Greetings, and welcome to Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. third quarter 2023 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Joe Jaffoni, Investor Relations. Thank you, Mr. Jaffoni. You may begin. Thank you, Ranju, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Gaming and Leisure Properties third quarter 2023 earnings call and webcast. The press release distributed yesterday afternoon is available on the Investor Relations section on the company's website at www.glpropinc.com. On today's call, management's prepared remarks and answers to your questions may contain forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements address matters that are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. Forward-looking statements may include those related to revenue, operating income, and financial guidance, as well as Non-GAAP financial measures such as FFO and AFFO. As a reminder, forward-looking statements represent management's current estimates, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in the future. We encourage listeners to review the more detailed discussions related to the risk factors and forward-looking statements contained in the company's filings with the SEC, including its Form 10-Q and in the earnings release, as well as the definitions and reconciliations of Non-GAAP financial measures contained in the company's earnings release. On this morning's call, we are joined by Peter Carlino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gaming and Leisure Properties. Joining Peter will be Brandon Moore, Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel, and Secretary; Desiree Burke, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Steve Ladany, Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer; and Matthew Demchyk, Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer. With that, it's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Peter Carlino. Peter, please go ahead. Well, thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. As always, you will hear from most of our team this morning, though almost everything relevant has been highlighted in our earnings release. However, let me underline at least a couple of accomplishments this quarter. We expanded our footprint with the addition of the Hard Rock Casino in Rockford, Illinois, by signing a 99-year ground lease, generating an initial $8 million in rent. Plus, we've agreed to fund up to $150 million of construction costs at 10%. This construction, you should know, is well underway, and the temporary facility there is doing exceedingly well with great management looking at the Hard Rock group going forward. As you recall, we sold our Hollywood facility in Baton Rouge to Casino Queen, and as part of that sale, we retained the right to design, build, and construct a landside facility, eliminating our old boat. Our $78 million spend will produce a yield of 8.5%. The new casino is doing spectacularly well, and I must say, for the money invested there, to say this is an issue of personal pride, it's a terrific facility, and it's kicking butt. So... But I'll leave to the Queen folks to release the numbers when they're ready to do so. But performance numbers are terrific. As part of managing our design build capability, we hired Jim Baum, who was our head of construction at Penn National during my time there. Our team here with Jim built many ground-up casinos and major projects over the years. So Jim gives us the ability to assess and monitor the flow of money into new projects, or expansion of existing properties, and we have a number of those on the horizon. With that capability in mind, we acquired the land and certain improvements of Casino Queen Marquette, with an annual rent increase to our Queen master lease of $2.7 million, with a commitment of at least $12.5 million for new construction, perhaps more at the property. I should highlight, it's not our goal to become a construction company, but Jim expands our capability to keep an eye on money as it's put out in these construction situations. Brings a great deal of experience. Plus, we are doing more thorough examination of our properties, oversight, understanding, utility costs, some of the things that we need to know these days, and making sure that the major systems are inspected on a periodic basis. Jim runs that process as well. I had suggested over the last couple of quarters that 2023 would be a good year for us, and I think it's going to pan out to be a very good year for us. Looking at our probable pipeline, 2024 should be strong as well. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Desiree. Thank you, Peter. Good morning. For the third quarter of 2023, our total income from real estate exceeded the third quarter of 2022 once again by over $25 million. The addition of the Bally's Biloxi and Tiverton properties drove an increase in cash rental income of about $12 million. The Tropicana Las Vegas land lease increased our cash rental income by $2.5 million. ... The Rockford acquisition increased cash rental income by $700,000. The Casino Queen Marquette acquisition and the Baton Rouge land site development increased cash rental income by $900,000. The recognition of our escalators and percentage rent adjustments on our leases added $2.9 million of cash rent. The combination of higher non-cash revenue gross ups, investment in leases, and straight-line rent adjustments drove a collective year-over-year increase of approximately $6.6 million. Our operating expenses were impacted by the prior year recognition of a one-time gain due to the sale of the Tropicana building and other non-cash increases such as depreciation. We still anticipate an annualized rent reduction in the amended Penn lease percentage rent between $5-$6 million beginning in November of this year, which was negatively impacted by casino closures from COVID during the five-year reset period. We also expect full escalation of $4.2 million annualized on this lease. In addition, $3.5 million of escalation on the Penn 2023 master lease. Also, our Penn amended Pinnacle and Boyd master leases have rent resets occurring on May 1st, 2024. While it is too early to predict with confidence, we expect these resets will increase percentage rent