Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the First Industrial second quarter 2021 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you need to press star one on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host, Mr. Art Harmon, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, Katrina. Hello, everybody, and welcome to our call. Before we discuss our second quarter 2021 results, as well as updated guidance, let me remind everyone that our call may include forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. These statements are based on management's expectations, plans, and estimates of our prospects. Today's statements may be time sensitive and accurate only as of today's date, Thursday, July 22nd, 2021. We assume no obligation to update our statements or the other information we provide. Actual results may differ materially from our forward-looking statements, and factors which could cause this are described in our 10-K and other SEC filings. You can find a reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures discussed in today's call in our supplemental report and our earnings release. The supplemental report, earnings release, and our SEC filings are available at firstindustrial.com under the Investors tab. Our call will begin with remarks by Peter Baccile, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Scott Musil, our Chief Financial Officer. After which, we will open it up for your questions. Also on the call today are Jojo Yap, our Chief Investment Officer; Peter Schultz, Executive Vice President; Chris Schneider, Senior Vice President of Operations; and Bob Walter, Senior Vice President of Capital Markets and Asset Management. Now let me turn the call over to Peter. Thanks, Art, and thank you all for joining us. Our team delivered another great quarter, highlighted by strong operating results, robust development leasing, and more investment for growth. Our efforts were supported by the overall economy, and the industrial real estate sector continued to gain momentum throughout the second quarter. Due to strong second quarter performance and the overall strength of the sector, we are increasing our FFO guidance, which Scott will walk you through shortly. Per CBRE flash report, net absorption was a healthy 85 million sq ft in the second quarter, while completions came in at a three-year quarterly low of 52 million sq ft. Completions were impacted by reduced construction activity in 2020, as well as the continuing limited availability of readily developable land in highly sought-after locations. Through the first half of this year, net absorption was 150 million sq ft, outpacing new supply of 106 million sq ft. In the second quarter, we were successful in driving occupancy while continuing to increase rental rates on new and renewal leasing. In-service occupancy at quarter end was 96.6%, an increase of 90 basis points from the end of last quarter. This increase in occupancy was accompanied by a 15.7% increase in cash rental rates on new and renewal leasing. The strength and breadth of tenant demand also carried over to our development investments, evidenced by 1.2 million sq ft of development leases signed in the second quarter and third quarter to date. We are pleased to announce that our 250,000 sq ft building at First Logistics Center @ 78/81 in Central Pennsylvania is now 100% leased to a leading consumer products company. This takes care of the largest vacancy among our completed developments. Also in Pennsylvania, we successfully leased the 100,000 sq ft First Independence Logistics Center to the United States Postal Service. In Houston, at our First Grand Parkway Commerce Center, we signed two leases totaling 117,000 sq ft, bringing the two-building, 372,000 sq ft project there to 55% leased. In Dallas, we just leased 97,000 sq ft at First Park 121 to a logistics provider, bringing the two-building, 345,000 sq ft phase of that park to 64% leased. This is in addition to the 125,000 sq ft pre-lease at the last phase of the park that we started in the second quarter as discussed on our last call. We also achieved significant new leasing at our developments in process. In South Florida, we pre-leased 100% of the 259,000 sq ft Building 2 at First Park Miami to a logistics and transportation company. This building is scheduled for completion in the fourth quarter, and the lease is expected to commence in mid-first quarter of 2022. This same tenant also pre-leased 50% of our next start in that park, which I will discuss shortly. We also leased 100% of the soon-to-be completed 141,000 sq ft First 95 Distribution Center in Pompano. The lease will commence by October 1st. Given the strong demand and the ability of our team to replenish our pipeline with profitable development opportunities, we're excited to share several new development starts. In Nashville, we were successful in winning a 692,000 sq ft build- to- suit with a leading specialty e-commerce retailer. Completion is slated for the third quarter of 2022. Our projected investment is $59 million, with a projected cash yield of 6.4%. Taking advantage of the tenant demand we are seeing in South Florida, at First Park Miami, we will start a 219,000 sq ft known as Building 1. As I just noted, we inked a lease for 50% of the space in advance of going