Stuart Miller: Yes. So first question first. Production is clearly derived from how many home sites we have available. I think that we have mapped out what we think the production can be given the home sites that we have coming through the system. And we would expect that what you are seeing as a production schedule is very well baked into both the land availability and each cycle of becoming developed home sites. So think about the way that you’re seeing production put in place to get to that, let’s call it, 80,000 delivery number plus some overage for what falls into the next year, that’s already baked into what the start space will be, as I day-lighted, 21,000 starts this quarter. We have, of course, excellent visibility as to the home sites that are coming through the system for that and likewise into the next quarters as well. Jon, did you want to add anything to that?
Jon Jaffe: Yes. Relative to this first question, the land goes into our land banking relationships; it goes into it with a takedown schedule that not just what Stuart just described. So there are no guardrails that limit our ability to execute on the planned volume.
Stuart Miller: So then as it relates to your second question we’ve been very focused on building multiple sources of capital for our optioning and land banking programs. Actually building a permanent capital vehicle rather than being completely reliant on private equity capital constantly coming into a program, we felt was a greater good and a big benefit. So when you ask a question why go in a different direction when some of the tried and true direction so far are viable as well? They are viable, and we continue to lean into those programs. This is an and rather than an or, this to us, a building, the durability, that confidence that the capital will be there even as the market ebbs and flows going forward. And so that’s why we’re choosing to build this way rather than just drive as we have by putting – taking land from balance sheet, building machine [ph] and all of that, this is a cleaner way to build a permanent capital vehicle that’s doable for the future.
Kenneth Zener: Okay. Appreciate that. That’s good. My second question is about margin communication, which is one of the factors affecting investors today. So margins in your forecast for second half, nobody knows the future, right? And you’re trying to help us. But I think everything you’ve been talking about even before was much more important to your capital allocation and the true returns of your company as you go asset light. So do you see – and I think we all can model what that free cash flow will be within a range. Do you see – when you get to that comfort level, where land is neutralized? Therefore, net income equals cash flow. Do you guys see yourself systematically buying back stock in line with net income?
Or do you – when we get to that point, or are you guys going to try to time it, obviously, with NVR we see that they’ve run up a lot of cash. So do you guys – are you hoping to have essentially buybacks match net income systemically when you’re there? Or is there something else we should know about your thinking when that time arrives? Thank you.
Stuart Miller: No. I think that, generally speaking, I think we’re migrating to a more orderly buyback program. We’ve been conservative in our buyback program. As I’ve noted, to make sure that the systems that we put in place are durable for our future. So that conservatism should be confused. As we look ahead, we don’t have a thought process around the different use of cash. In fact, we’re growing into the cash flow model that we’ve created. And as we find that it is more durable, sustainable and we test kind of the edges, we can kind of expect that the cash we’re generating is basically going to go right back into stock buyback.
Diane Bessette: Yes, Jon, I think what I would add is, as you know, previously, we prioritized debt repayment over that. But after we make this April payment, we’ll only have $2 billion of notes outstanding and it’s one in 2025, one in 2026 and I think the other is in 2027. So we don’t have that priority to focus on anymore. So I think Stuart’s point is an important one that stock buyback really does become the priority, because I think, we’ve done a nice job of deleveraging the balance sheet from a debt standpoint.
Kenneth Zener: Agree, and thank you very much.
Stuart Miller: Very good. And why don’t we go to our last question now.
Operator: Thank you. That last question is from John Lovallo with UBS. Your line is open.
John Lovallo: Hi, guys. Thank you for taking my questions as well. I mean, I guess the first one, just going back to the spin for a moment. I mean if the purpose here is to sort of guarantee capital for Lennar to grow and sort of guarantee land banking, even if private equity pulls back, I mean, it would seem that the spin would need to be very well financed, a strong balance sheet how much cash do you envision to spin meeting?
Stuart Miller: Probably not very much. I think that the assets, as they’re configured or as we’re thinking about it, should be cash flowing pretty readily. And therefore, the stream will actually spend cash and bring in the cash and redeploy and should work well on some.