adjustments because the resets that occurred on May 1st, 2022 included months where the casinos were closed due to COVID. From a balance sheet perspective, our pro forma net leverage is at 4.74x EBITDA. We raised approximately $211 million at a net price of $48.24 under our $1 billion at-the-market program this quarter, which we used primarily to fund the Rockford transaction and repay some short-term borrowings. Our current rent coverage ratios remain strong, ranging from $1.96-$ 2.78 on our master leases as of the end of June 30th. We have refined full year 2023 guidance for AFFO per diluted share and OP units to a range of $3.68-$3.69 per diluted share, which now includes the impact of Rockford and the Marquette transactions. Please note that this guidance does not include the impact of future transactions. With that, I'll turn it back to Peter. Okay, thanks, Desiree. Matt, you want to add some comments up front? Sure. Thanks, Peter, and good morning, everyone. Our decision to use our ATM program during the quarter was driven by the health and composition of our investment pipeline. The quarter also presented a unique event with our addition to the S&P 400 MidCap Index. The $200 million that we issued bolsters our offensive capability. Beyond the $100 million in proceeds utilized already for Rockford, the remainder allows capacity for new opportunities. On the topic of new opportunities to grow the portfolio, we remain disciplined, thoughtful, and measured. In this environment, traditional sources of capital are not as abundant and are also proving to be less predictable. At the same time, the value and kind of bespoke solutions that we offer is as relevant as ever. Our recently announced Rockford ground lease is a prime example of what is possible in this environment. A relatively bite-sized $100 million 99-year ground lease at an 8 cap for about 30% of overall development cost, with 2% fixed escalation, would have been unthinkable just 12 months ago, when banks and other providers of capital were much more aggressive. We've, in effect, waited for the world to come our way, and it's beginning to. Over the past year, we have been comfortable waiting to be thrown strikes. Rockford was a strike, and the current environment holds the promise of throwing a few more. We will see. Dialogue with potential counterparties has been healthy around a number of generally smaller potential opportunities, and we remain highly focused on risk-adjusted returns in this environment. As Peter likes to say, "Many are called, and few are chosen." No mention of opportunities would be complete in this environment without a discussion around funding. Our funding philosophy remains the same: do it right and sleep at night. When we approach transaction funding and our overall business model, you can expect to see the same continued discipline around match and pre-funding that results in GLPI locking in transaction accretion for the benefit of our shareholders, and avoiding equity overhang and avoiding what I like to call getting offsides. Our leverage and liquidity are at levels that strengthen and support our business model. With net debt in the high fours, a staggered maturity profile, our next maturity not due until next September, and over $1.8 billion of available liquidity between our revolver and quarter-end cash position. Our balance sheet continues to be a solid foundation for all that we do, and you should expect that to continue. Overall, we remain focused on all aspects of our business with the goal of maximizing long-term intrinsic value per share. We also appreciate the partnership we have with all of our shareholders. Thank you for joining us this morning. I'll turn things back to Peter. Well, thank you, Matthew. Appreciate that. With that, operator, let's open the floor to questions. Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your questions from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment please while we poll for questions.... The first question comes from the line of Craig Mailman with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Hope you're all doing well. Given the broader economic backdrop and elevated interest rates, how is that impacting your underwriting, your targeted cap rates or investment spreads, the types of transactions you'd like to do, and the availability of those deals? And then if you could also just touch on, expected investment spread on, the Rockford deal as well. So our math is putting it at, like, a 30 basis point investment spread, but just thinking about how are you guys thinking about it? Matt, why don't you take that? Well, taking a step back and looking at the macro environment, I mean, clearly rates are up, volatility is up. We see economic and geopolitical forces that make certainty a lot more challenging, and we've got still a lot of money in the system from the printing that the, the Fed did effectively. And our goal is really to be agile and, adaptable to the environment. So we're playing against a new defense, and we need different plays to play. And we still stay resolute in our goal also of maximizing long-term intrinsic value per share. So you've seen a lot of this in the actions we've taken in the previous quarters to position ourselves for an environment like this, getting our balance sheet at the leverage level we've talked about, and also focusing on really the simplicity of match funding, pre-funding, and finding accretion. So, I mean, people seem to detach in conversations where are cap rates, where are funding costs, and for us, it's all about a risk-adjusted spread. And Peter's point on the Rockford transaction, I mean, to have a ground lease to be at that part of the cap stack with an 8% yield out of the gate and a decent spread. So look at the capital we raised during the quarter at 48 handle. You can calculate a spread that's very healthy there, very healthy for our business and value accretive. One thing that seems to be missed in the environment by maybe some is the need to check two boxes with acquisitions, not just the box of initial earnings accretion, but also the box of, does this actually add value to the business over the long run? When you look at the deals we do, there's a lot of subjectivity, qualitative and