vertical. Total estimated investment is $39 million, with a targeted cash yield of 5.3%. We are also well-positioned for future growth at that park. In addition to what's already underway, I remind you that we can develop another 405,000 sq ft on land we own today, and we control another 59 acres developable to 1.3 million sq ft, for a total build-out of up to 2.5 million sq ft. Also in Florida, in the Orlando market, we are starting First Loop Logistics Park. First Loop is a four-building project totaling 344,000 sq ft, with an estimated investment of $45 million and a cash yield of 5.6%. In Seattle, we've launched First Steele, a 129,000 sq ft. Estimated total investment is $24 million, with a targeted cash yield of 4.7%. In the second quarter, we acquired a strategic site in the I-78/81 corridor of Central Pennsylvania for $83 million. Known as First Logistics Center @ 283, we have begun construction on the 1.1 million sq ft Building A. The site can also accommodate a 700,000 sq ft building, which is permit-ready. This location is proximate to major parcel hubs for UPS, FedEx, and the U.S. Postal Service, where tenants serve strong East Coast consumption zones. Our total projected investment for the first building is $125 million, with completion targeted for the third quarter of 2022 and an estimated cash yield of 5.1%. In summary, these newly announced development starts total 2.5 million sq ft with an estimated investment of approximately $291 million and a cash yield of 5.4%. Including these planned new development starts, our development in process totals 5.7 million sq ft with a total investment of $608 million. At a cash yield of 5.8%, our expected overall development margin on these projects is approximately 50%. We are excited about this robust pipeline and what it means for future cash flow growth. To further bolster our development pipeline, we acquired the remaining 138 acres at our PV 303 joint venture for $21.5 million. This price reflects a $10.2 million reduction from our share of the gain and our earned promote from the joint venture. This purchase closes out a very successful JV, which generated a largely unlevered 54% IRR for the partners and gives us another prime landholding to serve tenants' needs in this high-demand logistics corridor. In addition, just last week, we closed on a 95-acre site in the Inland Empire East submarket of Banning for $27 million that can accommodate up to a 1.4 million sq ft. Vacancy in the Inland Empire East is just around 2%, and there are limited sites that can meet customer requirements in this size range. In total, our balance sheet land today can support more than 12.5 million sq ft of new investments, and our share of the Camelback joint venture is around 3.8 million sq ft. We are very well positioned for future growth. Second quarter building acquisitions were comprised of an 81,000 sq ft distribution facility in Orlando and a 33,000 sq ft regional warehouse in Denver. Total investment was $18.4 million, and the combined stabilized cash yield is 5.6%. Moving on to sales. During the quarter, we sold three properties and one unit for $26.2 million at an in-place cap rate of approximately 5.4%. We also sold one land parcel for $11 million. In total, we have sold $104 million year-to-date and have reached the low end of our sales guidance range of $100 million-$150 million. Before I turn it over to Scott, who will discuss more details on the quarter and our line of credit and term loan executions, let me express my heartfelt thanks to the entire First Industrial team for their hard work and many contributions to our very successful second quarter. With that, let me turn it over to Scott. Thank you, Peter. Let me recap our results for the quarter. NAREIT funds from operations were $0.48 per fully diluted share, compared to $0.40 per share in 2Q 2020, and our same-store NOI growth for the quarter on a cash basis, excluding termination fees, was 2.1%, helped by an increase in rental rates on new and renewal leasing, rental rate bumps embedded in our leases, and lower bad debt expense, slightly offset by a decrease in occupancy and an increase in real estate taxes. Summarizing our leasing activity during the quarter, we commenced approximately 3.5 million sq ft of leases. Of these, 1.1 million sq ft were new, 2 million sq ft were renewals, and 400,000 sq ft were for developments and acquisitions with lease-up. Tenant retention by square footage was 71.1%. Cash rental rates for the quarter were up 15.7% overall, with renewals up 12.1% and new leasing up 22.7%. On a straight line basis, overall rental rates were up 29.5%, with renewals increasing 27% and new leasing up 34.4%. Moving on to the capital side. As Peter mentioned, we closed on two financing transactions this month for which the pricing demonstrates the strength of our balance sheet. First, we amended our line of credit, which was scheduled to expire this October. Our new deal is for $750 million, and it matures in four years with two six-month extension options. The interest rate is LIBOR plus 77.5 basis points, a pricing reduction of 32.5 basis points from our previous facility's credit spread. We also financed our $200 million term loan that was due to mature earlier this month. The new term loan matures in July 2026 and has an interest rate of