Angela Aman: Yes, again, that’s not a FAS impact on same-store NOI. From an FFO perspective, the impact of bankruptcy really netted to zero in sort of accretion above/below market leases and tenant inducements, so no impact during the quarter. On a full year basis, we did pick up about $0.5 million related to bankruptcies year-to-date in FAS and tenant inducements. But that’s really offset by about $1 million of net reversals on straight line. So between all of the non-cash items together you’re looking at a negative about $500,000 adjustment year-to-date.
Haendel St. Juste: Got it. Thank you for that. And if I could squeeze in a follow-up. So during your commentary earlier, I think you mentioned your expected cash flow from the Bed Bath and other bankruptcy backfill boxes to hit primarily in the back half of next year, early 2025. I guess, I’m curious, is that timeline being moved back a little bit? Maybe I’m splitting here, but I thought you had previously outlined expectations just to be primarily a second half of next year benefit?
Brian Finnegan: Yeah. Haendel, hey, this is Brian. Do you think about when retailers generally open their stores, right? They’re opening them early in the spring or in the fall, particularly for national tenants. So the timeline aligns with where we expected it to be. I mean we’ve been signing those leases here consistently over the last few months and they’re really lining up those store openings for late next year, particularly when you’re converting a Bed Bath box to say a sprouts grocer. But it aligns with where we have been expecting it to come in. And like we said, just expecting the fully come online in 2025, but those openings to start to commence in the back half of the year.
Haendel St. Juste: Got it. Thank you.
James Taylor: Thanks, Haendel.
Operator: Next question, Linda Tsai with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Linda Tsai: Hi. Any just general thoughts on how interest costs impact earnings next year?
Angela Aman: Yeah. Thanks, Linda. I would say a couple of things and just sort of echoing my comments from earlier. We do have the $300 million bond maturity that’s a June maturity of next year. The rate on that’s about 3.65%. And, obviously, with a 10-year today, right around 5%, and then a spread on top of that, you’re looking at a rate that probably almost doubles if we were to replace it today. So not only does the ultimate rate we realize on that refinancing matter, but the timing in terms of when we refinance that matters for 2024 interest expense as well. And, we’re continuing to evaluate the market opportunistically, but don’t have any firm view on when that refinancing is likely to happen between now and June.
The other thing I mentioned in my prepared remarks is the expiration of a $300 million swap that happens in late July of 2024. SOFR on that is swapped at 2.59%. And current SOFR and past SOFR is well above that as you would expect. So there’s an impact with that too. That’s a little bit easier certainly from a timing perspective to understand. But, as I mentioned earlier, we’ll continue to evaluate the market as it relates to replacing that swap over the course of the next 9 months and look to opportunistically lock in a rate when it makes sense to do so.
James Taylor: Linda, we as always have tremendous flexibility so that we’re not having to go into the market at any particular point in time. It was part of Angela and team’s strategy to refinance part of that 2024 maturity last year. So, we’ve got a billion three of liquidity under the line of credit. And as Angela mentioned, we’ll be opportunistic in terms of picking our window.
Linda Tsai: Great. Thank you.
James Taylor: You bet.
Operator: There are no further questions. I would like to turn the floor over to Stacy for closing remarks.
Stacy Slater: Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to seeing many of you at NAREIT.
Operator: This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
