Jeff Lipson: Julien, I just want to clarify. Are you asking about us stepping into the role of a tax equity provider?
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Yeah, I know that that was something that I think some of the defunct structures before you looked at, at some point, but again, I would imagine the newer structure is probably less appealing, but I figured I’d ask here since you’ve done that in the past.
Jeff Lipson: Yeah, thank you for the clarification. No, I would say that that is unlikely to be a target opportunity for us, and it’s probably, you already identified it, but the newer the tax equity, the transaction, the more heavily weighted it is to tax benefits, and we have plenty of tax benefits right now, and so we wouldn’t necessarily be targeting that as a potential opportunistic transaction.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. Okay, excellent. Sorry, back to our scheduled program. As far as the rights offering and update here, can you give a little bit of context as to sort of the thought process behind pursuing that potential avenue here? Not every day we see companies with rights offerings, so if you could just give a little context.
Jeff Lipson: Sure. We view that as sort of an ordinary course item. It’s not directly related to removing the REIT or revoking the REIT election, but it did come up in the research as we were reviewing items related to revoking the REIT election, and it’s a simple rights plan to preserve our NOLs. There’s been about eight of them this year prior to us. There’s been over 250 of them in the last 15 years or so. So it’s really nothing other than putting in place a structure that is very common in the marketplace to preserve our NOLs.
Marc Pangburn: Those same tax benefits that I quoted as to why we don’t need to do tax equity are the same tax benefits we’d like to keep to make sure we’re very tax efficient.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: A 100%. That makes a ton of sense, and I appreciate that. And then lastly, if I can, you guys have kind of steadily given us data points on pipeline, backlog, interest rate swaps. You provided a lot of the puzzle pieces here to put the outlook together, but you haven’t quite put the cherry on top in terms of putting in consolidating guidance. How do you think about the timeline for giving that post-’24 view at this point? Again, I know that you’ve teed up a lot of these points, but I’m curious on when and how we get that, and actually even what metrics you think you’ll be providing as you kind of really fully refresh and reconstitute here, if you will, under your post-REIT.
Marc Pangburn: Good question, Julien, and the short answer is February, and that’s been our cadence to talk about updating guidance in the fourth quarter fall. I think, to your point, we’re also working on looking at our metrics in the post-REIT world and making sure they’re still the appropriate metrics and deciding whether it would be helpful to investors to have a new metric or two. So we’ll be talking about that in February as well. So I think it should be clear from our report here today that the outlook for the company is strong, but to get a little more specific, about ’25, we need a little more time to complete our business planning in November and December, and we’ll talk about that in February.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Right, but maybe the core point here, if I were to get at the heart of it, is your confidence in the growth pipeline and the net spreads available, there’s nothing about your historic statements about asset growth in the portfolio that would somehow deviate, given the new interest rate environment or anything that’s transpired in the interim here, right? Sort of a double-digit type portfolio growth is still the aspiration here.
Marc Pangburn: Well, I certainly confirm the first part of what you said, that the higher interest rate environment has proved not to be an impediment to our business, and we’ve adapted as necessary our model to higher yields at a margin to today’s debt costs, and that process has gone very well, as evidenced by the results here today, and that adaptable, flexible business model outlook is unchanged. So I certainly confirm that part of what you said.