LIBOR plus 85 basis points. This is a 65 basis point reduction in the credit spread compared to our previous term loan. With our interest rate swaps in place, the new fixed interest rate on the term loan is 1.84%. Given the strength of our credit metrics, the line of credit and term loan provide for pricing at the BBB+/Baa1 level, which is one notch better than our current credit ratings of BBB/Baa2. This favorable pricing will be maintained as long as our consolidated leverage ratio, as defined in the applicable agreements, remains less than 32.5%. We would like to thank our banking partners for their many years of strong support of First Industrial. Reflective of these two executions, the weighted average maturity of our unsecured notes, term loans, and secured financings was 6.5 years with a weighted average interest rate of 3.4%. At June 30th, our net debt plus preferred stock to adjusted EBITDA is 4.9 x. In the second quarter, we paid off $58 million of mortgage loans at an interest rate of 4.85%, which leaves us with no other maturities for the remainder of the year. Moving on to our updated 2021 guidance for our earnings release last evening. Our guidance range for NAREIT FFO is now $1.89-$1.97 per share, with a midpoint of $1.93, which is a $0.03 per share increase at the midpoint, reflecting our second quarter performance and an increase in capitalized interest due to our announced development starts. Key assumptions for guidance are as follows. Quarter end average in-service occupancy of 96%-97%, an increase of 25 basis points at the midpoint. Please note that our occupancy guidance now assumes that the lease up of the 644,000 sq ft former Pier 1 space will occur next year. Due to additional leasing in our portfolio, we were able to essentially backfill more than enough space as an offset and raise our occupancy guidance. Same-store NOI growth on a cash basis before termination fees of 3.75%-4.75%, an increase of 25 basis points at the midpoint due to our second quarter performance. Please note that our same-store guidance excludes the impact of approximately $1 million from the gain from an insurance settlement. Our G&A expense guidance remains unchanged at $33 million-$34 million, and guidance includes the anticipated 2021 costs related to our completed and under construction developments at June 30th, plus the expected third quarter groundbreakings of First Park Miami Building 1, First Loop Logistics Park, and First Steele. In total, for the full- year 2021, we expect to capitalize about $0.07 per share of interest. Other than previously discussed, our guidance does not reflect the impact of any future sales, acquisitions, or new development starts after this call, the impact of any future debt issuances, debt repurchases, or repayments after this call, and guidance also excludes the potential issuance of equity. Let me turn it back over to Peter. Thanks, Scott, and thanks again to the FR team for another great quarter as we continue to achieve success on all fronts. Importantly, our pipeline of future projects is the strongest it's been since the Great Recession, which positions us well to continue to drive long-term growth and value for shareholders and serve the space requirements of our tenants. With that, operator, would you please open it up for questions? We ask that you please limit your questions to one plus a follow-up, and then you're welcome to get back in the queue. Thank you, sir. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one on your telephone. To withdraw your question, press the pound or hash key. Our first question is from Craig Mailman from KeyBanc Capital Markets. Your line is open. Hey, good morning, guys. Could you just discuss a little bit of the prospect activity at the Pier 1 space, and maybe what is it about the building or the sub-market that is kind of elongating the backfill process there? Peter? Sure, Craig. Good morning. It's Peter Schultz. Activity in the sub-market continues to be good. The pipeline for new supply is very limited, and tenants have relatively few choices. The lease signings to date have been in a couple of buildings that were bigger than us, or smaller than us. Our building is positioned for immediate occupancy, which is really important in the environment where we're seeing elongated permitting process and delays on materials. We're ready to go. We've seen a couple of shorter-term deals, and that's not really our preference. Some of the longer-term deals are a little slower moving. We remain optimistic about our success there in the mark-to-market. As Scottie said in his remarks, given the strength of leasing in the portfolio otherwise, that more than offset that. We still have that as upside for the rest of the year, so we'll keep you posted on our progress. Yeah, Craig, even with pushing out that lease up to 2022, we still plan to end the year around 97% occupancy. All things being equal, the lease up of Pier 1 is about 1 percentage point of occupancy. That would push us to about 98%, which is rarefied air in the industrial sector. I guess, Peter, are you guys close with any tenants, or is it like your prospect pipeline is thin at this point? Craig, I would just reiterate there's good activity in the market. We're evaluating a number of things. As I said, our preference would not be