“It's hard to see in the near term increasing them to the level that we had back in the pandemic.”

In context

“of quarters in a row, have had a significant weighting on the downside scenario already. And some of those scenarios are pretty severe, right? And so you've got waitings on what some might term wild recession, more severe recessions, so you could create a lot of labels for them. But it's a number of scenarios that have different severities of downside. And so, we feel at this point that we've captured what we can look at and see or anticipate at this point based on all the factors that we need to evaluate in our current reserves. And I'll just point out also, as you look at us in the position we're in, yes, we didn't take down all of the reserves that we put up during COVID. And so as you sort of look through each of the underlying asset classes, we feel what we have today is appropriate. It's hard to see in the near term increasing them to the level that we had back in the pandemic. But I think that's a hard thing to see at this point. But I think we'll have to make sure as things evolve throughout the next couple of quarters. we'll have to incorporate that. But again, we already have a pretty significant weighting on those downside scenarios already. And it's a very -- as you would imagine, a very robust conversation that we go through each quarter to evaluate how we feel about it. And at this point, we feel it's appropriate for what we can see over the life of those loans. Scott Siefers: Got it. All right. One more related to on credit quickly. The $170 million write-down in unfunded leverage finance commitments, that you took. Is there a risk of future marks there? Is that primarily just predicated on market spreads? And then separately, what is your -- can you re”