quantitative factors that go into the latter, and we strongly believe that Rockford checks both boxes. The things that are in our pipeline are generally smaller, so they enable us to be really balanced with our funding, but we ask the same questions, and we have the same goals. Does that answer what you're looking for? Yeah, I think we can get, get what we want out of that. Thanks, Matt. Looking at Queen Baton Rouge, I can appreciate you guys not wanting to disclose, you know, ahead of, ahead of them. It does look like looking at the gross gaming revenue, it was up, like, 85% year-over-year, so pretty, pretty significant jump there. However, they also have the Belle of Baton Rouge, which, you know, saw a bit of a decline year-over-year, and I know Caesars was looking at doing an investment there before selling the property. Just curious what's, what might be happening there. You also bought a couple buildings nearby, so curious what that was for, and then how it even works, in terms of making additional investments there as the assets kind of still under the casino. Sorry, the Caesars master lease, while being owned and operated by Casino Queen. Just any details you can provide would be helpful. I'm going to ask Brandon Moore to speak to that. Brandon's very close to that issue. Yeah. I'll, I guess I'll start with the last part of the question, is whether or not that'll be moved to the Casino Queen lease from the Caesars lease, and the short answer is yes. We, we anticipate moving that property formally over from the Caesars lease to the Queen lease. The thing that was holding that back was a small piece of litigation involving two of the leased properties that's now been resolved, and so we're working to move that property over. The bigger question on what's happening with the Belle, I think, is probably a better question for Bally's than it is... or for Queen, than it is for, for it, for us. But clearly, they've, they've made some-- they have put in an application to do a landside move off the boat into the atrium there at the Belle. I think that's still being evaluated, and we're currently evaluating what our role in that will be, but I think if we can play a role in moving that landside in a way that's accretive to the shareholders, we'll certainly be a part of that. So I think there's more to come on that. We've been focused more on solving the legal issues there and being able to move that property into the Queen Master Lease, and I think we'll be able to do that shortly. Yeah, look, it's right in the sweet spot of what we do, and coming off the heels of a terrific job, I'm patting ourselves and our team on the shoulder for what we did down the road, if you will, with the old Hollywood property. It really is quite exciting, so I invite anybody to go down and take a look. And that's $78 million spent in gaming. So anyway, that—you've got a good answer. We'd love to participate if it fits and fits their desire. Okay, great. Last, last question from me. I'm thinking about your kind of commentary on leverage. How are you thinking about addressing the $400 million term loan coming due next year? Are there any plans to take that out early or address it early, or potentially just pay it off using cash or cash flow or ATM? It's actually a $400 million bond that isn't due until September. Oh, sorry. Yes, it's due on September first of 2024, and all of those are options. I mean, we look at our, you know, cost of borrowing or cost of raising equity on a daily basis, and obviously, we have free cash flow each year. So we haven't concluded at this point that you can stay tuned for that, but know that it's definitely on our radar. Sorry, so is the overall plan to be reducing leverage from here? So we mentioned last call, we're at a steady state place we like, and any incremental deleveraging is really pre-funding opportunities and based on the health of our pipeline. So we're, we're effectively at our sweet spot in this at this level, in this environment. So there's, there's no need to proactively delever for its own sake. It's really to do things offensively. Yeah, Desiree pretty well answered it, that this is an everyday event for us. Look, we're in the finance business, so we're looking at bank, we're looking at bonds, we're looking at equity, and we'll take advantage of any one of the three if they, you know, they line up in our gun sight. So we're going to be opportunistic where we can, but realistic at the same time. All right. Thanks, everyone. Appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Jay Kornreich with Wedbush. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, everybody. I wonder if you can start out giving some commentary around the depth of the buyer pool you're seeing in the regional casino market, and how that may be impacting cap rates holding steady even in this uncertain market, or if the buyer pool is thinning out, which lead to cap rates rising? Steve, you're looking kind of quiet at that end of the table, so what, what? Yeah, look, I think the buyer pool is ever evolving. I feel like the market backdrop as far as the capitalization and the credit markets has changed the players slightly. So the cash buyers who were highly levered and taking advantage of low-cost debt have pulled back some. However, others have started to participate as you've seen with folks like Realty Income. So I think the players might have changed. The game remains the same. I think broadly speaking, everyone involved realizes that cap market cap rates have moved. Whether you're a new entrant, as a buyer or a bidder, or you're an existing and long-standing person like ourselves, you realize that the market is changing and the cap rates need to adjust in order to garner the upfront accretion that Matt mentioned earlier, even though there is the qualitative aspect. And I guess just on that comment, do you have a sense of how much cap rates have already moved, or do you need to see more transaction activity to get a sense of that? I mean, I think you're ultimately gonna, it's gonna be dependent on the, on the transaction, right? There's not a... This isn't cookie cutter. So, you know, we've seen historically, even if you look back before the credit markets have dislocated, you had very, very different