to do shorter-term deals, and some of the longer-term deals are just slower moving. We would prefer, Craig, for it to be a single-tenant building as well. The size requirements in the market just need to match up. We just need to find the right match. Okay. That helps. Scott, as we think about your same-store guidance, you guys are running around a little over 2% for the first half of the year. Is it just going to be a big spike in 4Q as you kind of lap the Pier 1 move-out that's just going to get you to the midpoint? Yeah, exactly. If you do the math based upon our annual midpoint guidance of 4.25%, that implies about a 6% same-store growth rate the back half of the year. Craig, you're right. The two main drivers, one is occupancy. We're going to do better on occupancy on the back half of the year, which will add about 2.3 percentage points to the same store. We're also going to do a little bit better on the back end of the year with increasing rental rates on new and renewal leasing. That's about a 0.6% increase compared to the first half of the year, and that takes care of the majority of the beta to get us to the 6% ± that we think we'll achieve the back end of 2021. Great. Thank you. Our next question is from Ki Bin Kim from Truist. Your line is open. Thanks. Good morning, guys. Morning, Ki Bin. Top of... Good morning. You guys have made some pretty interesting investments in the Phoenix market. You obviously bought PV 303, the remaining portion of the land, to 100% ownership, and you have the Camelback land as well. Can you just talk about the supply-demand dynamics in that market, especially given that there seems to be about 23 million sq ft being delivered in that market and only 25% pre-leased? I'm not sure how good these broker reports are, but I just wanted to get your take on it. Sure, Ki Bin. Hi, this is Jojo. Phoenix, I would say, had a record first half in terms of net absorption. It clearly trumped the completions by almost double. First half of the year, year-to-date net absorb is almost 12 million sq ft, which is one of the highest I've seen it in the last 15 years. Again, very big demand. Lot of 3PLs, lot of e-commerce related, a lot of omni-channel. Manufacturers have come in as well, and a lot of demand for data centers. Historically, if you look at what we have, every building that we've developed, we've leased. Actually, either before completion or right after completion, minimal downtime. As you know, we have a 547,000 sq ft on balance sheet development, and expandable to about 925,000 sq ft. We're actually fielding proposals as we speak on that. We've got proposals, and we're looking at our options. Just in terms of even the land that we bought. If you look at that basis, that basis is sub- $4, in fact, about $3.60 per sq ft. I can tell you today, that's about 45%-50% below market. Right off the bat, we believe we're in the money, and we think in the future that will yield... Given the basis of where the rents are today, that should be over 6% easy, in terms of yields. We're very bullish, and we're feeling good about our current investments. By the way, our portfolio there, existing portfolio, is about 98% leased today and goes to 100% pretty shortly. Okay, thanks for that. For you, Scott, I know sometimes you guys give some color on lease spreads for deals that are signed but not commenced yet. When you look at the pipeline of deals that you have currently? The stat that we're seeing is as of today, we've got 84% of the leases that are expiring this year signed. Even so, that coupled with the new leasing that we've done for 2021, we're looking at a cash increase in rent rates of about 14.5%. It's very healthy when you include the renewals, which we've pretty much made it through the year and the new leasing that we've done. Okay, thank you. Our next question is from Rob Stevenson from Janney. Your line is open. Good morning, guys. Can you talk a little bit about the Central P.A. land purchase and the 1.1 million sq ft property you're building there? I mean, the land cost alone is nearly 2 x what you paid on a per acre basis for the Inland Empire parcel. Not used to seeing Central P.A. trading at that big of a premium to the California land. Where should rents be here versus the $5 per sq ft on your existing Central P.A. portfolio? Rob, good morning. It's Peter Schultz. A couple of things. In Pennsylvania, as we've said on prior calls, bigger continues to be better. Demand has been most active and consistent in the 700 million sq ft range and plus. That demand profile has been really strong. When you look at the supply, there's certainly other building today that's under construction in addition to ours in Central Pennsylvania. Very limited choices for tenants with strong demand. The site, as Peter mentioned in the remarks, importantly, a much better labor story than some of the sites, say, along the southern 81 corridor or up in Northeast P.A. We really feel great about that combination of factors and the location. In terms of the price, that's about $46 on an FAR basis, so under the building, which is a site that is fully entitled, permitted, ready to go. We started construction the day after. Jojo can talk about the California site that is going through the entitlement process. We think the opportunity here to create value is