Samuel Pollock: Obviously, we had a good discussion at the Board, and we’re blessed to be dealing from a position of strength, a lot of liquidity and a great outlook for FFO and a great year behind us. Other factors we take into account are the amount of capital that we’re reinvesting back into the business to grow it. And as we looked at our business and the amount of capital backlog and potential for tuck-in acquisitions. We felt that it was better to retain some of our capital for that capital allocation purpose and maybe not go as high as we probably could have with the slightly higher distribution. So it’s really just balancing a number of capital allocation decisions — there’s no right answer, but we felt that 6 was still a very attractive number for people in this market and would be well received.
Operator: And our next question comes from the line of Frederic Bastien with Raymond James…
Frederic Bastien: Just wondering if you could expand on the recent agreement. You secured at electrical infrastructure in Australia, I thought that was quite interesting. You mentioned the greenfield project will help support some hyperscale clients. So could you provide a bit more color on that and maybe perhaps the allocation of those data centers?
David Krant: Yes. I guess in terms of the contract in Australia, I guess this is — was a win to deploy smart meters in Australia. And… I think… No, I think My apologies. Okay. I thought we were talking about the rollout of Smart Meter centers. Yes, so the AZNet contract, the one that we referenced in the materials this quarter was basically one of the large hyperscalers wanted to build a meaningful sized asset in our footprint, and they came to us to build the transmission access for that. And when we do that with these on a bilateral basis with these clients, it’s actually — it’s a really attractive structure where it’s very low risk on our part. So we basically — the counterparty basically assumed the cost risk on the project and we build it through a stage gate process.
And we’re entitled through the contract bilaterally to a full return on and return of our capital. So it sort of mimics the rate regulated rate base construct even though it’s a bilateral agreement. So a very attractive project. And the counterparty was willing to engage with us on that basis because of the need to get this done in a timely fashion. So hopefully, one of many projects in the future like this that we’ll engage in not only to build out to support big load like this hyperscaler in the region, but also as we’ve discussed with the asset, renewables in the region as well it would be similar.
Frederic Bastien: Okay. That’s useful thanks. And apologies if I wasn’t clear with my question, but just moving, I guess, to Europe. Just wondering if you’re seeing or contemplating opportunities to expand your tower portfolio to other European countries or is your plate full right now with the transactions you just completed in Germany and a little — the smaller one you did in the U.K.
David Krant: I’ll tackle that one. So there’s 2 ways of us expanding our portfolio. One is to go into new countries. And the other is to do tuck-ins within an existing country. Recently, we did an add-on to our existing U.K. tower business, which was almost double the size of it. We have our business in France, which given its scale, probably we’re limited to doing more organic growth than inorganic growth. And then Germany, obviously, we’ve got a large-scale business and again, probably limited to organic growth versus inorganic growth. There is — we do have a business in our Super Core Fund, which is not in it in the Scandinavian countries. So we have a presence there. And I’d say we don’t have too much white space left because a lot of the other countries, there has been M&A activity and a lot of them are held in more consolidated businesses, LagVantage and Cellnex and others.
