Hello, and thank you for standing by. My name is Tiffany, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the GO Residential Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during that time, simply press star then one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to turn the call over to Maxwell Kaufman, Chief Operating Officer, GO Residential Real Estate Investment Trust. Maxwell, please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. I'm Max Kaufman, the Chief Operating Officer of GO Residential Real Estate Investment Trust. Welcome to GO Residential's earnings call, where we will discuss the financial results for the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2025. I'm joined on the call today by our CEO, Joshua Gotlib, CFO, Peter Sweeney, and our President, Matthew Keller, who are all available to answer questions after our prepared remarks. Before we begin, I want to remind listeners that certain statements made on this call relating to the REIT future outlook and anticipated events or results constitute forward-looking information as defined under Canadian securities laws. Although we believe such statements to be based on reasonable assumptions, we cannot give assurance that the anticipated results will be achieved. In addition, we will reference certain non-IFRS financial measures that we believe are useful supplemental information about our financial performance. For more information, please refer to the cautionary statements on forward-looking information, a description of our non-IFRS financial measures, and the risk factors in our MD&A dated March 23, 2026. As always, all remarks reference figures in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. 2025 was a transformative year for GO Residential. Following the largest IPO for a REIT in TSX history, we made significant progress on our core objectives, enhancing operational performance, maintaining disciplined financial management, and positioning the REIT for long-term accretive growth. Today, we are pleased to report yet another quarter of exceeding expectations. This comes on the back of a number of key milestones for the REIT, including an accretive refinance of the mortgage on One East River Place, receipt of an investment-grade rating from Morningstar DBRS, the successful issuance of CAD 325 million in senior unsecured debentures, and the recent announcement of over $810 million worth of leverage neutral transactions that are expected to be mid-single digit accretive to both AFFO per unit and NAV per unit. Between a high-quality CapEx-light portfolio, a strong balance sheet, and a management team with deep expertise, GO is well-positioned to deliver sustainable value for our unitholders. With that, I'll turn it over to Josh to discuss our market strategy and outlook. Thank you, Max. 15 months ago, the team here at GO made a bold prediction. A significant buying opportunity was coming to New York City. Owners were barely surviving a cycle that saw the 2019 change in rent laws, the 2020 pandemic, the 2022 spike in interest rates, the 2023 regional bank failures, and then the prolonged period of high rates that we've seen since. We recognized that landlords were going to have no choice but to sell their free market assets in order to cover losses in their office and affordable portfolios. We needed to be in a position ourselves to take advantage. In July of 2025, we completed our IPO on the TSX. We raised $ 500 million and used every dollar to pay down debt. The motivation was simple, reposition the balance sheet for growth. In the months since, we executed on a number of initiatives designed to ensure that we were ready for the buying opportunity. First, we focused on the core business. We understood that delivering on the IPO forecast was a prerequisite to pursuing inorganic opportunities. Second, we refinanced the mortgage at One East River Place. Taking our largest near-term maturity off the table opened up significant match there. Last but not least, we worked with Morningstar DBRS to secure an investment-grade rating. Easy access to attractive debt would be critical to executing on these acquisitions. By the end of the third quarter, Class A luxury assets started to come to market. Our prediction played out exactly as expected with one caveat. There was a clear bifurcation between assets ±$400 million in value. Larger properties were not coming with a discount. This was frankly unsurprising. They were owned by landlords with a greater ability to bear the cost of the cycle. Larger institutional funds and foreign wealth continued to play in the space. Sub $400 million in value, the picture was completely different. These owners were in trouble. They had been hit hard by the cycle and were looking to transact quickly and with certainty. Value almost felt like an afterthought. To make matters worse for them, there were no buyers. The typical players in this space were the same ones who were in pain. For us, there was only one problem: our unit price. I am not going to use this call to relitigate