cap rates for different assets. We bought an asset in Maryland, from the Cordish folks, and we paid a low cap rate. There was an asset that traded also in Maryland, then, you know, six months later at a materially different cap rate. So it's going to be very dependent on the asset, the market, and things of that nature. But, but I think wholeheartedly, I think the entire marketplace is seeing a shift. Okay. Thanks for that. And if I could just throw in one more. Regarding the construction financing that you guys made some commentary on, specifically with the $150 million development commitment to the Hard Rock Casino development. Is this type of higher interest construction financing something that you guys like, and we should expect to see more so going forward of? And then also just specific to the Rockford, how likely do you foresee that becoming a ROFR going forward? Or using the ROFR, I should say. Who? Okay, Des, do you want to- I mean, obviously, a 10% rate on the construction loan was specific to the Rockford transaction because, you know, it was well underway when we entered into the financing. So whether or not we would do it going forward, sure, it depends on the facts and circumstances as to, you know, which projects we determine to undertake. To answer your question on the ROFR, you know, we negotiated for it specifically. We would like to own the asset someday, but we can't quantify whether that will occur or not. Yeah, yeah. I think, I think the ROFR you should see as what we've said in the past was, we would do these types of loans if there was a segue to property ownership. So in this transaction, we acquired the land, and we negotiated the ROFR so that if the building changes hands, we would have the ability to, to potentially acquire that building. I think that we're somewhat uniquely positioned in this area to underwrite a, a loan like this, because as you've seen in Baton Rouge, and if you look back to the history at Penn National, now Penn Entertainment, we have significant development expertise here with Jim and Peter and others, that I think we're confident in underwriting that type of a loan. So in Rockford, we were pretty confident with the Hard Rock team, the ownership team, and the ability to get that casino constructed. So you may see more of that from us, but it'll be thoughtful, and it'll depend on each project and what it brings to the market and what we view the risk of the construction to be. Think of it, Jay, as a tool in our tool chest to provide an even more holistic, one-stop solution for a counterparty. Okay, that all makes sense. Thanks so much for the time, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Barry Jonas with Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Good morning. There's been some commentary this quarter on macro pressures for the operators, and I think we all understand how safe your rent streams are, but wondering how you're thinking about the current, current environment there. I guess I'm curious if it's influencing any of your deal discussions. ... Who wants to grab that one? Question is, how the macro environment plays in? Yeah, I- Look, we have to be continually careful. The odds, the volatility is higher, and the odds of things moving are more significant. But there's more natural openings for folks to need, again, solutions from folks like us. And if they need money or they're in an environment, development, redevelopment, something they need to do, the reality is that cost of funding for everyone's moved up. But as a counterparty, we're uniquely positioned to try and meet their needs. So that, that's bleeding into all the conversations we're having with folks. Yeah, let me- Go ahead. Oh, go ahead, Steve. Yeah, I was just gonna add on a deal-specific or property-specific underwriting, though, Barry, I think to your question, I think we are comfortable that the gaming revenues have held in pretty well. Obviously, the commentary coming out of some of the operators' calls is that their costs are escalating. And so I think when we look at the underwrites, we're scrutinizing the ultimate cash flow that's coming out of those assets and the surety and stability of that number and whether there'll be a deterioration as costs continue. So what I guess I'm saying, a long way of saying, we're very focused on the rent coverage upfront and ensuring that we feel comfortable with it longer term. Great. That's, that's really helpful. And then just for a follow-up question, can you maybe just give us an update on next steps for Tropicana? And I'm curious if you have any thoughts you can share on what might drive you to allocate more capital there than what you've outlined so far. Brandon, why don't you take that? We all have a thought around the table, but why don't- Yeah, I, I think Tropicana is a process largely driven by the A's and Bally's at the moment. And, and as the landowner there, we have a unique interest in making sure that the value of what we, of what we own there is preserved. And, and then I think to your question as to how much we might participate, you know that we-- I think we already disclosed that we've committed to a minimum investment number to help demolish and clear the site and to do a little bit of shared infrastructure. As to whether or not we decide to invest more into that project, I think it really depends on how the project comes together. We're sort of waiting to see what the A's put out in their stadium design, and then we will work with Bally's and the A's to determine what the casino resort might look like. When the time comes for us to make a decision as to whether or not to invest, we'll do that based on the project and what we see in front of us at that time. I do think there will be an opportunity for us to invest more, but it's way too early in the process for us to make any sort of commitment on that now. Perfect. Yeah. Said it best. All right. Thank you so much, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho. Please go ahead. Hey, thank you for taking my question. So my question has to do on non-gaming. We saw one of your peers execute another non-gaming deal in the bowling sector here. I'm curious if that's something you would have considered and how differently perhaps you would