Partners's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, and its subsequently filed quarterly reports. Pinnacle Financial Partners disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this presentation, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. In addition, these remarks may include certain non-GAAP financial measures as defined by SEC Regulation G. A presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures and a reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures to the comparable GAAP measures will be available on Pinnacle Financial's website at www.pnfp.com. With that, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Mr. Terry Turner, Pinnacle's President and CEO. Thank you, Matt. Hopefully, everybody knows we're gonna start with this snapshot. Our primary objective here is total shareholder return, and we believe these are the best metrics to ensure we get that done. As always, we begin with the GAAP measures, but for me, in quarters like this, where there's a lot of noise, the non-GAAP measures are perhaps more revealing. This quarter, our treasury management team here did some extraordinary work, in my opinion, to reposition our securities book, which, of course, creates a loss on the sale of securities in this period, but provides a meaningful lift to our ongoing revenue and earnings run rates with what we expect to be a slightly better than 3-year payback, and it increased both tangible book value and risk-based capital at the same time, a really elegant and value-creating strategy. Looking at the non-GAAP metrics, in general, the objective is to have all the balance sheet P&L metrics moving steadily up and to the right. That's been the case for the better part of our 24-year existence. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, over the last couple of years, earnings for banks have had to recalibrate, given the extraordinary impacts of rapidly rising interest rates and an inverted yield curve. Harold tells a story about two campers awakened in the night by a big bear. One of the campers stopped to put his tennis shoes on and tie them up, and the other camper asked him: "Do you really think you can outrun that bear?" He said, "Well, I don't know if I can outrun that bear. I just have to outrun you." And so I hate it that this calibration's been required, but I believe that we're outrunning most of our peers. As you look across the top row, this quarter, you see an inflection point for revenue, EPS, and adjusted PPNR, and you see those lifts even as we're attracting record numbers of revenue producers and supporting them with incremental facilities. The truth is, our opportunities to invest in the ongoing growth of our revenue, EPS, and PPNR has been even better than we would have projected. Turning to balance sheet growth, I'm very encouraged by the underlying growth going on there. Harold will review the numbers in greater detail, but quickly, in a market with prolonged contractions in money supply, many are unable to grow client deposits. But as a result of building important specialty deposit products, we're able to grow client deposits and grow them fast enough to allow us to remix the deposit book away from higher-cost broker deposits. In the case of loans, our current growth rates outsized, albeit less than we had originally hoped. Most are aware that we began a strategic reduction of our CRE as a function of risk-based capital 18-24 months ago. These targets are currently 70% or less of risk-based capital allocated to construction and 225% or less allocated to total CRE. We've been traveling pretty fast in the construction bucket. It's now down to 72.5%, so we're rapidly approaching our target there. In dollars, our various categories of CRE loans contracted $76 million during the quarter, which highlights the underlying success we're having among our commercial and industrial clients. So, the quarter's numbers have a lot of noise, but the strength of underlying growth is remarkable. I'd comment across the bottom row, you get a snapshot of asset quality. While net charge-offs ticked up to 27 basis points in the quarter, we continue to guide the 25 basis points on the year, with virtually no problem loan formation at this point. So Harold, let me turn it over to you, let you review the numbers in detail. ... Thanks, Terry. Good morning, everybody. We will start with loans, which came in a little less than we anticipated. As a result, we're lowering our outlook slightly for loan growth to 7%-9% growth. We believe our growth will still be outsized compared to our peers. We also still believe that we're doing a great job on spreads, particularly for prime and SOFR-based credit. New volumes are coming in at essentially the same spreads as the existing books, so we're pleased in this difficult, at best, to grow loans environment. One of the keys to our financial plan is increasing repricing on our renewal of fixed-rate loans. As the slide indicates, we're expecting about $2 billion in cash flows from our fixed-rate loan portfolio to come in over the remainder of 2024, with an average yield of around 4.7%. As to fixed-rate loans originated in the first half of 2024, our average yields were around 7.25%, so a meaningful increase over prior yields. Our Q2 yields were only 7.08% on new loans, so we have some work to do in the second half of 2024. Our loan growth targets, we believe for the second half of 2024, should show better than the first half. Interest rate cuts will help some, but in the end, we believe it's about borrowers being more confident about the economy, eliminating uncertainties, and needing to borrow for growth capital. Our competitive advantage is that we have new lenders that are ready to move market share. To that point, approximately 25% of our revenue producers have been with us for less than two years. Accordingly, we have great optimism about Jacksonville, Washington, and Atlanta. By the way, Atlanta had another great quarter, both as to loan growth and recruiting, as Atlanta brought in some very impressive bankers in the Q2. And based on what I hear from them in Atlanta, they should have a great Q3. We believe we had another strong quarter on deposit growth. Excluding the decrease in broker deposits, we increased client deposits by more than $700 million, the Q2 having essentially the same result as that of the Q1. We're pleased with that effort, as the Q2 is usually our most difficult deposit growth quarter, given tax outflows in April. You will also notice that we moved quite a bit of our deposits into the index deposit product category. Almost 40% of our deposits are now indexed to Fed funds. As we prepare for a down rate environment, this should obviously be helpful. As to 2024 deposit growth, we have lowered our deposit volume forecast to within a range of mid to high single digits this year. Some of that is due to our reducing the loan volume forecast, thus putting less pressure on deposit growth. We also plan to reduce reliance on the more expensive wholesale deposits this year. That said, our efforts to grow client core deposits