Steven Ladany: On a deal-specific or property-specific underwriting, though, Barry, I think to your question, I think we are comfortable that the gaming revenues have held in pretty well. Obviously, the commentary coming out of some of the operators’ calls is that their costs are escalating. And so I think when we look at the underwrites, we’re scrutinizing the ultimate cash flow that’s coming out of those assets and the surety and stability of that number and whether there’ll be deterioration as costs continue. So what I guess I’m going to say, a long way of saying, we’re very focused on the rent coverage upfront and ensuring that we feel comfortable with it longer term.
Barry Jonas: And then just for a follow-up question. Can you maybe just give us an update on next steps for Tropicana. And I’m curious if you have any thoughts you can share and what might drive you to allocate more capital there than what you’ve outlined so far?
Peter Carlino: Brandon, why don’t you take that? We all have a thought around the table, but why don’t…
Brandon Moore: Yes. I think Tropicana is a process largely driven by the A’s and Bally’s at the moment. I mean, as the landowner there, we have a unique interest in making sure that the value of what we own there is preserved. And then, I think to your question as to how much we might participate. You know that we — I think we already have disclosed that we’ve committed to a minimum investment number to help demolish and clear the site and to do a little bit of shared infrastructure as to whether or not we decide to invest more into that project. I think it really depends on how the project comes together, we’re sort of waiting to see what the A’s put out in their stadium design. And then we will work with Bally’s and the A’s, to determine what the casino resort might look like.
And when the time comes for us to make a decision as to whether or not to invest, we’ll do that based on the project and what we see in front of us at that time. I do think there will be an opportunity for us to invest more, but it’s way too early in the process for us to make any sort of commitment on that now.
Peter Carlino: Perfect. Said it best.
Operator: Next question comes from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Haendel St. Juste: So my question has to do on nongaming. We saw one of your peers execute another nongaming deal in the bowling sector here. I’m curious if that’s something you would have considered and how differently perhaps you would underwrite nongaming investments versus conventional gaming investments today?
Peter Carlino: Our answer has been pretty much the same for years. We look at everything — we’ve looked at bowling. I mean, I’m being very direct. And this decided particular transactions that just didn’t fit what we’re looking for. Look, I think the best answer is we’ll continue to look. So long as we can find the kind of transactions that we’re finding in the gaming sphere, and you’ve seen a couple right in front of you that we’ve presented today, we’re going to stick with that. It’s what we do. It’s what we do best. I’ve always said someday, maybe will be someplace else. But we’re not in a hurry to jump into bowling or frankly, anything else, unless it makes such a terrific sense that we could sit here with a straight face and say, this is a fat, fat deal, solid, solid, solid.
I mean you know what our criteria are. And — so would we have done that transaction. Look, I can’t speak for somebody else. But we look at everything, Matt used my favorite line, actually probably from the bible, many are called, but few are chosen. And that’s kind of the way we operate here.
Matthew Demchyk: And pound for pound, you look at — we think the dollars we put into Rockford eclipse the upside of anything we saw outside of gaming in the past quarter. If we found something that was better, you would have seen some sort of headline on it. But remember, we have to sell a piece of our portfolio. Every time we buy something new in the form of our equity. And if we’re not getting a better return on that incremental capital, and also doing something we think is going to increase intrinsic long-term value per share. We’re not going to do it. We don’t mistake activity for progress. We’re very methodical in the way we think about things.
Peter Carlino: Yes. I’m not saying we’re right versus somebody else, but it’s kind of the way we operate. We only take the long view.
Matthew Demchyk: It’s good being in a world where there’s a short list of bidders. I mean, once you start getting outside of gaming and some of the more traditional triple-net opportunity set, the list of folks bidding on it is greater typically, the price efficiency is greater and the opportunity for alpha from the kinds of things we bring to the table is less generally.
Haendel St. Juste: I appreciate that context and color. Maybe then what is your — how do you view the right investment hurdle? What is your current hurdle rate today in light of the current environment?