quite good with cap rates in that market 3.75% and going lower today. Jojo, you want to talk about? Yes. The Inland Empire East market, I wouldn't want to peg that as market because that's way below market. We got that deal by assembling six parcels to two different sellers. It took us a year off market. Right across the street, there's already a sale that's about 60% above our basis. That didn't hit the market. Thanks to the team, to our L.A. Inland Empire team for getting that deal done, but that's definitely not market. If you look at it, that's under $7 per sq ft. Land prices there, where we have this site, should be closer to mid-teens. You shouldn't use that price as market because that never hit the market. Okay. Second question. The pipeline now is about $500 million. You've got $80-ish million, rough numbers to be completed in the third quarter, and a similar amount of announced starts. You guys have been doing a lot of significant pre-leasing on the pipeline. Do you sit here at the $500 million-ish level, and is that where you're comfortable today? Do you let that drift up as demand pulls you in that direction? Does it fall back to a more sort of $350 million-$400 million-ish? As you look forward, how should we be thinking about the pipeline? Yep. Hi, it's Peter. Look, we can build about 12.5 million ft on land that we own. That doesn't include the $291 million we talked about today. That's net of that. That's about $1.3 billion worth of investment. We also control land where we can invest another $320 million, and our share of the Camelback JV is about another $340 million of investment. If you add all that up, again, net of the $291 million we talked about today, that's pushing $2 billion of investment. You can see that our volumes are up today. I think going forward, you can expect our development volumes to be higher than they have been historically. Don't forget, our company is much larger now today than it was even two or three years ago. The numbers that you're quoting are probably closer to the go forward than the historical levels. Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Our next question is from Caitlin Burrows from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Hi. Good morning. Just a follow-up on that last one, I guess given the land bank that you have and that investment opportunity that you have. What keeps you from moving forward more quickly? Is it just things take time to assemble, or is there anything else that is keeping you from moving more quickly? Well, every single project has a story and a timeline. It's really just working through that. The entitlement process takes a long time. We do face, as everyone else does, potential delays with commodity inputs. As you know, there are shortages on steel and other commodity inputs. That influences the timing. You know we have a speculative development and leasing cap. We have to manage that. We want to make sure that we continue to lease these new developments in a timely way. Building is great. If you don't lease the buildings, that's not good. So far, as you've seen, we're way ahead of schedule or ahead of pro forma on the lease-up of many of these projects, where they're being leased at or near completion in some cases before we even go vertical. The market's very, very strong where we own these great sites, and we're going to continue to roll them out as they're ready to go. Got it. Okay. Maybe, yes, you could just talk a little bit on what types of tenants you're seeing the most interest from and how deep that is, and if there's any visibility to how long you think that deep demand can continue for them supporting those leasing spreads that you were talking about earlier. Peter and Jojo, you want to add some color there? Sure. Hey, Caitlin. Demand is very good across markets, and space sizes. The most active industries would include transportation and logistics companies, e-commerce, food and beverage, consumer products, some apparel, some home building, home improvement. It continues to be very, very good. Tenants need space, and we continue to see a lot of activity across the portfolio. Jojo? Nothing really major to add, existing tenants are not necessarily new or just reconfiguring their supply chain because their online business is continuing to increase. They just need to add more space. Hey, Caitlin, it's Peter again. We're not seeing any slowdown, to your question, of demand at all. Got it. Okay, great. Thank you. Our next question is from Michael Carroll from RBC Capital Markets. Yeah, thanks. Can you guys provide some color on, I guess, current market rents and how has that changed, I guess, over the past three to six months? Maybe highlight what type of rents that you're able to achieve on the 1.2 million spec development leasing this quarter versus underwriting. If you could provide details on that, would be great. You guys want to talk about market rents? Sure. For the first half of the year, market rents accelerated at one of the highest paces over the three- or five-year period. I would say the range would be 5%-15%. It's hard to pick a number because it's different to market- by- market. Towards the higher range would be West Coast, immediately behind that would be East Coast markets, and then everything in between in terms of rent growth. It's