remain as energized as ever. What the Fed does will obviously impact our rate projections for the remainder of the year, but more on that in a second. We do believe our deposit beta has served us well here, as we are probably in better shape than most as we head into a down rate cycle. As we've said before, we continue to like our competitive position as to deposit rates in our markets. Since last June, our weighted average deposit rates have increased only 33 basis points, and that includes the impact of the last 25 basis point raise in July of 2023, twelve months ago. In my opinion, our relationship managers have done an amazing job in managing our deposit costs over the last year. As Terry said in the press release last night, we believe we finally experienced some inflection with a meaningful increase in margin in the Q2 to 3.14%. We expect more margin expansion to come in the second half of 2024. As to net interest income growth, we are maintaining our growth rate at 8%-10% for this year. We have kept our interest rate forecast at two cuts, but delayed the first not happening until November. That said, given the volatility of the data, we could see cuts in September, or hopefully, the Fed could determine that no rate cuts will occur this year. We still believe, absent some really unusual action by the Fed, two rate cuts or no rate cuts, our 2024 margin forecast seems to come in at a fairly tight range from here. The big news from a balance sheet management perspective was the reposition of the bond book, the credit default swaps, and all the other actions we discussed pretty early in the press release last night. Been working on this for quite some time and finally got all the pieces in place to where we can execute and achieve all of the objectives we wanted to achieve. We had been planning this for several months, and a portion of the increased revenues we had planned to achieve from the repositioning was considered in our outlook for net interest income growth last quarter. That's why we've elected to hold our net interest income outlook of 8%-10% growth consistent. More on this when I get to the outlook slide a little later, but to say we are pleased with how all this turned out would be a great understatement. We continue to work other less impactful initiatives that hopefully will also bolster our revenue run rates. So at June 30, is PNFP ready for a rate down interest rate cycle? We think our balance sheet is in great shape and well-positioned. Our deposit beta was relatively high on the way up. We believe will it be as strong on the way down. Our sales force is set up to work with clients once these rate cuts begin. As for credit, we're again presenting our traditional credit metrics. We mentioned one $10 million charge-off of an owner-occupied commercial real estate credit in the press release last night. That situation deteriorated in the Q2, thus, we accepted the bid for the collateral, even though it meant $10 million in incremental charge-offs. Our special asset group leaders felt doing so was our best play... We're still working with the non-performing credit we mentioned last quarter. Our special asset group officers are still working with that borrower to minimize loss content for that one. As to our outlook for charge-offs, we're maintaining our guidance with a range of 20-25 basis points for 2024. We have also included additional guidance around provisioning in relation to average loans with a range of 31-36 basis points. Since our loan growth outlook is less, this should result in reduced loan loss provision, all else, all else equal. Loan growth is one of the biggest factors impacting our provision, in that as we grow loans, we have to build our CECL reserve at greater than 1% of loan growth. So fewer loans result in, results in less net interest income, but also less provision. So after all that, where's credit? No real change in what feels like now for several quarters. Our charts for past dues and potential problem loans indicate we are operating at near historic lows, which should be a meaningful indicator as to where credit experience should be headed. The outlook for reduced rates on the short end has to be a good sign, particularly for less affluent consumers and small businesses that just don't have the balance sheet that perhaps larger borrowers have. More about commercial real estate, and just so you know, we again added more information on credit, primarily for non-owner occupied commercial real estate and construction in the supplemental slides. Our non-owner occupied and construction portfolio continues to perform very well. We continue to push for lower exposure for construction. Our target of 70% of total real estate capital, we believe, will be achieved before year-end 2024. Our appetite, as noted by the almost solid red table on the bottom right, is unchanged, and we don't anticipate meaningful change this year. That said, we continue to have some interest in high-quality warehouse and some multifamily, but again, let me stress, any new commitments to this space are limited to strategic client relationships only, and no way should anyone perceive we're on any sort of offense here. All, all things considered, we like our commercial real estate book. I know many of you know this, our hold limits are very modest. We pride ourselves on a granular book. Our largest ticket sizes for our bank are conservative in comparison to what we hear from other franchises. We just don't seek out the high-profile, bulky projects. Now on to fees, and as always, I'll speak to BHG in a few minutes. Excluding BHG and various other non-recurring items, fee revenues were up 6.8% linked quarter. We're pleased to report that our wealth management units had a strong first half, and fully expect the efforts of our wealth management professionals will continue for the rest of the year. The fees associated with bank blocking and tackling are also doing quite well. Service charges and interchange, both showing linked-quarter gains of 8% and 12%, respectively. All in, we're again raising guidance for core fee revenues this year. A range of 14%-17% seems reasonable, given the performance of several of our primary business lines in the first half of the year. Second quarter expenses came in about where we thought they would, after you back out the expenses connected with our balance sheet repositioning. Importantly, we are increasing our incentive target from 80% to 85% payout for fiscal year 2024. Again, we are raising target points to the fact that we believe 2024 will be better than we thought at the end of last quarter. As you know, the direct linkage between our financial performance and our incentive plan is closely correlated, and thus, we can't raise one without believing that the other will move up as well. Additionally, our hiring was really strong in the Q2, with 52 new revenue producers recruited compared to 39 in the Q1. Going into the Q3, our recruiting pipelines are very strong across the franchise. Terry will speak more to this in a few minutes. With the increase in incentives, strong revenue