our unit price other than to say, one, a comparable, albeit less attractive, peer of ours just traded at a sub 5.5% cap. Two, we are clearly dramatically undervalued. In any event, our team did what it does best. We got creative. On February 24, we announced agreements to acquire Ivy Tower and the Hudson Yards portfolio for approximately $380 million. Nearly three weeks later, we announced agreements to acquire 7 Dey and an 81% interest in 409 Eastern Parkway for approximately $440 million. All four deals were negotiated based on an implied equity value of $23.70 or our NAV at the end of the third quarter. In the days and weeks since the announcement, we've received a number of questions from equity and debt investors alike. Let me take a moment to address a few of them. First, why would sellers value our units at NAV? There continues to be a significant disconnect between public and private market valuations, particularly when it comes to our assets. Sellers understand that. They know our portfolio is trading at a significant discount to intrinsic value. They also recognize the quality and stability of it. Second, does transacting near a six cap mean that our assets should be valued the same? No. That bifurcation between assets ± $400 million in value is real. Look no further than 265 East 66th Street. A minority non-controlling interest in a 1980s vintage property with $40 million of acquired CapEx traded at a sub four cap on in-place NOI. If anything, that bifurcation represents a potential arbitrage as we think about capital allocation in coming months. Third, what can we expect going forward? We are now in the middle of one of those markets that buyers can only dream of. Sellers are in pain. They need to exit, and there aren't any options. Max touched on the financial implications of our recent deals, but what he didn't say was this. Sellers have been put on notice that we stand ready to transact. Since the announcements, our pipeline has grown substantially. Our inbounds are off the charts, and we are well positioned to take advantage. As we think about the next set of deals, let me provide you with the following guidelines. First, I am incredibly sensitive to where my unit price sits today. After all, my cost basis is higher than 15 per unit. We always said that the first set of deals would serve as a catalyst for others to follow suit. There continues to be a real opportunity for us to transact at NAV. Second, deleveraging remains a key priority. I'd love nothing more than to accelerate our path to bringing leverage down. The unfortunate reality is that our current unit price makes that difficult. If I can over-equitize at NAV, I'll do so. Otherwise, I'm only willing to do deals that are neutral to or improve leverage metrics. Looking ahead, the turn into spring marks the start of peak leasing season and a catalyst path for GO. We expect to host an investor day in the second half of Q2 and are preparing for a potential dual listing in August. With our portfolio in a strong position and a robust acquisition pipeline in hand, we are extremely optimistic about the future. Now over to Peter to walk us through the quarter. Thank you. Thank you, Josh Gotlib, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to walk you through the financial results for GO Residential REIT's fourth quarter and for the period since our IPO. As always, my remarks reference figures in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. With respect to our quarterly financial highlights for the three months ended December 31, 2025, we're proud to announce the following. Number one, with respect to revenue, we delivered $40.8 million in revenue for the quarter, with revenue adjusted of $45 million exceeding our forecast of $44.6 million. Secondly, with respect to net income, net income and comprehensive income for the quarter is $21.6 million. Thirdly, with respect to NOI performance, NOI adjusted was $32.6 million ahead of our forecast of $32.3 million, resulting in a robust NOI margin of 72.5%. Fourthly, with respect to AFFO adjusted, our AFFO adjusted level was $14.7 million or $0.27 per unit, surpassing our forecast by approximately 4%. Fifthly, with respect to FFO adjusted, our FFO adjusted per unit level was $0.29 versus a forecast level of $0.26. Lastly, with respect to occupancy and rent, our committed occupancy ended the quarter at 98.5%, and average monthly rent reached $6,830 per suite, which is a 2.5% increase since our IPO. These results underscore our disciplined approach to asset management and our focus on operational excellence. We remain ahead of forecast on all major performance metrics, including revenue, NOI adjusted, and AFFO adjusted. Our balance sheet remains strong and well-positioned for growth. Namely, number one, our debt to GBV value was 48.5% at year-end, providing ample flexibility for future acquisitions. Secondly, with respect to our weighted average interest rate, that rate was 4.4% with weighted average term debt of 4.1 years. Thirdly, liquidity as at December 31 represented $58.8 million, including $2.6 million of cash and $56.1 million in available funds on our undrawn credit facility. Lastly, with respect to our credit rating, in January, our operating subsidiary OpCo received a BBB (low) issuer rating with a stable trend from Morningstar DBRS. This investment-grade credit rating is a strong endorsement from one of the world's leading independent credit rating agencies and a meaningful milestone for our company, especially as a new public REIT. This rating reflects several key strengths. One, superior asset quality. DBRS recognizes our portfolio of five Class A luxury residential buildings in Manhattan as rated AA low for asset quality, underscoring the stability and desirability of our properties. Secondly, strong operating performance. The rating incorporates our high occupancy levels, that being 99.5% as at Q3 of 2025, and sustained growth in average monthly rents, which have increased by over 30% year-over-year. Thirdly, high quality tenant base. Our tenants have an average household income above $465,000 and a delinquency rate below 1%, supporting the predictability and resilience of our cash flows. Fourthly, experienced management. DBRS highlighted the depth of our management team and our proven track record in the New York multifamily market. Lastly, number five, while DBRS notes our leverage remains above the sector average, they also acknowledged the rapid improvement in our financial profile since our IPO, and they expect further progress as we continue to grow earnings and execute on our strategy for growth. What does this mean for GO Residential and our stakeholders? It affirms financial strength and discipline, providing confidence to lenders, investors, and counterparties. It enhances our access to the capital markets, enabling us to secure attractive terms when issuing debt or raising capital. It positions us favorably for future growth, both through organic initiatives and accretive acquisitions. Achieving and maintaining an investment-grade credit rating is a key pillar to our capital strategy. We are proud to have earned this recognition so early in our journey as a public REIT, and we remain committed to strengthening our credit profile over time. That being said, in February, OpCo completed a CAD 325 million private placement of senior unsecured debentures maturing in 2029 at a fixed rate of 4.534%. These proceeds were used to repay existing indebtedness and also to support our acquisition pipeline. Yesterday, we closed a $ 75.1 million equity offering and concurrent private placement, with proceeds earmarked to fund the acquisition of 7 Dey Street together with 409 Eastern Parkway, both of which are expected to close in the second quarter of 2026. These transactions, together with a $19 million draw on our credit facility, demonstrate our ability to access both equity and debt markets efficiently and on attractive terms. We continue to manage our interest rate and liquidity risk proactively. All property-specific mortgages are fixed rate, and 95% of total debt is fixed as at year-end. Our disciplined approach to leverage, combined with a robust pipeline of accretive acquisitions, positions us to capitalize on opportunities while maintaining prudent risk parameters. Looking ahead, we expect the Manhattan luxury rental market to remain resilient, supported by strong demand drivers, namely above average population and job growth and constrained new supply. Our mark-to-market initiative remains on track for completion by mid-2026, and we are well positioned to deliver sustained cash flow growth. In summary, GO Residential ended 2025 with strong operating momentum, a high quality and well-leased portfolio, and the financial flexibility to pursue disciplined creative growth. Our results reflect the strength of our platform and our commitment to delivering value for our unit holders. Thank you for your attention, and with that, I'll now turn the call back to the operator for questions. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, press star, then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, simply press star one again. We will pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Dean Wilkinson with CIBC. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning, gentlemen. Josh, maybe a two-part, and I apologize for a long-winded question just around acquisitions. When you look forward, set the financial aside, what's the platform sort of capacity? How much could you grow with what you've got? And then what would you have to do to expand sort of beyond that point? And the second part of the question more or less relates to what we're seeing in private credit. You know, money is coming out of private credit. I'm seeing early indications that it's not leaving the alternatives, but it's going back into potentially private REITs. What do you think the implication could be for pricing if they are not, like, out of the market now? Could that put you in, like, running into competition, but at the same point, justifying the value and