It does not, it does not force us to take a forward view, and as we’ve done that, we’ve taken a more cautious forward view, because as you point out, a lot of the historical benefit has been reference rate, which can come down, although it seems like it will stay a little elevated for longer. And then we are layering in our view of the credit book and the environment and we’ll be methodical, but gradual in how we take up the dividend as we have done in the last few quarters. So if everything is as is today, and we have this run rate, which has really benefited from underwriting and not impacted by a lot of credit issues. I think we will continue to assess, and look to reward our shareholders for that work and then determine the best way to do it.
And do you have a couple of options whether it’s more immediate at one time or more on a run rate basis. And so I think rather than forecasting one or the other, I can – I would tell you that if we have this elevated return and things are on the credit side staying intact, then our board will continue to look at this and what’s most favorable for shareholders, and it will choose amongst those tools. It could be one, it could be both. And I think at the end of the day, it will be in the context of what’s most sustainable and not compromising your ability to pay the dividend from comfortably from a current run rate. And that’s a constant and quarterly assessment resulting fortunately in a fair bit of return back to the shareholders both through the increase in dividend and in this quarter pretty sizable, I think our most sizable historically one-time special dividend.
Robert Dodd: I appreciate that. Very helpful. Thank you. Then secondly, can – you mentioned, I mean, a couple of portfolio companies experiencing some slower growth, that one of your traded names did get called out by S&P as having some deterioration and may not have a sustainable capital structure without additional equity from sponsors. So in general across that, I mean, what are the, at the margin and there not a lot of names in that situation, but at the margin, how are the conversations with sponsors going on in without, being specific are they willing to step up and put the equity in, to tie these businesses over? Or how’s the negotiation on that front cover?
Phil Tseng: Yes, Robert, thanks for the question. This is Phil. So that’s a great question because clearly, it speaks to a number of things. One is the nature of where private equity sponsors are today with their portfolio and their willingness to protect their positions. But I think the other aspect of it is what protections do we have to bring these conversations to the table? We have – we’re seeing with our amendment activity a pickup largely because of the covenants that we have in place, and that really speaks to, I think, the benefit of how we’ve negotiated and structured our deals with these terms, because without these covenants naturally the only moment that you have to bring the sponsors to the table, perhaps a payment default.
So we think by virtue of these covenants, we’re having these conversations. And what’s important when we structure these covenants is structuring at a level that, that implies there continues to be meaningful amount of equity value remaining. So long as there continues to be a good equity option there based on valuation and based on the prospects of the business, then we feel that the sponsor or whoever it is in the equity, whatever stakeholders there are, because it could be a family owned business or so on, that they’re actively engaged and willing to put up more equity. So every one of these amendment type negotiations are opportunities for us to de-risk our loan. Restructurings, as you know Robert don’t happen in vacuum. They happen over a series of events.