producer hiring, and the call it $4 million impact of loss protection fees from the credit default swaps, we've elected to increase our expense outlook to $960 million-$990 million for the year. Lastly, we've presented this slide from time to time. Bringing it back this time because of the bond book repositioning and just as a reinforcement about how important tangible book value growth is to this firm. Sure, growing earnings is critical, but as many bank investors know, keeping a keen focus on compounding tangible book value growth is just as critical. Our tangible book value fared well during the rate up cycle as we elected to maintain a bond book that minimized our exposure to AOCI hits. Even after we executed a significant repositioning in the Q2, our tangible book value and common equity tier one ratios expanded along with most of our other capital ratios. Now to BHG. As the slide indicates, originations picked up in the Q2, which was good news and better results than anticipated. Last quarter, we stated that a higher prolonged rate environment could impact our production assumptions for the year. As a result, BHG believes second half 2024 production will be consistent with the first half. This results in lower production targets for 2024 in the wake of higher for longer and a tighter credit box. As to placements, total placements were less than originations, which was the opposite from the prior two quarters. This was by design, as BHG's total inventory was as thin as it's been in approximately three years, and BHG is needing to build inventory for larger future orders this year. Also, still great demand for BHG paper, both from the auction platform and the institutional buyers. They successfully accomplished an ABS issuance in the Q1, and now thinking the Q1 of 2025 will likely be the next time they fund another such issuance. This is due to competing orders that have been previously negotiated from larger institutional buyers. As to spreads, auction platform spreads did widen during the Q2 to 8.7%. Balance sheet loan spreads are fairly consistent with the prior quarter. All in, BHG believes spreads are holding even in this higher rate environment. BHG still believes when rate decreases do begin, that will be good news for them, not only from a volume perspective, but also from a spread perspective. On reserves, BHG did increase reserves in the Q1 for off-balance sheet loans, but decreased reserves for on-balance sheet loans. There was a modest uptick in the Q2 credit losses for the off-balance sheet business, which, with actual expense related to credit loss for off-balance sheet now at 3.4%. On-balance sheet losses were up also to 7.2%, so even though the percentage for on-balance sheet losses increased in the Q2, the actual dollar amount for on-balance sheet losses decreased. A similar circumstance occurred last quarter. Average balances fell faster than actual losses, which is why the percentage loss was higher. BHG believes that they are substantially through the credit issues with respect to the on-balance sheet portfolio. Loans held off-balance sheet by the bank still need some time, perhaps 3-4 quarters. Data reflects that 65% of the current losses are attributable to the January 2022 through June 2023 vintage credit. The news does keep getting better, given BHG's past dues continue to improve and hopefully head to pre-COVID levels soon. As to the forward look for origination and earnings, and as we mentioned last time, achieving the same level of originations as last year would take great effort in the higher for longer rate environment, especially given BHG is not interested in adjusting their credit models to achieve volume builds. As I mentioned earlier, BHG's second half of 2024 production should approximate first half. As you look at the chart, it should look a lot like 2021 production levels. As to earnings, BHG is also anticipating that the second half will likely look like the first half. For PNFP, that represents a decrease from current year results of 10%-15%. BHG always has tactics they can deploy to help their bottom line and increase near-term earnings. They've exited business lines and trimmed their expense base. The Q2 of 2024 did include a loss of approximately $12 million related to exiting their SBA business line. The leadership of BHG has made several strategic decisions concerning their business model aimed at creating a more sustainable business model, regardless of the economic climate. The credit pain from the COVID overhang has been real, but I don't think I have ever seen the leadership more optimistic about the near term than putting all of that behind them. Our partnership with BHG remains as strong as ever. With that, I'll turn it back over to Terry. Thanks, Harold. Over the last couple of years, we've been through a liquidity crisis as the Fed began draining the money supply. We've had a rapidly rising interest rate cycle, an inverted yield curve, increase in credit costs as credit began to normalize, with genuine fear about where the credit costs could go in a recessionary environment, and a slowing economy, which limits incremental loan demand. That's made it hard on bank stock investors, but I believe Pinnacle offers an extraordinary opportunity for folks that need to own bank stocks. Our well-documented, sustainable competitive advantage, which is built on a relentless focus on the work environment in order to attract and retain the best bankers in our markets, enables us to leverage our best-in-class service and advice to move their clients from vulnerable competitors. The result is outsized growth through thick and thin with outstanding asset quality. If we can consistently take share from the market share leaders in our market, we can compound earnings faster and more reliably than peers, even in a difficult operating environment. It's how we produce value for shareholders during difficult times, and it's a way to realize extraordinary value for shareholders when markets turn bullish and multiples expand. One of the hardest jobs I have is to help investors separate Pinnacle from all the other banks that say they have a great culture. It's unlikely any banker is going to declare their culture is unremarkable, but maybe you can ask them where they rank on Fortune's list of the best companies in America to work for. You can see on the top left, we're number 11. No traditional banks rank higher. Maybe you can ask how many revenue producers they attracted to their firm from their major competitors. On the top right, it looks like we'll have a record-setting year, even for a long, long time prolific hirer of revenue producers. But it's not just about how many they were able to hire. Perhaps you can see how fast they lose them, because turnover is the number one way to demolish service levels and ultimately damage financials. So what's their associate retention rate? You can see on the bottom right, our annual associate retention rate is roughly 95%, and it's that year in and year out. But be critical, some want to carve out various pockets of turnover, like people they fired, or