Harrison Sitomer: Sure. This is Harry. So look, we’re continuing to navigate through the current debt capital markets environment, given the prominence of who we are and what we mean to this market, we’re working with our depth of relationships modifying existing, modifying, extending existing secured debt. We’re seeing a capitulation in the market from the lenders. And we think we’re really well positioned right now to work with these lenders on terms that make sense, given their confidence in us to be the right steward of this portfolio. We’re getting very well ahead of our existing debt maturities. In most cases, we’re looking three years out at this point. As Marc mentioned earlier, we already executed two deals in this quarter.
And I would expect to see us do some larger ones over the course of the next few months leading to the end of the year. Each refinancing that we’re looking at, we’re assessing prudently putting in new capital and trying to very conservatively underwrite any money that’s going in as we think about these re-financings.
Blaine Heck: All right. That’s helpful. For my second question, Matt, you talked about the fixed charge coverage ratio on the last call and your expectation for it to tighten relative to your covenant before expanding. Can you just comment on the movement quarter-over-quarter and whether that magnitude was in line with your expectation, whether we should see the third quarter as likely to be the bottom for the metric? And I guess any stress testing you’ve done relative to kind of where rates would have to go to trip that covenant?
Matthew DiLiberto: Yes. You’re right. On the last call, I did say I would expect it to trend down into Q3. I’ll remind people how this calc works. It’s a consolidated only calculation. So, there’s only a handful of properties that flow through. Layered on top of that is our tent preferred equity income, offset by G&A and then essentially corporate debt and any consolidated debt on the other side of the equation. So that metric, and it’s done on a trailing 12-month basis. So that metric has been and will continue to be for several more quarters, weighed down by 245 and a higher corporate debt load. So we got $577 million of proceeds from our partners at One Madison, we got that towards the tail-end of the quarter. That had no effect on the quarter, but will obviously benefit the forward quarters as that flows through over the next 12 months.
The same effect as 245 Park, which was a consolidated property for the better part of the year before we sold the JV interest, it comes out of the consolidated calc, but does so over a 12-month period. So it has to roll through over time. The trajectory we’re on was third quarter is we would trend lower into third quarter and then bounce off of that. Obviously, the timing of things could affect that. If we referenced One Vanderbilt, that has an effect because that is an income generator for the fourth quarter, if we did that in the fourth versus the first that might have an effect, but the trajectory of this is to be naturally higher through EBITDA growth and also through lower interest expense as a result of consolidated interest expense as a result of reduced corporate debt and reduced consolidated property debt.
Blaine Heck: Great, thanks. And Andrew, thanks for the help over the years and best of luck with everything.
Andrew Mathias: Thanks very much.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Peter Abramowitz from Jefferies.
Peter Abramowitz: Yes, just first wanted to ask, within that leasing pipeline, kind of what’s the interest in the remaining space at One Madison, what sort of coverage do you have on that? And how are kind of the rents there trending relative to your expectations?
