I’m prepared, sort of, psychologically and we’ve prepared our balance sheet in a way that we can stay in our bomb shelter for another year if we have to, right. And just keep waiting until the mushroom clouds sort of disappear and people can start coming back out. So we’ll be focused on recycling assets on the near term. There are opportunities to improve our AFFO just by just mining our Ps and Qs. We are actually looking; it doesn’t mean we won’t buy. But I’ve seen things out there that I’ve seen some deals out there that they still want cap rates that are dated, right? So they’re just head stuck in the sand. I’ve seen others which are weird, like they come out really short or we’ve come out because they didn’t get it done before, and they’re wanting really wide cap rates.
And I’m like, well, and if you dig into it, you’re like, they don’t want any restrictions on subsequent sales or and so to me, it’s a weird time right now. And so we’re just being prepared, looking out. I don’t know what the real catalyst is other than the most obvious one, which is the broader markets start to heal.
Bryan Maher: I also got the sense when reading it that M&A is kind of bouncing around in your head. How serious is that? Is that something that could be an all-stock deal where you’re the buyer or the seller that kind of ultimately solves for float?
Aaron Halfacre: So good question. M&A is kind of in my DNA and in the team. So I was at Coal when we merged with ARCP to become BREIT. When I was at Campus Crest, we did a take private to Harrison Street. This REIT was formed by me merging two REITs and internalizing together. So the skill set is not foreign to us. John Raney, our General Counsel, he was involved. I was involved in the deal when we sold a cold portfolio to Spirit, which is now obviously like with REIT. So M&A is part of our DNA. We’re not afraid of it. We do see the opportunity. If you study REITs historically, those who can size, if they’ve done it smartly, they can grow. I think what we’ve seen by the Spirit deal and the Peak deal is that stock for stock is an environment that makes sense because take privates, unless your [inaudible] going to someone well-heeled, take privates require a lot of capital to take out public instruments and that capital is very expensive unless it’s just, so I think generally speaking, stock for stock deals, I wouldn’t be surprised we see more of them.
We’re receptive to them. But if we can find a target that will work with us and we can take it out, stock for stock, we will do that. If someone comes, I’ve said this before, look, I’m a much bigger shareholder than I am a manager. And what I mean by that is I understand that I’m hired by the board and the board is elected by shareholders. I’m a very large shareholder. What’s right for the stock is what will win. So if someone comes over the top and says, hey, you guys, we want to give you fair value, and fair value is not anywhere near where we’re at today, then that will be the best choice because they’re going to be able to close the value gap sooner than we can. Then we’ll do that. I don’t see that happening, but that doesn’t’ — you don’t see it happening until it comes across your desk.
That’s what we’re looking at. We’re looking at a lot of these things. I think some of the deals that we’ve seen, they just have some bad cap stacks, so we need to sort of wait and see how that sorts out, right. They’ve got some looming. Do they get some extensions? Does that looming maturity cause them to rethink their pricing? So we’re being patient in that regard, but yes, I think in an ideal world, stock for stock would be a very efficient way to gain tradable float and to pick up scale.
Operator: And our next question comes from the line of Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Rob Stevenson: Good morning, guys. Not sure I saw it occupancy numbers anywhere. Are you guys at 100% this quarter?