been very, very robust. The thing is that what's happened in the market for the first half of the year is that supply did not meet the demand, and that's why there is a squeeze. Mike, it's Peter. In terms of underwriting in general, all of the projects have leased earlier at higher rents, at lower cost. As we've talked about, we've had a couple that took a little bit longer, but in general, we've beat our underwriting across the board. Great. Can you update us on maybe the development margins that you've achieved, I guess, on the developments that were stabilized in the end of 2020? Maybe, I don't know if you've provided these numbers yet, but on the developments that are in process right now that are 100% leased, I guess how are those trending, or where are those at right now? Sure. Like Peter Baccile said, that out of the $605 million of development under construction at the end of the quarter, plus the newly announced developments, our margins there is roughly 50%. If you look at the recently announced, they're closer to the low 40s, still significantly above our targeted margins. In terms of trending, I would say that overall, first half of this year compared to first half of last year, the margins have compressed a bit, and here's the reason why. Number one, land costs. Land prices have gone up and construction costs have gone up. The impact of that was much overweighed, basically over-compensated by rental rate increases across markets and cap rate compression. You have some margin compression, little bit, but then that's primarily overweighed by the rental rate increases and cap rate compression. Does that answer your question? It does. It's perfect. Thanks. Our next question is from Dave Rodgers from Baird. Your line is open. Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Just wanted to ask about size ranges in terms of where rent growth is at. If you mentioned it, I missed it, and I apologize, I can go back. Can you talk about maybe some broad size ranges and how rent performance has been or trended even since the beginning of the year? Dave, this is Chris. As far as from a size perspective, it's been pretty broad-based across all our size ranges. We're seeing healthy increases, double-digit plus increases across all our size ranges. Yeah, I think the slight difference in the last quarter, I don't know if you asked this question or somebody else did. I think last quarter we would've said rents were growing a little bit faster in the smaller spaces. That's pretty much leveled out now, and the larger spaces are growing pretty quickly as well. No, it's pretty much back to parity. Okay. That helps. Has that changed what you're seeing in terms of maybe cap rate compression, either between sizes or what we've seen, I guess, year-to-date from a market-by-market perspective? I think there's been some greater compression either in Bs and center of the country assets, it sounds like maybe. Would that also be starting to hit some parity, do you think? Are you still seeing some differences in performance on cap rates? Dave, hi, it's Jojo. In terms of cap rate compression, it's across the board. The investors for all sizes of real estate increase. You have the large portfolio buyers and the one-offs. They're very fierce. There's so much capital across the broad spectrum of sizes, and the capital also is across either acquisition, lease, redevelop, or development opportunities. There's basically competition on every part and size of the market today in industrial. I'd say cap rates have probably come in based on, depending on the market, primary versus secondary, kind of 25 basis points-50 basis points. 50 basis points. About, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for that color. Peter Baccile, I think you mentioned the comment of development being larger going forward, sizing up with the company. Maybe we'd argue on this number. One thing you haven't really sized up is the disposition program, I think, relative to the size of the company. As you accelerate here development this year, and it sounds like into next year and continue to have success, should we start to think about an increased level of asset sales repositioning even more aggressively than you have been and funding development that way? Do we think about it more from an equity perspective? I think the timing of sales and the volume of sales, there are a lot of different inputs. One is certainly the position of the particular asset that we're focused on, whether they're fully leased. We're looking to obviously maximize value on those assets. The volumes, I think, going forward are going to be closer to that $100 million-$150 million range than maybe a few years ago when we were selling $225 million, $240 million. That can change. Sometimes we get some unsolicited offers that we can't refuse on assets that maybe we didn't have at the top of our list to dispose of, in which case we'll take that opportunity to dispose of those assets. We're not going to probably move up the disposition volume like we are the development pipeline, is really the answer to your question. Thanks. I appreciate that. Scott, one for you on bad debt. Can you tell us what that was in the quarter and the impact? I think you said it did have a positive impact on same- store. That's been the case, I guess, for