So I would view the dividend as very solid at $0.62, where it is for the near-term. And then you’re going to see the variability in GAAP and DE as those different timing elements that Katie mentioned earlier play through those metrics. But the dividend, you could think of it as pretty solid.
Richard Shane: I think that’s totally fair. I’m going to try to frame my follow-up question and get two in. Interestingly enough, with all of the headwinds in terms of office, it’s going to be multifamily where you guys have cited you’re going to take your next potential realized loss. Is that because those are easier to exit in this environment because the market is more robust?
Katie Keenan: Thanks, Rick. I think that there’s potentially some element of that, although, as I mentioned, we’ve gotten $800 million of multifamily repayments so far this year. So we are seeing — I mean, sorry, $800 million of office repayments so far this year, so we are seeing decent liquidity in office. And I think that really there, it’s a question of spot pricing versus recovery when we think about our — the long-term plan for our office assets. And of course, liquidity is worse than most in office. This deal, the multifamily deal, it’s small. It’s one of the very few rent-stabilized exposed assets in our portfolio. It’s gone through sort of a storied history, and it’s just an asset that we have been looking to move on from for a long time. So I think it’s a little bit idiosyncratic, and we’re hopeful that we can execute on the transaction with a good buyer there.
Richard Shane: Got it. And then last question, I couldn’t read my own handwriting so I couldn’t figure out what I wanted to ask you. But when you — if you take REOs, would you take write-offs immediately associated with them based upon revised appraised values?
Anthony F. Marone: I think under our DE definition, it would depend. The way we characterize distributable earnings is it’s reduced by a realized loss. So that would typically be an actual contractual change in loan terms or at the point of a sale of a property. However, we do have the ability if we think that, that loss is — I think the language we have in our Q is nearly certain or all but certain to take it. So I’d say it’s more facts and circumstances and not something that I would say is programmatic based on an appraisal at the time of a foreclosure.
Richard Shane: Okay, thank you guys.
Operator: We’ll take our final question from Arren Cyganovich with Citi.
Kaili Wang: Thanks. This is Kaili on for Arren today. Maybe if you could give an update on the risk-rated 5 loans that are coming due for the next couple of quarters, it looks like you have the Orange County and New York office loans during 3Q and the Chicago office loan due early next year, do you expect to do additional maturity extension with the loans or should we just model a near-term write-off related to the loan?
Katie Keenan: Yes. So I think as far as the 5 rated loans, those are the ones I mentioned, we’re really focused on maximizing recovery. I would say the maturity dates, they really are what’s driven the downgrades. The one you mentioned, the Chicago loan, is the one I was mentioning earlier that we’ve downgraded ahead of a conversation around that maturity date. For some of the other ones, we’re engaged in active discussion with our borrowers in terms of modifications or creating the best plan for recovery there. I think the maturity dates are a factor but not the primary factor. We’re really just focused on how do we get to the best path for recovery for those assets over time. Or sales, we think that’s the right thing. But we’ll really evaluate that just based on the ability to create the most value and with — and also thinking about opportunity cost over time.
Kaili Wang: Got it. Okay. It looks like you have one mixed use and one hospitality loan in Spain that are on risk rated for as well. So maybe if you could talk about what you are seeing was the domestic market versus outside of the U.S.?
Katie Keenan: Yes. I would say that what we’re seeing generally in Europe is pretty stable. And I mentioned that we’ve had some good liquidity on UK office loans or Europe office loans even this quarter. I would say we see the macro there in terms of fundamentals for our real estate. It’s pretty positive. The Spanish hotel market has really recovered very strongly, that particular asset is doing quite well. So I think that what we’ve observed over time and what we’ve really liked about the market in Europe is leverage has always been lower. So I would say, by and large, the leverage on our assets there, it’s just at a lower LTV to start. The macro demand picture for the assets that we’ve lent on has been pretty stable, notwithstanding some of the pressures more broadly in the market.
And we’ve obviously been quite selective there over time as we have been in the U.S., too, but very selective in terms of sponsorship quality of assets, etcetera. So I would say that Europe, both from a capital markets perspective and from a fundamentals perspective, has performed really quite well over the last year, and we see those dynamics continuing.
Kaili Wang: Thank you.
Operator: That will conclude our question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the call back over to Tim Hayes for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy Hayes: Thank you, operator, and to everyone joining today’s call. Please reach out with any questions.
