Nick Thillman: That’s helpful. And you guys kind of touched a little bit on weakness in big box demand. But maybe just on like the pricing and what you’re seeing in underwriting for acquisitions on maybe a stabilized basis, maybe smaller properties, first larger, is there a big differentiation between the pricing on those products? Or are they still pretty similar?
Bill Crooker: Yes. I mean there’s so much that goes into the pricing, right? You could have a small box that’s got a 10-year lease and 1.5% escalators, and that’s going to trade much differently than a small box that has a five-year lease and 4% escalators. Mark-to-market, obviously, is going to be impactful, too. If you’ve got a big box that’s got a five-year lease in a market that has historically been a strong big box leasing market, I think that trades pretty close to some of the small boxes with five-year leases. It’s really — if the property, the building fits the submarket well and it’s got enough term, I think it’s going to trade pretty reasonably. With all that being said, we’re just — deals are coming out. They’re still coming out.
We’re hearing some deals come on to price agreement. It takes some time for these deals to close. So all of that will be vetted in the next couple of months, and I think it will give us and others more certainty as to where these deals are closing.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Eric Borden with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Eric Borden: Just sticking with the disposition theme, how much of the portfolio left of the portfolio is the non-core legacy non-CBRE Tier 1 markets that could be disposed of to use for future funding sources?
Bill Crooker: Yes. So, I do want to point out that we do have a portion of our portfolio that is non-CBRE Tier 1 that we really like and is not part of our non-core portfolio. But we generally look at circa 5% of our portfolio is something that we are constantly evaluating for disposition to improve the quality of the portfolio.
Eric Borden: Okay. That’s helpful. And then maybe one for Matts on the guidance. Could you just provide a bridge between the same-store midpoint of 5% to the implied core FFO growth of 3.9. What are the puts and takes in there and any potential drags? Or is there just some conservative built into the guide?
Matts Pinard: Yes, absolutely. Look, there are two drivers. Number one is G&A and the other is interest expense. At the midpoint of our G&A guidance, G&A is projected to grow 5% this year as compared to last year. And then, we’re going to have higher average debt balances. And as you know, that’s a little more expensive now. The one point I do want to point out on the scalability and G&A, if you look at the past two years, that the average growth is roughly 1%. So G&A in guidance will grow 5%. That’s part of what’s bringing that delta.
Bill Crooker: Yes. Maybe one other point on that, too, is the same store that we guide to is really a cash same-store number. So when you think about the impact to core FFO, that’s a GAAP number. And typically, that number is less.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Mike Mueller with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Mike Mueller: Pretty much everything has been answered. Just maybe one quick one though. When you’re underwriting developments and thinking about those returns, I mean, are they different or how different can they be to just buying a completed development property where you’re taking the lease-up risk, but you’re not kind of spending the capital to do it? So I guess, how those relative returns look?
Bill Crooker: Yes. I think — I mean it’s not linear, Mike. But if you go all the way to buying raw land and going through the entitlement and permitting process, up through buying a stabilized acquisition with a five-year lease, you’re going to see the returns — the projected returns increase as you take additional risk. We’ve, over the years, moved from being almost solely a stabilized acquirer through now and taking on development risk, but we have not taken on permitting and entitlement risk. So when I think about a stabilized deal and then taking just the lease-up risk, it’s 25 to 50 basis points, you add another 25 to 50 basis points take on that development risk, and if you were to take on the permitting at another 25 to 75 basis points of return. So — but with all that, it becomes additional risk and additional time.
Operator: Mr. Crooker, we have no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to you for closing comments.
Bill Crooker: I just want to thank everybody for joining the call. Thank you all to the analysts for the questions, and for those that celebrate, Happy Valentine’s Day. I look forward to seeing you all soon. Take care.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a wonderful day.
