Operator: Our next question comes from Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley.
Question: Just a couple of quick ones. Just looking at the deck, the bridge for the guidance is really, really helpful. So I see the $0.06 from net deployment. Presumably that includes sort of the interest cost headwinds. I was just wondering if you could break out what the interest cost headwinds is in ’23.
Mike Hughes: Yes. So that includes any incremental interest on any incremental debt we’re using to fund the acquisition. So that’s built in there. The interest expense headwind for ’23 on the debt that we issued in 2022 is built into the Q4 2022 annualized AFFO per share, right? And that’s why we went off that because that Q4 $0.88 that we annualized had the full impact of the $800 million term loan, which essentially was all the debt that we ended up issuing in 2022 that we fixed at 3.5%. That’s what made that walk easier. If you were to think about that debt from a year-over-year basis, right? So we put that debt in place in middle of August, fixed it, and that was obviously cheaper that early in the year in 2022. So if you were to kind of walk from the full year ’22 to the full year ’23, just on that debt, that would be about a $0.05 year-over-year.
But the way that we’ve kind of designed this walk for you was to incorporate the interest rate headwind on the debt we issued in ’22 in that Q4 annualized number. So when you look at the net capital deployment, that does have the impact of higher interest rates on the incremental debt we’ve used to acquire properties throughout ’23. If that makes sense.
Ronald Kamdem: Got it. Makes a ton of sense. And just my second one, just going back to sort of the acquisition guidance. So I guess the first one is, are we supposed to understand that sort of $800 million at the midpoint, it sounds like the messaging is it’s more sort of opportunity constraint than capital constrained at this point or is it both? Just trying to get a sense of that number?
Jackson Hsieh: I would just say, it’s a little bit of both. I mean, look, for us, look, we talked about our cost of capital. It’s not at the place where I believe it should be and for us to issue capital and do larger amounts of volume. I don’t think that makes a lot of sense. I think to me, what makes sense is really prove out what we’ve been doing the last few years, which we believe we will this year. And at that point, we can look at potentially increasing volume with a more effective cost of capital. I mean, so I’d say it’s a combination of both. I mean, the opportunity set that we see is still there, but we don’t think it makes sense, obviously, keep acquiring in a $1 billion-plus rate given our current cost of capital and we think we’ll get — it will be better for shareholders for us to kind of prove out all of the deals that we’ve transacted are really good, which we believe they are.
Ronald Kamdem: Great. And then my last one, if I may. Just sort of sticking with that cost of capital point, just because I don’t think I’ve heard this question asked on the call yet. I think in the past, you talked about, number one, potentially looking at JV capital, right, and partnering with JVs as a source and then maybe being open to sort of more strategic actions in the space with maybe others having a better cost of capital. Just curious where your head is at today. The interest rate environment seems to have more staying power here. So both on the JV and sort of strategic actions. Any comments you can share would be helpful.