people whose spouse got transferred, or people who retired or died, and so forth. For us, it's a simple measurement. If you were on the roster last period and you're not on it this period, for whatever reason, that's turnover. You can see here, that's very minimal. And it's not just about how many people that they hire, it's not just about how many people they keep. Perhaps you can get them to tell you how their clients view the quality and effectiveness of their client-facing people. And you can see on the lower left, Greenwich Associates, the foremost provider of market research to banks regarding the commercial marketplace, says, "In our eight-state footprint, businesses with sales from $1-$500 million believe our relationship managers are literally the best." For each of those measurements, Pinnacle's the white dot on the range of responses for each of the top 10 competitors in our market. They understand the industry the best, they understand treasury management the best, and they're the best at proactively providing effective advice. If they can't give you answers to things like where they rank, recruiting and retention success rates, and objective data on how clients review their relationship managers, I'd assume their culture is unremarkable. Answers to questions like these can not only help you separate the wheat from the chaff, more importantly, they help you understand the likelihood and the reliability of their growth. Of course, simply building a great workplace is not the end game. The goal of creating a world-class place to work, of attracting and retaining the best associates, is to attract and retain the best clients from other banks. Without this market share taking strategy, it'll be hard to outgrow the market. And as a lot of folks are finding out, undifferentiated franchise, so undifferentiated franchises are struggling to produce any balance sheet volume at all right now. J.D. Power says, of the largest 50 banks in the country, no one, literally no one, has been able to create as differentiated, as client-engaging an experience as we have. I'm obviously excited to have the highest Net Promoter Score among the 50 largest banks in the country, but most important is how we match up against Wells Fargo, Truist, and Bank of America, shown in red here, because those three banks are number one, two, and three in our markets. In terms of market share, they dominate. Because of our work environment, we routinely attract their best people. Because of the client experience, we attract their best clients, and this feels like a sustainable competitive advantage for as far as I can see. J.D. Power has quantified the seven metrics that contribute to the Net Promoter Score. They are trustworthiness, the quality of the people, ease of doing business, digital channels, account offerings, saving clients time or money, and resolving problems. What you're looking at here is, for the above medium performers among the top 50, largest banks in the country, the scores for each of those seven attributes. As you can see, we're either number 1 or 2 on all, except digital channels, where we're number 3, ahead of J.P. Morgan. So the quality of the work environment and the quality of the client experience we provide is tightly woven into our fabric in a way that would be nearly impossible to unravel. It's why our net interest income grows at a different rate than peers. It's why we produce double-digit fee income growth in our core fee businesses. It's how we afford to invest in the market's best people and support them with incremental facilities in order to propel our ongoing growth, when most of our peers are cutting expenses, likely damaging their future growth prospects. And so, not surprisingly, over the last decade, we've provided one of the leading total shareholder returns by rapidly and reliably compounding earnings. In the table below the bar chart, you can see how much the trailing twelve months earnings increased over that decade, and how the EPS multiple expanded or contracted. High-growth stocks like PNFP have come in and out of favor. That's one of the reasons why our multiple contracted over 40% in the last decade. But even with that outsized multiple contraction, our sustained ability to hire bankers and move their clients, our sustained ability to reliably grow balance sheet volumes, even when loan demand is slack and the Fed's draining liquidity from the system, our ability to compound earnings growth through thick and thin, produced market-leading shareholder value. So we've demonstrated a way to get earnings growth in slack times, like we're in now, and beyond that, to be positioned for great value creation when sentiment turns, when it becomes bullish, when bank stock multiples expand, and when growth bank stocks trade at premiums. So Harold, let me stop there. I'll turn it over to you to quantify our financial outlook for the remainder of the year. Thanks, Terry. Now to the traditional slide on our outlook for 2024. As I mentioned earlier, we've lowered our expectations in some cases and raised our expectations in others. Just to recap, for net interest income, we're maintaining the guidance even though we lowered loan growth. We also have a meaningful increase in run rate from the balance sheet repositioning. We're maintaining our charge-off outlook. Our outlook for provision is less this quarter, given we think loan production will be less. Core fee income, we believe, will expand, and we- we have increased our COF levels, which will serve to offset much of the reduction from BHG. Expenses will be slightly higher, primarily due to the increase in incentives, the loss protection fee, and better than we previously thought, hiring success. In the end, we feel more confident about our 2024 outlook, given our strong performance in the Q2, the success of the balance sheet initiatives, and although the macro environment still has some definite uncertainties, it feels like there is some reason to believe that some positive inflection has occurred there as well... With all of that, we've concluded that our overall, overall outlook for 2024 is a bit better than last quarter. All of this has to be a good sign for 2025. We're about to start our annual planning effort for next year. Our financial goals will be the same, top quartile revenue and top quartile earnings growth. The investments we've made in our new markets and our hiring success, even with all the uncertainties over the past few years, are the building blocks we will lean into as we build our 2025 plan. With that, Matt, let's open it up for Q&A. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Everyone, the floor is now open for questions. If you'd like to ask a question at this time, please press star one on your touchtone phone. Analysts will be given preference during the Q&A. Again, we do ask that when you ask your question, please pick up your handset to provide optimum sound quality. Your first question is coming from Brett Rabatin from Hovde Group. Your line is live. Hey, guys. Good morning. Great quarter from you on- Good morning. Hey, guys. Great quarter from you on the growth in the core loan portfolio. Wanted to ask, if I look at the slides on the legacy markets on 28 and 43, you know, the legacy markets are not growing, and the deposit growth this quarter in legacy markets was lower than 1Q. How much of that is the repositioning of the loan portfolio? And is there some slowing of growth in legacy markets, you know, kind of due to either pricing selectivity or just you kind of already penetrated those markets and further penetration is more difficult? Yeah, that's a great question, Brett. We do think that over time, as lenders are with us for an extended period of time, their growth begins to contract from a percentage perspective. That said, we always believe they'll at least be able to keep up with the broader economy and how that's working. So we don't lower our expectations for our legacy markets, but we do have, as you might expect, some very high expectations for the newer markets as they start from a lower base. I don't think we've got concerns about where we are with our legacy markets and the growth we've got there. As you know, we're in some pretty spectacular markets, and we're still looking to hire people, but that'll... As we hire in these legacy markets, that's where we'll get this growth. Okay, that's helpful. And then the increase in the incentive target from 80% to 85%, you know, obviously, your outlook is a little better. You know, let's just say in the back half of the year, either the margin NII ends up being better than what you've adjusted the target for to 85%. Is there a relationship we can think about if, you know, the NII is $1 better, how much of that might get taken out or taken reduced by the incentive increase, if you- Yeah, call it- 100%. Well, I don't want to get too specific here, but there is a definite grid that's produced, and we'll disclose it in next year's proxy, so you'll be able to work through that. There's a lot of art here as well as science. I think what's driven our uptick—first of all, talk about the uptick from this quarter. We've just got a lot more confidence in where we think we'll be for this year, so that's why we felt like we needed to increase the incentive accrual. As for the rest of the year, should, like, another $1 of revenue show up or another $1 of earnings show up, it's probably going to be somewhere around $0.20-$0.25 will end up in that incentive accrual. But give me some leeway on that because things do move around as we approach year-end. And in the past, we have, on occasion, kind of taken the named executive officers and adjusted theirs downward in order to make sure we fund everybody else's. So, I'm talking about gross numbers here with the 85%, but sometimes we do work with the compensation committee of the board to adjust it. Okay. That's really helpful. Thanks for all the color, guys. Thanks, Brett. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Steven Alexopoulos from J.P. Morgan. Your line is live. Hey, good morning, everyone. Hey, Steve. I want to start, so on loan growth, the Q2 was a little bit softer, and you guys are taking the full year guide down a bit. I know most of the growth has come from newer bankers moving books of business over. Yeah, the CRE runoff is a factor, too. But has the pace of movement from new bankers moving business to you guys, has that slowed a bit here? Is that a factor? You know, Steve, I don't think that it really is. You know, we work hard to try to quantify things, show the math of things, help people get underneath the numbers and all those kinds of things. The truth is, sort of irrespective of how things are quantified, I rely a lot on just what my sense of where people are and those kinds of things. So many times in a quarter, there are things that will cause your loan number to be down. You get a few payoffs you didn't expect, a couple of loans you thought were going to close this quarter, close next quarter, all those kinds of things move things back and forth. But just to cut through it, at the bottom, my belief about our pipelines going into the Q3 and fourth quarter feel much stronger, much more vibrant than they would have, say, in the Q2. And so, anyway, I don't know if that's particularly helpful to you, but just trying to get you through. No, I don't think... ... we're seeing a slowdown in anybody's ability to move business. I just think there are odds and ends there, but it feels like to me, what gets closed in quarters three and four will be meaningfully better than what got closed in quarters one and two. Got it. No, that's helpful, Terry. I'm just wondering, everybody's focused on loan growth, and I was wondering if peers are doing a better job of defending share from some of the bankers they lost, but it, it doesn't sound that way from your response. It doesn't feel like that to me. Okay. And then, Harold, on the securities repositioning, I don't know if you said this earlier, but when did that happen in the quarter? And can you help us think about the NIM impact, net interest margin impact from that in the Q3? Like, how much should that benefit the NIM? Well, I'll just put it to you this way. I think we gave enough information in the press release to get you to, like, a 3% kind of spread differential on the 1%, call it $4 billion we reinvested. I think if you plow that into the NIM, you'll get some, we experienced some of that in the Q2, because we reinvested, we started reinvesting towards the end of the Q2, and that gave us a little bit of push on our NIM for our yields on investment securities, which ended up impacting our NIM. Okay, but it was back-end loaded in terms of when you did this? Yeah, we had to make sure we had all the, you know, the counterparty was in good shape, all the attorneys were on the same page, all of that. And so that happened towards the, call it, mid to late June. Okay. Thank you. And final question on BHG. So there's a pretty notable change in the outlook, right? You went from up mid-single digit for the year, now you're down 10%-15%. Could you zoom out 30,000 feet and talk about what's really driving the change in the expectations for net income from them? Thanks. Yeah, I think, I think they've upped their credit out, or, I think credit will be the most significant change for the second half of the year from what they thought originally. And I think that's primarily attributable to the, the off-balance sheet, the auction platform loans that are out there. The, the pace of those banks submitting for substitution has began to accelerate, and so they're, they're just anticipating more of those losses coming in over the second half of the year. Got it. Okay. Thanks for taking my questions. All right. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Jared Shaw from Barclays Capital. Your line is live. Hey, good morning, everybody. Thanks- Hey, Jared. Hey, maybe just going back to the discussion around the expansion markets, but looking more on the deposit side, is there a noticeable difference in the cost of deposits in those expansion markets? Are you using pricing to on the deposits to really drive some of that? And does that also, I guess, include ECR in that discussion, as well as sort of overall interest expense? Yeah, I think I would say, Jared, as the answer to your question on, are we using pricing to move the clients? I don't think that we are. There's no doubt if you're moving a client from another bank, you're probably not gonna get them to come over and accept a substantially lower interest rate. So, you know, to the extent you're moving at a high point in the cycle, it might be a higher rate than what your average funding rate is. But just in terms of matching off the rates for the marginal production and market extensions versus regular markets, I don't think you would find much difference there. I think, another thing, Jared, that I think is kind of important, you know, when you go to the Greenwich data, in our, you know, across our whole footprint, all in, roughly 80% of our clients view us to be their lead bank. And so I'm only making that point to say it is the same in these market extensions. You know, these, our relationship managers are moving their clients, and those clients are switching their lead bank from somewhere else to us. So anyway, I would say that the marginal production would be similar. Of course, the growth rate's higher, but at least as it relates to pricing, I would say it'd be similar to the marginal production, even in legacy markets. Jared, just to give you a little fact, we keep up with new account pricing on the, on the deposit side, obviously. New accounts came in at about 3.90 in the Q2, and that's all of them. Every new account that went onto the deposit system, and that's about 10-15 basis points higher than what was in the Q1. So it wasn't a significant kind of uptick for new accounts. Appreciate the deposit book behaves a lot differently than the loan book. The deposit book has a lot more kind of fluidity in it, so you've got old accounts that are also repricing and. But the new accounts that we had to attract to our, to our balance sheet came in at 3.9. Okay, that's great color. Thanks. And then, you know, when we look at the CRE book, you know, and you're letting that slowly, you know, run down with payoffs. Once you hit your target of the 2.25 capital, do you expect to continue to see that go lower from there? Or at that point, you would reevaluate the appetite and, you know, we could expect to see, you know, growth in loans to maintain that 2.25? Yeah, no, I think the simple answer to your question is, we would expect to reengage and target, you know, the allocation at 225. Our belief about that is, that asset class will continue to be a really important asset class for our firm. We just felt like it needed to be a smaller allocation in terms of what it meant to our risk-based capital. Felt like that was appropriate, both because of the economic conditions and just because of how we desire to run our balance sheet, going forward. We desire not to have an outsized concentration in CRE, for all the reasons that you know and understand. But, yeah, we haven't done a RIF. All the people still here. We have clients that continue to be in dialogue with us about subsequent requests, all those kinds of things. And so, a long-winded way to say, yeah, we expect the growth to pick up. Great. Thanks very much. All right. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Brandon King from Truist. Your line is live. Hey, good morning. Good morning. So you mentioned in the deck that the fixed rate lending has been challenged by the rate environment. So could you give us some context as far as how you're trying to navigate that? And also, how does that inform how you think about loan yields going forward? Yeah, the Q2, we were down at 708 on new fixed-rate originations, but they were only about 15%. So I think what, what I need to do is reengage with the market leaders and figure out what's going on. I'm sure there is rate pressure from the markets, but we still need to, I think, do better. So I think it's, it's more about sales emphasis and getting those yields back up to where they're closer to that, call it 725, 750. Our target is 750 on the low side, so we're going to continue to hang that out there for our, for our relationship managers to see that. That's what we want to get. We get it, we get it sometimes, but more times than not, like the averages indicate, we don't. But we're going to keep applying pressure there and try to achieve that. The spreads on floating and SOFR-based credit, their handles are higher at the current time because we believe a lot of borrowers are opting to go to that channel, as have a lot of our fixed-rate loans. They've moved into floating and SOFR-based because they believe the rate decreases are coming, and they're going to try to take advantage of that. So what we try to do in treasury is make sure we manage that effectively so that we don't get out of whack from a balance sheet perspective, and right now we feel really good about where we are. Did I get to your question, Brandon? Yeah, yeah, yeah, that answers it. And then, in regards to the shift from the negotiated deposits to index deposits, is that move complete, or are you planning to do more of that in the coming quarters? I think it's pretty much done. We've kind of hit where we thought our thresholds ought to be for that. Obviously, there's a lot of larger clients that moved in that direction. We were pleased that the overall yields in the deposit book didn't go up a lot as a result of that. And so, anytime you engage with a client about their deposit rates, you know you're always going to be faced with, "Well, you need to pay me more." But we were real pleased that our relationship managers held that in check the way they did. All right. Thanks for taking my questions. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Catherine Mealor from KBW. Your line is live. Thanks. Good morning. Good morning. Maybe just following up on some of the margin outlook. Just maybe first on the security deals. I know you mentioned, Harold, that most of this bond restructure happened in the back half of the quarter, but you still saw a pretty big increase in your bond yields this quarter. And so just trying to think about if you can give us a kind of an indication of where you think maybe bond yields will maybe start Q3 once this is all, all put together? Yeah, I think we all see an increase in bond yields. That'll be part of the increase in the margin going forward. The Q1, bond yields were down. We had some cash that were sitting in some investments that were underyielding. So we believe we'll see this uptick going in the Q2, Q3. I'm sorry, Catherine. Got it. Okay, so it's fair to say, I mean, if we're modeling just bond yields, one, you know, it. Calculate the impact of the bond restructure, but the, you know, the $1.5 billion at, you know, 3% better spread. But then add in, there was also an increase in just kind of core bond yields. Yeah. In the Q2, like, more relative to what we saw in the Q1. I think that's an accurate assumption. Okay, great. And then on loan yields, is it fair