underwrite non-gaming investments versus conventional gaming investments today. Thanks. You know, our answer has been pretty much the same for years. We look at everything. We've looked at bowling. I mean, I'm being very direct and just decided in particular transactions, that it just didn't fit what we're looking for. Look, I think the best answer is we'll continue to look. So long as we can find the kind of transactions that we're finding in the gaming sphere, and you've seen a couple right in front of you that we've presented today, we're gonna stick with that. It's what we do. It's what we do best. I've always said someday, maybe we'll be someplace else, but we're not in a hurry to jump into bowling or frankly, anything else, unless it makes such terrific sense that we could sit here with a straight face and say, "This is a fat, fat deal, solid, solid, solid." I mean, you know what our criteria are. And so would we have done that transaction? Look, I can't, you know, I can't speak for somebody else, but we look at everything. Matt used my favorite line, actually, probably from the Bible. "Many are called, but few are chosen." And that's kind of the way we operate here. Haendel, pound for pound, you look at—we think the dollars we put into Rockford eclipsed the upside of anything we saw outside of gaming in the past quarter. If we found something that was better, you would have seen some sort of headline on it. But remember, we have to sell a piece of our portfolio every time we buy something new in the form of our equity. And if we're not getting a better return on that incremental capital and also doing something we think is going to increase intrinsic long-term value per share, we're not going to do it. We don't mistake activity for progress. We're very methodical in the way we think about things. Yeah, I'm not saying we're right versus somebody else, but it's kind of the way we operate. We take a- I appreciate- We only take the long, the long view. It's good being in a world where there's a short list of bidders. I mean, once you start getting outside of gaming and some of the more traditional triple-net opportunity set, the list of folks bidding on it is greater. Typically, the price efficiency is greater, and the opportunity for alpha from the kinds of things we bring to the table is less, generally. Appreciate that context and color. Maybe then, what is your... How do you view the, the right investment hurdle? What, what is your current hurdle rate today in light of the current environment? I mean, we hate to quote a number because every situation is different. You can kind of back into what we did in Rockford, and it's very healthy spread for that set of circumstances and that quality of cash flow. And we want to mimic things that have- ... some similarity to that spread, but we can't. Look, we are the price discovery for some of the deals in our pipeline right now. We can't really negotiate openly on our calls around what the appropriate spread is. We can tell you with confidence, more is better than less. We try for every basis point we possibly can get. It has to check both boxes. It has to be initially earnings accretive and long-term value accretive. That having been said, you know, we're not always the low bidder. I mean, frankly, that's not our goal. Our goal is to provide a complete answer to the needs of our clients. And sometimes it's pricing, but more often it is an assembly of things that we can bring to the table that others can't. And I think the Queen deal in Baton Rouge is illustrative of that. Certainly, certainly. One minor follow-up. I appreciate the comments on the balance sheet earlier, but it wasn't clear, kind of where you guys felt the right target leverage range was in the current environment. I think the deputy, but not today, is 4.7, really good, really low. Where should we see that migrate to? How do you think about the, the, the right target leverage range today? Thanks. Well, we've for a long time pointed out 5-5.5 as the target range over time, and we've also said more recently that we're very comfortable being near, at, around, or below the lower end of that range, given the environment. But remember, that gives us capacity to be opportunistic, and you may, in certain situations, see us get closer to the bottom end of that range for the right opportunity and the right situation. We've got optionality, and I'd, I'd expect to see us toward the lower end of that range over an intermediate period of time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Daniel Guglielmo with Capital One Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. So, on the operator side, it's pretty clear that growth from an organic perspective in the brick-and-mortar is gonna be a little tougher near term, and management teams may need to spend a little more to get growth there. Have you been getting additional inbound calls around financing, that kind of stuff, or more, or maybe moving up the timeline of any projects already in the pipeline? Probably relates to the hiring of Jim, too. Steve, do you wanna talk about that? Yes, sure. No, I think you're correct, that as the capital markets have become more difficult to navigate, most of the gaming operators are not normally issuers of equity, and they've traditionally leaned on the high yield market to access additional funds. So, rewind two years, when people were gonna build or contemplate a new hotel tower, they were gonna fund it themselves at a cheaper cost of capital than I would have offered. Fast-forward to today, and the exact opposite is true. So we have had. I think there's two things: One, the operators have a renewed interest in investing in their properties to try to drive growth, because I think the external growth pipelines are a little more challenging right now. And secondly, I think they're much more open and willing to have conversations with us around potential funding source, especially in properties we already own with them. So yeah, the velocity of those conversations has definitely picked up. Great. Great, thank you. And then just around the Bally's relationship and thinking about the Lincoln option, do you all think that can still happen next year? Or is that gonna be, like, the option went out to 2026. Is that gonna be kind of later? I know there's a lot of moving pieces with the Bally's debt, but just kind of thinking about it from, like, a modeling perspective, I'm not sure we can see it. Thank you. Yeah, so I think, look, we pushed it out to 2026 in our negotiations, mainly because we don't have clarity, right? They're not our lenders that are holding up the ability for them to do it. So we didn't really have clarity. We are cognizant of the maturity date on that on their revolver, and therefore we did look to move that timing out such that if that debt gets refinanced and that prohibition is removed, we feel comfortable and confident that we would have then an opportunity to complete the sale-leaseback transaction. So we don't have any insight into the timing or any insight into updated conversations, which may or may not even be happening with their lenders. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Chad Beynon with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Morning. Thanks for taking my question. Morning. Yeah. Yeah. Just in terms of destination versus regional, Peter, I know you've talked about this a lot. Regional, obviously, being more resilient during different times of the cycle, but hitting kind of a near-term ceiling right now. Destination, i.e., Vegas, really capitalizing on the inflation, pricing environment, but having more cyclicality. Has anything changed just in terms of how you're thinking about, you know, the 20-year- 30-year long-term lease opportunities and kind of the spreads between regional and destination? Thanks. That's a fair question. I, I don't think much has changed because it varies property to property, you know. How secure is that, is property in a given market? ... I'm just picking one that jumps in my head, the Cordish property in Maryland, for example. That thing is a rock solid, you know, the Penn property at Charlestown. You can look at a handful of regional properties that, for unique reasons, are gonna be strong today, are gonna be strong tomorrow. We're not in Las Vegas. If we saw more opportunity in Las Vegas, you'd probably see us, and we do poke around there as well. We're not, we're not opposed to owning property on the Strip or elsewhere in Nevada, and we do look at things there on a routine basis. But it just gets down to, can we add value? Pretty much Matt's mantra: Can we add value, long-term value for shareholders? I really don't care what it is, and you've heard me say before, and it's actually kind of serious, that, you know, I'd own a shack on the beach with no windows and doors if the revenue from that, because I don't care much about asset quality. I'm being a bit facetious. What we care about is income quality. How secure is that income now and 30 years, 40 years, 50 years from now? That's what matters, and that, that's the only thing that drives us, no matter where it is or what it is. Thanks. Appreciate it. And then, as we think about the, I guess, the purchase price, size of opportunities, obviously, Rockford, circa $100 million. You know, you've had others in the, in the last year or two that were kind of in the, you know, $500 million-$1 billion range with, with Tiverton and, and, and Cordish. As we think over the next couple of years, should we expect more of, kind of these bite-size, opportunities, the, the circa, you know, $100 million-$500 million, or do you, do you still think there's opportunities out there that are, that are, north of that? Thanks. It's tough to see out 2-3 years, but in the relatively short term, we certainly see a robust opportunity set in that $100 million-$500 million range. After that, I mean, this environment has to season before we see kind of larger mega deals. That said, that can change. Thanks, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of David Katz with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thanks for working me in. Morning, David. Morning. So I wanted to just talk more about the Trop site, which, you know, I think one of the earlier questions may have touched on whether, you know, this $175 million, like, what the ceiling on where that could go is. I assume that once the property does shut, right, the rent is suspended, or do they continue paying rent, you know, anyway? Rent goes on forever. Rent, rent is forever. Goes on forever. Got it. Yep. But in terms of where the boundary is as to what you would consider participating in, is there a boundary? And, you know, presumably, the outcome of whatever you do participate in is going to be rent-based, not, you know, operating-based at the end of the day, correct? Oh, absolutely. Look, there's no—it almost relates to the last question. There's no real limit. I mean, we do a $5 billion deal, but is money available? Can we do it with a proper spread? Project going to get a return. Yeah, it all gets down to the same issue. So we haven't seen yet where this is gonna go. The script is not written in at the Trop site. We have an interest in, obviously, the long-term plan there to preserve the value of what we've got. We could do something more, but we haven't seen that yet. We're well ahead of where that is, so we'll have to see. Anything's possible, but the same criteria applies. Right, at the end of the day. Okay. Yeah. That's it for me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, David. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Smedes Rose with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks. I just was wondering, you talked about this on the last quarter call a little bit. Is there any sort of update from Penn in terms of their plans and your, would you still expect to put capital towards those projects next year that they talked about? I think you said you'd bought some lands in the last quarter in Aurora. I'm just wondering if there's anything on that that you can speak to. Nothing certain. I can say, because I've been in touch with some of the architecture or the architects doing work for these projects, that they are going full speed ahead with design and so forth. So precise timing, we don't have. We really don't. Maybe we need to get on the phone, give them a call, just for fun, and say, "What's up? What's your, what's your timing?" But we, we know that they're committed to those projects and, but timing, I, I don't have. Anybody around the table have a better sense? I don't have a better sense of timing as far as our fund draws. I mean, I think Penn has said that those projects are moving forward, and we don't have any reason to believe that they're not. So I think it's just a matter of where they decide or when they decide to draw our funds, and I think you can look at the market and their borrowing rates. And, we're trying to stay in close contact with them so that if there's a change in the timing and the need for those funds, that we would have advance notice of that, but I'm not aware of anything specific that's changed their timing at the present time. But we're looking forward to it, so we're expecting it somewhere down the road. ... Okay, that's it for me. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, Smedes. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Connor Siversky with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Good morning out there. Thanks for taking my questions. First, I want to start on labor. I mean, just across labor-intensive businesses in the U.S., we've seen a ton of strike activity over the last year or so, and, you know, I'm wondering where this sits on the spectrum of risk for GLPI, and then whether or not higher labor expenses are making their way into your underwriting framework as you address future opportunities. Well, look, well, that one advantage of having 61 properties now in our portfolio, that we can have. I I used to say that our revenues are largely bulletproof, and I think they are. And then I used to say, it would take an atomic attack to really threaten our business. We actually had one, called COVID, the equivalent of a neutron bomb that shut down properties coast to coast. But let's hope that that's a one-time aberration that we'll never see in our lifetime again. And again, then we look to the distribution of our incomes across the portfolio. Again, master lease means a lot in that case. So I don't think there's anything on the horizon that we find threatening. Anybody around the table have a different view? I mean, I agree that it has impacted our tenants, but it hasn't impacted our rent. Our rent is fairly fixed across our portfolio. So, and you're right, you have to consider their margins when you're doing the underwriting, but we definitely do that. And as we said, we have really strong rent coverage still at every property. So it, you know, hasn't impacted us, and it will first impact the tenant before it will impact GLPI. Yeah. One of the advantages we have is that we're gaming people. That's kind of who we are. So that we when we look at these markets, we know them. We spent, you know, decades understanding them. So that I, I do think we bring an understanding of risk and location and all the things that we consider as part of our underwriting. Yeah, right. Understood. And just to clarify, I'm asking that question in the context of rent coverage, but understand your points there. And then second, maybe just taking a more abstract look at the world, but you know, a couple of interesting things in net lease earnings this week. So, you know, on one end, you had to re-temper expectations. They're not really penalized by investors. On the other end, we saw some accretive transactions take place that, you know, were not well received. So, you know, from the perspective of GLPI, as we look into 2024, you know, is there any sense out there that it could make sense to put on the brakes? You know, even if accretion is apparent, if it's just not, you know, not an asset where you're comfortable taking on that kind of risk. Then maybe specifically, if we look at Bally's, for example, I mean, we have an operator that seems to have a challenged cap, cost of capital. There are expansion plans that need to be funded. So, you know, does this open up the door for GLPI to become the preferred funding source? You know, and maybe a couple attractive opportunities on that end. And then maybe taking it a step further, is it worth taking on a degree of what could be perceived as corporate-level risk for assets that are performing well at the property level? I'll take the first part, Connor. I mean, we live with a foot over the gas and a foot over the brake. The last year, I mean, someone asked last call, "It's been 12 months, why didn't you do anything?" And I'll say here, one of the deals that we didn't get, we were exact same cap rate, but we wanted more coverage to your question about how do you think about risk. We're-- we've been-- we've done it before it was popular or in fashion, so that, that mentality is not going to change in this environment. And I suspect, we did Rockford not long ago, and every feedback item we heard was positive because it checked both boxes, not just the myopic short-term GAAP accretive, but people agreed with us, this is long-term accretive to the value of your company. Thanks for doing this. When you think about smaller deals that we kind of bite-size, match fund in a balanced way, I'd expect to have similar responses as long as the risk profile fits what we're mandated to try and find. I'll give Peter the second piece. Go ahead. What were you going to say, Steve? Oh, well, so I'll try, I'll try to answer two and three, and then people can, people can help, help out where needed. So the second question was around Bally's and opportunities of funding. Look, I think, I think with respect to development transactions, whether it's Bally's, Rockford, player to be named later, I, I think we're—we look at these things, twofold. One is, how do we reduce the construction risk? So we're going to look at, you know, what's our level of oversight? Do we have a seat at the table to help make decisions, monitor the budget? How closely can we be to kind of foot in the door on the ground and, and at the table to, to control the budgeting experience? Secondly, we have obviously a lot of experience between Jim and Peter and the rest of the team here. And then lastly, you know, we're going to look at contractual and procedural protections to make sure that we have, you know, everything buttoned up so that there are no surprises and there's no budget bust or overrun or something of that