highlighting the differential between sort of the unit value and NAV? Hey, Dean. How are you? Thanks for joining. Dean, on your first question, I think, and we've kind of outlined this. Since the IPO that we felt that we can double in size without any real growth on the expense side for us running the company, you know, that's kind of what we've built for, and that's how we're positioning that. Dean, if you could ask the second question again, that would be helpful. Just in terms of, you know, money is coming out of private credit. It looks like it's gravitating towards going back into your private REITs, right? They don't have to worry about mark-to-market fluctuations on a daily basis. If we do see money go there, do you think that is going to effectively put a bid more into the assets that you're looking for? Might make it more competitive, but at the same pace, it serves to underpin the values of the stuff that you've bought and you already own. Hey, Dean. Thanks for the question. You know, I think, listen, the flow of funds into private REITs is probably a good thing for the sector generally. In terms of competition on the ground, you know, I think we've established here that the team has a real significant competitive advantage when it comes to potentially looking at assets out in the market. You know, the significant number of deals that we're looking at currently are, for the most part, off-market. Frankly, we don't see that flow of funds as necessarily impacting our ability to transact in the near term. In fact, we remain confident as ever in terms of the acquisitions that we think we can execute on in the coming months. Okay. That's good. Just last one for me. Has changes around the FARE Act kind of seen an upward pressure on the net effect of rents? How do you see that kind of unfolding as we get one or two years through the rolls of those things? Because to me it seems like something that's actually gonna grow rents, not peel them back. I'll take this one, Dean. Matt Keller here. A little bit of background on the FARE Act is that it required landlords to cover brokerage fees for both tenants and on the landlord side as well. What we've seen thus far is that it has put upward pressure at the lower end of the housing market as those landlords that were accustomed to having their tenants pay the fee are now passing that cost along to the tenants themselves. I'd like to emphasize that in our forecast, as well as in our Q4 numbers, we accounted for those costs being a landlord cost. Thus far, we have not seen a tremendous amount of upward pressure in our market. That being said, I'm sure a rising tide will lift all boats. That sounds reasonable. I will hand it back. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Dean. Your next question comes from Kyle Stanley with Desjardins Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, guys. Just on the, you know, $440 million of acquisitions announced last week, I'm just wondering, can you give us a bit of a breakdown on the component that is rent-stabilized and, you know, how you see that playing out in the eventuality of a rent increase? Sure, Dane. As we think about it, and I'll take you property through, sorry, Kyle. I'll take you through property by property really quickly. Ivy Tower was the first deal. There we've got about 64 units that are affordable. The balance of the 320 units or so are free market. At Hudson, it's an interesting tax abatement. It's actually a 10 year tax abatement that burns off in 2029. Until it burns off, 100% of the units are rent-stabilized, but they'll grow at a rate of the RGB + 2.2%. Once the abatement burns off in 2029, everything becomes free market. As a consequence of, let's call it, a bit of a gap to market that exists there today, plus the RGB + 2.2%, we feel confident that you should model out, let's call it, normalized market rate growth on that property. Come 2029, you also just get an additional bump when they're 100% free market on a go-forward basis. For Dey and 409, both of them are subject to 35 year tax abatements. I believe that they're in years six and seven respectively. During the course of the tax abatements, 70% of the units at each of the properties are free market, 30% are affordable. Those affordable units during the course of the tax abatements will simply grow at inflation. 70% obviously just, you know, model out, let's call it, normalized rental growth. Okay. Like, very similar to what we'd be looking at for the copper buildings, I guess, on the two most recent acquisitions. Is there, you know, a gap to market in those? Sorry, Kyle, just to be clear, on Dey and 409, the 70% is not rent-stabilized, it's free market. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. The tax abatement there is a bit different than at Copper. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. That is helpful. Just secondarily, obviously this is a you know a transition or you know the first acquisition in Brooklyn. Just would love a high level you know your thoughts on the Brooklyn market. What took you there? You know just to better understand what's going on in Brooklyn. Yeah. Brooklyn's an incredibly strong market. You know, there's a whole part of the world of folks that prefer to live in kind of Brownstone Brooklyn to you know, kind of the best areas in Manhattan. It's a market that we want to be in. It's a market that, you know, we know a lot of owners that are looking to transact. 409 Eastern Parkway. It's a beautiful asset, well built, and gave us, you know, a great opportunity to kinda enter into the marketplace. You know, there's a very established market in Brooklyn. There are very mature neighborhoods that, you know, we want to own in. There are certainly parts of it that you could argue are a bit overbuilt, but we won't be focusing in those areas for the time being. Okay. Fair enough. Just kind of a last one here. Just looking at your, you know, your existing portfolio. You've kind of reiterated the 10% mark-to-market by the end of your IPO forecast period, which is, you know, the end of the second quarter. Obviously, AMR is up 2.5% since the, you know, since the July IPO. You know, assume that the maybe slowdown or at least flat rent in the fourth quarter was seasonal. Just want your thoughts on, you know, how you see AMR growth progressing in the first and second quarter. Obviously, we're towards the end of the first quarter here now, so would love your, you know, an update on how first quarter leasing was. Was it impacted by similar weather, seasonality? You know, just an overall outlook on what happened in the first quarter. Kyle, I'll take that. Matt Keller again. One other thing I'd like to point out is that in Q4, what you're seeing is also we've taken a lot of measures in terms of when we let our leases expire, so that most of our leases expire during the higher, better leasing time of the year. That's also playing into what you're perceiving in those Q4 numbers versus Q3 growth. That being said, right now we are very excited with where the market is, and Q1 we expect to be very, very strong. Yeah. Kyle, we always said that, you know, the 10% was gonna be achieved over the course of the first year. I think we were also clear that there would be some seasonality in that number. If you just think about it, during the fourth quarter, we're in an off-peak leasing season, so fewer units are turning. Those that turn a little bit differently. I think now as we're, you know, making our way through Q1 and then obviously into Q2 and peak leasing season, that's why we have the confidence to tell you that we'll hit that 10% marker by the end of the second quarter. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll turn it back. Your next question comes from the line of Michael Markidis with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks, operator. Just to follow up on Kyle's line of questioning there. If I understand you guys correctly, the 2.5% is the AMR growth that you've disclosed since July. During the first year, you're expecting to get to 10%. Should we infer that we're going to see 7.5% AMR growth in Q1 and Q2 combined? Yes. That's exactly what we're saying, Mike. Once again, just you have the seasonality of a smaller number of units turning. Prior to the IPO, and then I think we've done a good job in, let's call it, the last six or seven months, we made a concerted effort to make sure that the significant majority of our units turned during peak leasing season. As a consequence, in December, with smaller units turning, and I will also provide the additional color that a larger number of the units that did turn during the quarter sat at 685 First Avenue, where obviously the gap to market is a bit narrower, it's no surprise that we see the AMR numbers sitting where it's at. That being said, as you kind of turn into, let's call it, 1Q and 2Q, not only do you have a larger number of units turning, you also have a larger number of units turning at the Upper East Side properties. That's One East River Place, that's One and Two Sutton. You could expect the AMR number to grow significantly in the next two quarters on a go-forward. Just thinking about it, because obviously the AMR that you have doesn't include the impacts of the Copper necessarily. What would be the rough flow-through of AMR growth to actual total revenue on assuming occupancy neutrality? Copper is obviously broken out into two buckets. You've got the affordable bucket that effectively grows at inflation and the balance or rent stabilized. I think there at this point on Copper, you're pretty much close to normalized rental growth. There you're probably seeing something closer to 4%, 4%-5%. In the first half of 2026? Correct. The entire flow through, like the way you disclose your AMR, I guess what I'm getting at is, are you expecting on a same property basis, the effect of if we take your revenue today and assume no change in occupancy from the 96.9 that's in place, and we get to a run rate at the beginning of Q3, is that your revenue is up 7.5%, or the flow through would be less than