So I think it was a very good transaction for us. Ultimately, we would have had to unwind that portfolio, because we had a 2026 kind of timeframe where we would have to sell the assets and so to be able to acquire really high quality properties with very little transaction risk was really attractive to us. To the issue of longer term, we want to lower our exposure in DC and Houston and the Fund transaction actually increased our exposure to Houston is — we were willing to sort of delay that a bit to be able to acquire those quality properties. But, ultimately, we are going to grow our way, either grow or out or dispositions and acquisitions in other markets to be able to lower those exposures. And really, it’s all about trying to become more geographically diverse so that we can have less volatility in our cash flow and that’s sort of one of the reasons why we wouldn’t exit California right now, because it’s a good ballast and also could be great upside over the next couple of years once we get out of the pandemic issues.
So, yeah, we will continue to focus on being more diverse around the country and move assets around. If you think about from 2014 through 2020 — roughly 2020, we sold over $3 billion of properties and moved the portfolio around pretty dramatically during that time and changed our geographic footprint and we will continue to do that. So, hopefully, in this in this environment when buyers and sellers get closer together, we will be able to execute some of those sales and acquisitions to move to continue to diversify our portfolio.
Chandni Luthra: Very helpful. Thank you for that. And as a follow-up, as we think about occupancy in 2023 and the dip that you guys talked about, how much of it is emanating from higher supply versus you guys perhaps prioritizing pricing over occupancy? And then as we think about California in this mix down the line, as you said, a couple of mixed months down the line, you would be perhaps thinking about looking to get back your real estate from tenants who are not paying currently, how would you put that in this mix of how occupancy might develop?
Keith Oden: Yeah. So we are modeling occupancy that’s 95.4% for plus or minus for 2023, which compared to our long-term average is about where we would like to operate the portfolio in any case. We have certainly been higher than that for the last couple of years. But as Ric described, the drivers of demand that sort of made that happen were very unusual and probably not likely to, hopefully don’t see that kind of demand driven for that reason at any time in the near future. So I think we will — I think we use — we are pretty strict revenue management shop and the levers that you can pull are the primary lever is pricing to try to adjust your occupancy to maintain in the in the mid-95% — mid- to-upper 95% range. So we will continue to take those recommendations from YieldStar.
We think the inputs to the model, both on the looking at the new supply, which we know is going to be a headwind. We think we have properly accounted for that in our forecast. But the — ultimately, it’s — it will come down to the conditions on the ground in each individual market as viewed by the YieldStar model in terms of where the pricing actually falls. So, in California is likely to happen. That doesn’t — that in itself doesn’t solve the issue of getting real estate back, you still have to go through a legal process to affect an eviction. And unfortunately, in California and several of our other markets, even those where they have long since given up on the moratorium, they are still struggling to catch up with the process of going through a legal eviction.