kind of many years now, but can you give us an update on that? Yeah. Dave, it was effectively zero for the second quarter, which means for the first six months of this year, it's zero bad debt expense. Credit metrics are doing fabulously. That added about 17 basis points to our same- store, which is one of the reasons why we increased our guidance. Very good showing, very low bad debt. All right. Thank you for that. Last one, I'm just going to go back to Pier 1. Is that a long-term hold asset for you guys if you get it leased up? I guess, going back to Craig's very first question is, does it have the parking, the truck courts, the height, the column spacing that you want in a building long term? It's Peter Schultz, Dave. We really like that sub-market, as we've talked about on prior calls. High barriers, supply-constrained. We look at all of our assets. As we say, asset management's an ongoing basis, so we'll continue to evaluate that. We like that sub-market. The assets are very functional. There's this one and the one next to it, which is a little bit smaller, certainly meet the market and compete favorably. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Our next question is from Vince Tibone from Green Street. Hi, good morning. I had a follow-up on kind of your disposition commentary. I'm just curious, given the strength of the transaction market, why not be a little bit more active on property sales, not because you necessarily need the funds, but more to expedite the portfolio goals about going more coastal and then less flex that you laid out at the last investor day? Yeah. We certainly think about that a lot. Good question. The nature of the buyers for what we're selling are typically focused on one-off deals. Maybe they buy a couple at a time. Users buy about 30% of these assets that we're selling. You have the 1031 buyer who is active in these assets, and then you've got the local regional high-net-worth family offices who are also actively looking at the assets that we're selling. They don't really lend themselves to big portfolios. The way that we can maximize the present value of those assets is to sell them the way we have. It doesn't mean that we don't consider from time to time trying to pull some together and taking a look at the market that way. We evaluate all the potential options, and so far, the way we've been doing it has really been the best way to maximize value. Is it possible to increase volumes in this kind of the way you're doing it? Or you think kind of this $100 million-$ 150 million range is I don't know, just maybe from a human capital perspective, all you're able to dispose of if you're doing it one at a time? No, we have the resources internally to handle a bigger portfolio sale. If you've seen in the last five years, we've sold two, $200 million- $230 million at a crack, so that's not an issue. We're just, again, trying to maximize value and pace it out to do so. Got it. That's helpful color. That's all I have. Thank you. The only thing I'd say is that as we have done that and been patient with those sales, the pricing has gotten better and better and better over time, and the leasing status in those assets has gotten better over time. Next question? Again, if anyone would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone. Our next question is from Mike Mueller from JP Morgan. Your line is open. Yeah. Hi. I guess on the acquisition side. It seems like you occasionally do something large, but you knock out a lot of 20,000 sq ft- 60,000 sq ft buildings. On the development side, you tend to see a lot of 100,000 sq ft- 500,000 sq ft. I'm curious, what's driving that disconnect? Is it just you're seeing better economics on acquisitions of smaller buildings or because of fewer bidders? Jojo, do you want to take that? Mike, a couple of reasons. One is that exactly. When you're going a little bit smaller size, you're competing to hopefully less well-capitalized competition. You might be dealing with less sophisticated sellers, and it's a more fertile ground to do unsolicited or off-market deals. Large sellers typically are well-represented, and they try to do the most efficient process, and therefore, there's almost no value to be generated from those kind of acquisitions. Yeah. Then also, if you notice, we're always trying to increase our infill portfolio. That infill portfolio is a very good strategy. When you go infill, typically the sizes are going to get smaller. If you look at a number of our acquisitions, we do a lot of bolt-ons. What do we mean by that? For example, this Denver portfolio, this is Northeast. It's a neighboring property to our bigger development. It's easy for us to get a small profitable deal there. The same thing with our recent acquisition in Orlando. That's close to the properties that we already have. Got it. That makes sense. That was all I had. Thanks. I am showing no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to Mr. Peter Baccile for closing remarks. Thank you very much, and thanks to everyone for participating on our call today. As always, please feel free to reach out to me, Scott, or Art with any follow-up questions, and we look forward to connecting with many of you in the near future. Be well. Thank you, presenters. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.