that? The flow through will necessarily be less than that because you still right? The 7.5% that you're referencing is at a point in time that will be, let's say, in Q2 of 2026. Right? You're not gonna have a full year of that 7.5% reflected in our numbers. Okay. I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I think it does. Okay. Just, there were some new revenue adjustments this quarter. Can you just remind us, I mean, the HAFB backstop makes sense, the normalization of rent concessions. Can you remind us what that is? Is that effectively all the rent concessions in the portfolio, or we're just trying to understand what exactly that refers to again. Sure. I'll touch on the HAFB backstop really quickly. On the HAFB backstop, that one is just frankly a product of the fact that as the, let's call it, HAFB contract is onboarded, the revenue is coming via the backstop and under IFRS accounting rules. You just have to account for it as an adjustment as opposed to through revenue directly. In terms of the rent concessions, I'll turn it over to Peter. Hey, Mike. Good morning. With respect to the concessions, Mike, they represent what we describe as normalized recurring adjustments only because these are burning off concessions that were in the portfolio when the REIT went public last summer. I think we said at the time that it was gonna take us somewhere between 12 and 24 months to have all of these existing concessions burn off over that timeframe. Keep in mind that we don't provide concessions any longer in the portfolio. It was appropriate to account for these things as adjustments back because as these concessions are burning off and the tenants are either renewing or we're finding new tenants for those units, there aren't any new concessions being provided. We're getting the full value of a 12 or 24 month full stream of payments. What these things are, again, is just a burn-off of those older leases, as they're maturing, over the first year or so of the REIT's life. Okay. You're not offering any concessions today, so that mark-to-market is a net effective spread, assuming including the burn-off or no, the growth in your portfolio is 10% MTM plus the burn-off of the legacy incentives. Just to be clear, we are not offering concessions anywhere except for at The Copper, where as we've discussed in the past, we had the dynamic of very high legal rents, which in certain cases are greater than the clearing market rent. Right. No, I understand that. I guess the normalization includes The Copper in that case, or it does not? Sorry. Yeah, Mike, the 10% growth rate that we referenced does not include the normalization of the portfolio's absence of rent concessions. Okay. I got a few other questions, but I'm gonna turn it back to the queue. Guys, congrats on the quarter. Perhaps we could take this offline, Peter Sweeney, after the call. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Mike. Your next question comes from the line of Jana Galan with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning and congrats on a great fourth quarter and very busy first quarter. As we're approaching the peak leasing season, I was curious if you could kinda share where portfolio occupancy is today and what renewal rates you guys are sending out on average, and maybe how does this compare to the same time last year? Matt Keller here. Currently we're seeing occupancy on the Upper East Side at 98.5%, and at Murray Hill, we are currently at 99%. Our average renewal rates are being executed at an 8.5% rent increase compared to prior tenants. On the Upper East Side, we're achieving greater than 10%. Great. Thank you. Just, you know, curious on this, you know, forward pipeline of opportunities, in the market, we did notice that the average rental rates on the recent acquisitions are a little bit below where the IPO portfolio average monthly rate was. Just, you know, kind of curious if the forward pipeline would still target the very high end or a little bit lower, or, you know, curious if you're trying to kind of just diversify that average price point a little bit. I mean, we're still gonna be focused on class A luxury at the end of the day, but so long as it meets, let's call it, those qualitative characteristics, it just becomes a question of the math. I don't think necessarily we're gonna be married to a specific threshold on AMR. I think the question is, you know, does the deal pencil in the right way? Is it gonna drive the right accretion? Is it gonna have the right financial impact? I think as you think about the properties that we just acquired, you know, or announced acquisitions for, so Ivy Tower, Dey, 409, the Hudson Yards portfolio, these are the types of assets that fit very well in line with our current assets, both from a tenancy and asset quality perspective. They pencil in the right way in terms of the math. Simply because the AMR is a little bit lighter does not necessarily mean that we're gonna turn our blind eye to it. Thank you. Then maybe one, last one for Peter. You know, just curious, you've