Douglas Irwin: Got it. That’s all helpful. Then my second question just around taxes, which seemed to have an impact on the net income guidance this quarter. Can you just remind us when you expect to be a cash tax payer? And then could you maybe just quickly kind of walk through some of the implications of how the buybacks and the increased Class A ownership might impact the tax profile going forward?
Jonathan C. Stein: Yes, sure. So yes, as I described in my comments as we described in the earnings release, so we did have an impact to our net income, adjusted net income to reflect the higher tax expectations as a result of the secondaries, primarily as well as the repurchase. First, I’d highlight two things. First, is to say that we will have no — that’s only on really, I’ll call it, book tax basis, a tax expense, but we do not expect to pay material cash taxes in the next couple of years based on the shield that we have, which includes coming partially from the secondaries that we do. And then second thing I would highlight is as we highlighted, the repurchases are extremely accretive on a DCF per share basis as well as on EPS basis as well.
In terms of what’s happening, in terms of the mechanics of that, Hess Midstream LP is treated as a corporation for federal tax purposes that allows us to be able to issue 1099s rather than K-1s which has been very positive in terms of increasing our investor base. But as we do the secondaries and more ownership is owned in that entity, then since it’s treated as a corporation of federal tax purposes, it impacts our tax expense there. But again, those secondaries also provide, contribute to the tax shield that, as I said, that means that we’re not paying any material cash taxes we expect for the next couple of years.
Douglas Irwin: Got it. That’s all for me. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from the line of Praneeth Satish from Wells Fargo.
Praneeth Satish : Thanks. Good morning. Maybe just staying on buybacks. I guess, how do you differentiate between doing more buybacks versus doing M&A. If we look at the stock, it trades at 10x EBITDA and generally, you can buy assets at a much lower multiple than that. So just curious how you compare and contrast the two when looking at your $1 billion of flexibility?
Jonathan C. Stein: Right. So, in terms of your capital allocation, I think two things. First is, I think on the M&A side, both John and myself have been clear. We’re not interested in any large scale corporate M&A. We’ve done, as we’ve done in the past, we’re certainly open to bolt-on or things like that, but those are things that would have a high bar and they would have to fit within our — in terms of our physically within our system as well as from a risk point of view not to dramatically change our risk profile. So with that, really our financial flexibility therefore and our financial strategy, as a result really includes prioritizing return to capital, and therefore, that has come through that $1 billion of financial flexibility that we’ve talked about being really towards buybacks, which have been, as I talked about in my comments, approximately 18% of our shares have been bought back together with the related dividend increases, 33% increase in our dividends just over the past two and a half years.
And with $1 billion, if that was all allocated to buybacks, that would be another 10% to 15% potentially of our total share count. So really, that’s our focus. We have a clean story. very much visible growth as we’ve talked about, able to give, I think, differentiated forward visibility towards 10%, greater than 10% EBITDA growth as well as greater than 10% free cash flow growth. And so, therefore, we’re going to stay focused on that, and certainly return to capital therefore as a priority within our financial strategy.
