Jade Rahmani: Thank you very much for both answers. The follow-up to Don’s question about multifamily. Do you know what the in-place debt yield is? Because the occupancy stats you cited and rent growth stats are very strong. So, I’d assume that it’s close to a stabilized debt yield. What’s the current debt yield?
Matt Salem: I don’t have that Jade at fingertips. We can follow-up with you offline on that. But there’s still a — I mean, keep in mind, there’s still a range there in terms of where we are in the different stages of the business plan. We obviously leased on some new — made loans on some newer assets that are still in lease-up. And then there’s a handful of assets that have renovation programs and kind of upgrades going on as well. So, these are still in transition in terms of what we think about as like fully stabilized cash flows, debt yield and assets. But, we can follow-up.
Operator: The next question comes from Rick Shane with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Rick Shane: I’d love to talk a little bit about Mountain View and Philadelphia. Incrementally, it sounds like what’s changed at Mountain View is still considering the possibility of taking ownership, but perhaps doing it in JV structure, and Philadelphia sounds like the sale fell through. Now, you’re adding the possibility of taking ownership for at least portions of those properties as well. I’m curious, a couple of things. With those changes, incrementally in the context of what you expect your losses will be there, and again, category 5 loans, so you’re expecting losses. Do those developments increase or decrease your potential loss expectations?
Matt Salem: I would say, our reserves are updated every quarter. And so, as these processes continue to evolve, we’re updating the reserves to reflect that. And so that — I mean, that’s the basic answer to your question. And so, we shouldn’t anticipate any potential changes as it relates to like our comment as where we are currently in the process because that’s already been factored in.
Rick Shane: Understood. And look, I understand that that’s the GAAP accounting, but at the same time, from a probability perspective, I’m assuming that you guys say, okay, wait a second, these developments were incrementally positive or incrementally negative. And since the reserve itself remains at that two-thirds of the overall reserve, and we can’t see what’s specific to those three level 5s, other than that sort of broader comment, I’m just — how should we — what should we take from this? It sounds to me like things are — obviously the short sale not going through, the implication seems to be negative and that you were willing to sell the property below cost and take a loss and you weren’t able to achieve that. I’m assuming it’s not because you came back and said, we actually think we can get a better deal.
Patrick Mattson: Right. I think you should take away a few things. First of all, the market’s very illiquid, and a lot of our reserves are accounting for that level of liquidity. And even on the Philly sale that you’re identifying, while we had an — we had a real process, we had a real engaged buyer. I think all of us here, we’re always mindful that like nothing is done until it’s done in this market. And so, we we’re always somewhat discounting that happening. We’re moving on from that obviously one buyer and have a potential buyer on a subset of the properties and then, the other ones being more stabilized, cash flowing, we could potentially own. So, a little bit just more color on Philadelphia specifically. But, again, I wouldn’t necessarily think about this as like, all right, we’re trying to be transparent, we’re trying to give you information as it evolves, understanding that it will evolve, because this market is opaque and illiquid.
But, we’re trying to give as much information as we can. I would say our reserves always get updated to the extent the process changes and it impacts that — and it impacts value. So, that’s kind of where we are on those two assets in particular.