been in the market with the private placement and, you know, in the market for different mortgage or secured debt. Just kinda curious what you're seeing out there. It's been a pretty volatile interest rate environment year to date. If you can just kinda give a range and different terms that you could potentially be looking at for putting debt on these new acquisitions. Yeah. Jana, it's Josh. I'll just jump in just on secured debt, at least in the U.S. We continue to see both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae aggressively pursuing opportunities, a number of life cos as well. CMBS spreads, you know, are tighter because there are a number of residential-only pools that people are going out there with. So, you know, it's kinda changed the quality of the pools and the risk that comes with it. I'd say that from an agency perspective with everything going on, you still see spreads in the low 100s over the five year, the seven year, the 10 year. You know, there's always interesting buy down options if you wanna go that route. It's a very strong debt market. You know, with all the volatility, we have not seen any change there. Great. Thank you so much. Your next question comes from the line of Himanshu Gupta with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thank you and good morning. It's been a few months since the mayor elections. What are your, you know, new expectations with respect to any changes in RGBs and guidelines and any other, you know, proposals being, or you're hearing, you know, with respect to property taxes or any other item? Yeah, Himanshu, at the moment, there's no clear policy path that's being pushed forward. I think that the mayor, and I think that the folks around him, including at the different housing agencies, recognize that the lower end of the rent stabilized world, there's a clear issue with it within that entire sector, right? You know, in the traditional pre-war housing. There's vacancy that's stacked up, and while the threat of a rent freeze certainly sounded good in an election, in reality, from a quality of life perspective, it's going to, you know, present a lot of challenges as violations stack up, as defaults stack up, et cetera. So, you know, it's very hard to know where that actually ends up. Again, it doesn't have a direct impact on the numbers that we've put forward, and we've kind of touched on that, I think too many times at this point. You know, that's you know, we don't have an update as far as where I think that's gonna go. Further, as far as his property tax reform, I think that was more of a threat than anything, and we don't see that moving forward. You know, that would in effect tax all homeowners, and that certainly wasn't a promise of his campaign. I don't know for the time being that we have any clear direction on the policies. Having said that, I'm not sure anyone in the city has all those either. Got it. Okay. No, that's helpful. And then sticking to, you know, Mamdani here, any change in the pricing expectations you have seen? I mean, obviously you know, gave some prepared remarks on sub $400 million transaction versus others. Have you seen like, the transactions which you have done, like more discounts you have received in the market because of this uncertainty right now? Yeah. I wouldn't say that there's a Mamdani impact to valuations, Himanshu. To be quite honest with you, like certainly folks in New York have been spending less and less time on this as a talking point. You know, in reality, he hasn't had a major effect, positive or negative. I think that they're just trying to figure out, you know, how to govern. It's just not something that's, you know, in the headlines at the moment when you think about long-term investing in real estate. Got it. Okay. That's helpful. Maybe the last question is with respect to other revenues. I think that's increased a fair bit versus the IPO forecast. So first line item there was a lease termination income, I think $0.8 million. Is that one time in nature, Peter? You know, I've had this discussion on lease termination amounts many times in my professional career in real estate. As much as we'd like to think of these amounts as so-called one-time items, and they often appear in our financial statements as such, the reality is that they appear repeatedly and continuously. That's just the nature of the beast. I think you have to model it that way, Himanshu, if you're modeling this type of revenue source. It may come from a different angle in our case. I think you should expect to see repeatedly this type of anomalous type opportunity or anomalous type revenue impacting our financial results. Okay. Okay. That is, thanks for that. There's a new line item called other revenue from services, $0.7 million. Is it some new service being provided or a recurring nature of income? You know, it's a collection, frankly, of four or five different things that we aggregated into that line item. Unfortunately, at least for now, we had to put it below the line. I think it's fair to say, again, from