to also think that, you know, with the $2 billion repricing, maybe you get a little bit of a better fixed rate, you know, new origination levels, and then maybe a little bit better growth in that second half of the year, that we could see a higher kind of per quarter increase in loan yields in the back half of the year than what we saw in the first half of the year? Yeah, our research would indicate we fully expect to see fixed rate loan yields in the third and fourth quarter to increase on renewals and originations from what we experienced in the Q2. We ought to be more, we might, we ought to get closer to those targets. Okay, great. And then maybe just one more off of the margin. On BHG, you mentioned that you probably won't see another securitization until the Q1 of next year. And so what do you think BHG's preference is for placements? Do you think you'll see more kind of auction movement or more of those one-on-one negotiated transactions with with PE firms? Yeah, for lack of a better word, they've got orders from various firms for loan volumes that are pretty much at BHG's auction, as to when. So, talking to BHG, they will, they will manage their production or their, they'll manage their, placements between the auction platform and these large institutional buyers to try to make sure that they get a... Because they get gain on sale treatment with the auction platform. That's what they're going to try to manage to. So you'll probably see more, more loans go to the auction platform here in 2024 than what happened in 2023. Okay, great. Perfect. All right, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Timur Braziller from Wells Fargo. Your line is live. Hi, good morning. Good morning. Maybe just following up on Catherine's last question there on BHG. Just looking at the placements this quarter, kind of the quarter decline and then the bank buyers and the funding network, that unique buyer kind of declined in the quarter as well. Is that any indication for broader demand for the product, or is there something else going on there as to why placements maybe slowed quarter on quarter? Yeah, I think, first of all, on the, I think the market on the origination side has, you know, like we're talking about, these originations are going to be fairly consistent for the rest of the year, which I think are down from 2 or 3 or 4 years ago, and that's all because of where the interest rate cycle is and tightening the credit box. So obviously, if they loosened up on the credit box or if the interest rate cycle began to turn down, their production numbers would go up. The demand for their product on the bank side and on the institutional buyer side is as strong as it's ever been. They could probably sell 2x loans into their networks. But it's making sure that the loans that come into the firm are consistent with their credit underwriting. So that's where the, I guess, there might be a limitation as far as growth right now. Does that make sense, Timur? Yes, that's helpful. Thanks for that. Maybe switching over to margin and a nuanced question just on your guidance. So the current guidance is for margin up in 3Q. The previous, you know, year-on-year guide for margin is flat to slightly up. Does the current guidance kind of supersede that, or year-on-year margin, are you still expecting that flat to slightly up for the year? I think it will be flat to slightly up. I'll have to go back and revisit that assertion, but I, I think it will be flat to slightly up for the year. Okay. And then just last for me, maybe revisiting Brett's first question on incentives. If I remember correctly, I think on the fourth quarter call, there was some comment made that in order to hit the 100% of incentives, earnings would need to grow year-over-year. Is that still the right way to think about it? If earnings don't grow, the incentive rate should be somewhere lower than 100%? Yeah, generally, what we do is we'll put target at a certain level that we believe is fair to everybody. I think for this year, full target payout was around, call it, somewhere in that neighborhood. I'll say it that way. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Stephen Scouten from Piper Sandler. Your line is live. Yeah, thanks, guys. I guess I had one question around the reduction in asset sensitivity that shows in your disclosure quarter-over-quarter. Is a lot of that coming from this move in the negotiated rate to index deposits? And if so, should we see a near-term spike in kind of the cost related to that migration? No, I don't think there's, as far as the absolute cost of interest expense, I don't think you'll see a big increase at all. I think our relationship managers were able to negotiate that pricing within a pretty thin, call it range, between the negotiated price and what they're paying today. But that is contributing to where that interest rate risk sensitivity table is, that neutrality that where we are today is probably as we're probably as neutral as we've ever been. Got it. Yeah, and, and that's the biggest, that was the biggest quarter-over-quarter shift there, was that transition? Yes. Yep, that's right. Got it. Okay, great. And then just kind of thinking about the CRE concentration and the guide at 225 and such, I mean, obviously, it's a lot lower than, you know, maybe stated regulatory concern levels. So I'm wondering, and I know, Terry, you commented on this some already, but is there any part of this that creates or is intended to create optionality if an M&A opportunity ever were to occur? Because to me, like, the last time you guys really got elevated was when you bought BNCN. And so I'm just wondering if starting at this low level, you know, in any way increases optionality to be able to buy something that might be more concentrated. Yeah, I think, but just on the underlying assumption, Steve, on M&A, I don't think we're spending any time and energy trying to figure out how to acquire a bank. I think the case is that our ability to attract people and move books business is so dramatically good, it's just hard to figure out why you would want to acquire something. So I guess, said simply, I don't think that's a motive at all. The motivation, I think, there are two motivations for taking it down. I think one is, we have had a belief that the market was sort of peaking, and it was probably a time to have less capital allocated to it, just in terms of general risk management. But equally important in terms of the profile from an investor perspective, it was our desire to get off the screens for people that are highly concentrated in CRE. You know, as I said a little bit ago, man, that's an important asset class to us, and we're going to always be in that business. But we just felt like it would be wiser to get more to the middle of the pack in terms of what the level of concentration was. Just as you know, a lot of people are screening for CRE concentrations, and we'd just rather be in the middle of the pack. Got it. Makes sense. Thanks for all the color, guys. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Russell Gunther from Stephens. Your line is live. Hey, good morning, guys. Good morning. Just one for me at this point. The release referenced commercial loan categories where you were able to put enhanced control processes in place and reduce related RWA. Just would be helpful to get some increased color as to what portfolios were impacted and if there's the potential for similar actions going forward. Yeah, I'll answer it this way. We didn't disclose the portfolio, primarily around privacy issues. It's a fairly narrow band of loans. It's a meaningful amount of our credit. And so privacy concerns are why we didn't want to talk more about what portfolio it was and so on and so forth. But what we did want to talk about was that we've enhanced our control structure, and those enhancements are meaningful. They're expensive, and they're ongoing, to be able to get that recharacterization, I'll say it that way. But we've elected not to do that, but there will be future opportunities, in that portfolio to continue to do this, you know, with new credit. I apologize for not being able to tell you more about it, Russell, but that business line is pretty important to us, and it's a pretty sensitive kind of group of people. I'll say it that way. Yep. Understood. I appreciate what you're able to share, and the rest of my questions have been asked and answered. So thank you, guys. Thank you, Russell. Thanks, Russell. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Zach Westerlind from UBS. Your line is live. Good morning. Just a quick one for me on the deposit front. You guys have been able to keep non-interest-bearing deposits flat pretty much since year-end. Just kind of curious how that fits into your overall deposit guide. Is there any point where you guys are starting to think that you can win back those non-interest-bearing deposits? Any color you can give there would be helpful. Thanks. Yeah, Zach, it's a great question. Yeah, our guide would include consistent performance in our non-interest-bearing volumes. Right now, we believe, you know, we're hopefully at a bottom, and we'll be able to grow non-interest-bearing from here. We've had quite a bit, call it, 15% of our new account growth is non-interest-bearing, so there are new accounts coming in. And we're hopeful that a lot of that new account growth, even though it's at 15%, that seed money put into non-interest-bearing gonna grow over time. So, call us optimistic, but we believe we'll see that number perhaps expand. But right now, our planning assumption is that it's gonna be fairly consistent for the rest of the year. Got it. Thanks for taking my question. Thanks, Zach. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Brian Martin from Janney. Your line is live. Hey, good morning, guys. Good morning, Brian. Hey, Brian. Hey, just a couple of small ones for me. Just the tax rate, Harold, going forward, what's... I know you mentioned something in the release, but just as far as how we should think about that going forward, where that lands? Yeah, we believe the capital optimization, bond repositioning, all that, that we'll go back to kind of a more consistent tax rate going forward than we have probably in the Q1, fourth quarter, that kind of thing. So we feel like we'll be back at those levels. Okay, so like a 4Q level. Okay, and then just on the fee income, was there anything kind of non-sustainable in the run rate when you look at this quarter without focusing on individual lines? I mean, it felt pretty good. It was strong across the board, but anything unusual in there that might not be sustainable as you look going forward? No, I don't really think so. I think there's one area, and that's in the valuation of some of these non-consolidated investments that we have, but I don't think there was anything unusual there. So, we didn't feel like we need to call out anything this quarter. Got you. Okay. Last quarter, last quarter, we had that mortgage servicing rights as income, and so that's why the decrease in that line item. Right. Understood. Okay. And then just, last two is maybe on the loan growth for Terry, just the optimism on the loan growth in the second half versus first half. I mean, the key driver of that, Terry, I guess, what would you point to there, just given you seem a lot more optimistic than the first half? Well, I think it just has to do with what the pipelines look like. And as you would guess, and as all the numbers have indicated for a number of quarters, the principal provider of the growth is new hires. So as we continue to hire people, they continue to move books. And Brian, you know how that works. I mean, some people move them over the day, some it takes a month or two, or a quarter or two, or whatever to get it done. But it just feels like, as I say, in pipeline discussions, that we're in a stronger position today than we would have been 90 days ago. Got you. Okay, makes sense. And then just the last one on the margin. I guess, given the repositioning, I guess if you think about the margin in the back half of the year, it would seem that the Q3 margin expansion is greater than the fourth quarter margin, given the full quarter impact. So just kind of wanted to confirm that and just kind of the puts and takes there, and then just remind us the impact of, you know, in a down rate environment, the sensitivity of the balance sheet and how that would perform. Yeah, I think from a margin perspective, we're pretty tight on whether or not there's any rate decreases or increases from here. We obviously don't think there's any more rate increases, but we should see continued margin positive moves there going in the Q3 and again in the fourth quarter. Particularly if we can hold on this non-interest-bearing deposit assumption, and we can get repricing on these fixed-rate loans and hold our spreads on all this new, on this new loan volumes. I just want to reemphasize, because I, I don't know if we've gotten this out very much about these relationship managers that we've hired over the last couple of years. We've got, we've got a lot of them out there, and they're all in these new markets, or a lot of them are in these new markets. We have reason to be optimistic that we'll see this loan growth pick up here in the second half. Okay. And then just the thought on the margin, Harold, with the link quarter change in 3Q versus 4Q, would that kind of make sense as far as the pickup you could see in 3Q being greater than the 4Q, just given a full quarter impact of the optimization? Is that the right way to look at that? Well, there will be some, there's some money in cash at the end of the Q2 from the optimization that'll get reinvested in the Q3 into some, maybe some higher-yielding assets. So it could happen. I don't know if it'll be a meaningful amount of uptick or not, but it could happen. Got you. Okay. All right, that's all I had. Thanks for taking the questions, guys. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. That completes our Q&A session. Everyone, this concludes today's event. You may disconnect at this time and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.