Sarah Barcomb: Okay. And then just one more for me on the – we’ve talked a lot about office. But I’m also looking at the residential condo loans. There’s, two of them, and they sum to about $150 million. I was hoping to get a little more detail there, given they both mature later this year, particularly the loan that’s in default. Was hoping for an update on their construction milestones or the lease up process, can you give any detail on those two loans?
Bryan Donohoe: Yes, they are different geographies, but both in some of the more liquid markets throughout the country. I’d say at different stages in terms of their pre or redevelopment there. I think what we’ve seen generally is that, given the scarcity of housing in these markets that the valuations have held up pretty well, including gentrification probably understates it, but some of the progress in the neighborhoods around these assets. So feel positively about the ultimate value. But I’d be remiss not to mention that I think some of the construction related issues that you’ve seen over the past three years are causing delays in certain execution. So, we’re cognizant of that and watching these assets closely. But at a high level, I think both very liquid markets that should provide for ultimate resolution, the timing of which can vary a little bit.
Sarah Barcomb: Okay, thank you
Operator: Our next question is a follow up from Jade Rahmani with KBW. Please proceed.
Jade Rahmani: Thank you very much. Just wanted to ask transferable mortgages, do you know what percentage in the industry of commercial real estate mortgages are assignable or transferable, because that could definitely be an area or would you agree that that’s an area that could cushion some of the adverse potential credit outcomes?
Bryan Donohoe: I think that’s fair, I’d say it’s probably more incumbent in the CMBS realm than private lending. But certainly, if the flexibility does exist for lenders like ourselves to allow for the assumption of a loan, subject to the discretion of the lender, right. So Jade, if we said that someone’s going to come in and pay us down and can assume the loan, and we have the flexibility to bridge that financing gap given the liquidity in our space today, then that’s certainly something we would consider. So I’d say overarching, whether the loan documents specifically allow for it, which, as I said, is more something that you’d see in CMBS. Or that we have the discretion to work with a borrower or buyer of that asset to create the most creative outcome for ourselves and our constituents, then that’s flexibility we would be able to bring
Jade Rahmani: And on loans with performance issues, where the sponsor is at a capital or not willing to commit capital, would you consider are you considering, new sponsors, taking over the project, putting in new capital, but you subsidizing that capitalization with low interest rates or pick income, a restructuring of the flow of payments in order to create current performance and protect book value? Is that yet a developing theme that you’ve seen?
Bryan Donohoe: To a degree, I think we touched on with respect to the stock buyback question, the flexibility that we value, and the value of that is to be able to approach situations and maximize the ultimate return. And the first thought is, obviously, whether that underlying borrower that we’re starting with is going to be a accretive or otherwise to the ultimate resolution. So kind of all goes into our thought process as to how we resolve an asset. And when we juxtapose the asset we resolve outside of Chicago last quarter that was, one that it was appropriate to move on from with respect to the mixed use asset we mentioned in our prepared remarks in Florida. It’s our belief that there’s some value to create there either on our own potentially or with another operator. So all of those things are available to us given the liquidity position that that we maintain.
Jade Rahmani: Thank you for taking the follow-up questions.