a model one perspective, as we approach the balance of the year, certainly by the time we get to Q4 of this year, these types of amounts will and should be included above the line in EBITDA or our IFRS level income, Himanshu. For now, at least, I think for the next couple of quarters, we may see some of these additional adjustments fall below the GAAP line. That's why we're adding them back. Again, from a modeling perspective, I would continue to try to model them as we've sort of reflected them for Q4 for the remaining quarters of 2020. Okay. Yeah. Maybe just the last one. Is it a seasonality to this other revenue from services? I mean, it's quite a bit higher in Q4. Should we just extrapolate it to the coming quarters or, you know, certain revenues from padel, or I don't know, other services are more seasonal in nature? Still wondering. Good question. We don't look at it that way, at least internally, Himanshu. I guess as time goes by, particularly when you reference padel, we could see some seasonality there. Although even in padel's case, we've got a roof over that facility now, which makes it available 12 months of the year. No, I don't think, at least from management's perspective, you would apply a seasonality factor to this. Okay. Thank you so much, and I'll turn it back. Your next question comes from the line of Jimmy Shan with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. So just on your comment about the bifurcation of the investment market, the $400 million below and above, I'm just trying to get a better understanding as to why this bifurcation exists. You may have mentioned it, but didn't hear it. Also maybe it'd be helpful if you could also talk about or answer the question in the context of the vendors of the assets you're buying from and sort of how, kinda how these opportunities arose and why you thought those were good opportunities. On the bifurcation, Jimmy, I think it's a product of two factors that Josh highlighted on the call. The first one is if you just think about intuitively with a lot of these larger assets, you have owners who kind of have a, let's call it, deeper pockets. When you're going through a long cycle such as the one that New York is going through, just having a deeper pocket allows you to kind of tread water for a longer period of time. The second component to that is frankly, bigger institutions and some foreign wealth funds are still playing in the larger asset space. Historically, the sub $400 million space, while you have some bigger players who started to play within it was frankly smaller private developers, smaller New York City families. That's kind of what's pushing the bifurcation just in terms of, let's call it, the sellers as well as the buyers that are in there today. Sub $400, you know, you kind of have, let's call it, some owners who have, let's call it, smaller pockets, and they're in a bit more pain and the buyers are just frankly not there. Sorry, remind me on the second question, Jimmy. Well, I thought you might have incorporated your answer in terms of the deals that you're doing now in terms of t he vendors of those assets, whether or not, you know. No, I wouldn't call it distrust, but just some of the distrust that they could potentially be under and why they're selling. On the vendors, I mean, I think we've walked some folks through it, but frankly there's a different story for each vendor across the board. In terms of the first two buckets, these are folks who for one reason or another kind of decided they needed some form of an exit. On Ivy Tower, it was someone who was looking for a little bit more of, you know, a hands-on operator who could come in and do some value add work and we formed a partnership with that gentleman. On Hudson Yards, it's a long-term relationship, folks who kind of saw the opportunity to bend in their properties for a piece of our portfolio and frankly just believed in the long-term value of our portfolio. The second set of deals were two folks who for one reason or another kind of had to transact. They were just situated a little bit differently. They were looking to transact with certainty. I think that was the key on both accounts and with speed. Frankly, Josh and Meyer have built a career and a reputation around, you know, when they sign up a deal, they're going to close that deal, and they're going to close that deal fast. The ability to really leverage that reputation in the context of both these two transactions, 7 Dey Street and 409 Eastern Parkway, gave us a really significant advantage when it came to, let's call it negotiating with the sellers and being able to lock up both transactions before they reached the market. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our question and answer session. I would now like to turn the call over to Josh Gotlib for closing remarks. Thank you everyone for joining today. We appreciate the continued coverage and support, and we look forward to connecting with you next quarter. Speak soon. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.