nature. Now, once we get through all that, if it still somehow makes sense and we can feel comfortable that the risks are manageable, then we have to get a commensurate return to balance that and offset that risk. So I think it's a large process. I'm giving you a secure, circuitous answer, that until we do all that work and can get our head and hands around all of that information on any development project, I could not tell you whether something makes sense or doesn't make sense. Rest assured, if we get to the point where we feel comfortable with the risk and we feel like the return we're getting is commensurate with the risk, then, you know, you'll probably hear about the transaction. So that's kind of how we go about the underwriting process on the development side. With respect to a corporate deal versus a property-level deal, I mean, I think right now, there are a number of gaming companies that are seeing their share prices impacted by things that are at the corporate level, whether it be growth opportunities, interactive opportunities, and the like. And I think in many of those cases, if you look at our master lease performance, we have very strong rent coverage. So I think in situations where we're comfortable with the underlying properties and who's running them and how they run them and the future long-term cash flow prospects, we are comfortable, you know, still transacting on those bases. I think, though, it depends on the corporate level, you know, depends on what's going on in the corporate level. I don't think we're-- you're gonna see us run into a burning, burning building. If there's a pending bankruptcy coming, I'm not sure how, how quickly or eager we're gonna be to step in and buy a property because it, it's covering at 2.5 times, only to find ourselves going through some process. I think it depends on the pendulum of opportunity where, where things sit. Ultimately, we're underwriting the assets we own. We're comfortable with the assets we own, and one of the things we consider when we look at transactions is: Would someone else be willing to run these properties and operate these properties and step into this lease if this party that we're, we're currently working with was no longer there? And so if that's a yes, then it makes the underwriting decision significantly different. All right. Thanks for the color there. Good luck to you all. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Robin Farley with UBS. Please go ahead. Great, thanks. A lot of my questions have been asked already. I guess just circling back to the issue of potential non-gaming, can you describe a little bit more? You said you looked at something, and it wasn't really a fit for you. Is there any more color on kind of what made it not a fit for your goals? And then were you suggesting... You made a comment about when there are a lot of bidders for something that it's, you know, not necessarily something that you'd end up doing. Are you suggesting that that was the case for that non-gaming transaction, or I didn't know if that comment was unrelated. Thanks. Probably, probably, Robin, unrelated. Look, I don't like auctions. I just speak for myself around the table, whether it's art, whether it's cars, whether it's anything. I like to say the winner loses, and I think often that is the case. So to say I'm high bidder in for any one of those things, including, I wouldn't take as a point of pride that we paid the most for any property of any type. So look, we, I think, do business around our, Matt has the best word for it, our bespoke offerings, the ability to provide something that our clients want that maybe somebody else can't provide. It's a package of things, and I think we do that extraordinarily well. But just a straight up, we're gonna bid the highest price for almost anything, that just doesn't in our DNA. Not saying we wouldn't do it under some circumstances, but it's certainly not our goal first, second, or third. It just isn't. With respect to other properties, no, I don't think we've lost a bid or anything like that on any other group of assets. Look, we've looked at golf courses, we've looked at every possible entertainment on the planet, and we've been doing it year in, year out. Just haven't seen anything that gives us the kind of secure comfort that we get from the stuff that we present to you today. And if we run out of that stuff, I don't know, maybe we'll, well, we'll deal with that if we ever get there, but so far, that hasn't happened. In fact, we're very encouraged by what we see as our pipeline and portfolio of opportunities right now. So we're gonna stick close to our knitting. We'll look at other stuff. We do it almost every week, but, we haven't seen it. Is that fair, gang? Look, I mean, when we look outside of gaming, the goal is not to focus on just experiential. It's to find durable cash flows that have some strategic tie-in to what we do currently. And if you look at the continuum of consumer discretionary from one extreme staple to the other extreme, totally, it's discretionary. Regional gaming tends to be about as staple as it gets. I mean, you can look at the resilience of the cash flows of our underlying company to start with overall, and it's really hard to find that on a risk-adjusted basis outside of gaming. I think that's the point you keep hearing from us. We know what it looks like. We do it in our day job all the time, and to the extent we see something that adds to that, we're happy to do it, but it's a tall task. Okay. Or at least it has been. Very helpful. I mean, the opportunity for alpha within gaming, when you think about where cap rates are and how durable the cash flow is, there's still a fundamental mispricing in the market. It has been institutionalizing, but it's not there yet. And at some point, maybe it will be, and maybe this math is the opposite, and maybe you do see us do more to Peter's point, but we're still somewhere mid-innings in that, in that curve. Yeah, let me add this, Robin. We're not opposed to doing something outside of gaming, by no means at all, and maybe we'll know it when we see it. But if we get on a call like this, and we've done something else, I wanna be able to have the greatest confidence on the planet that the story we're telling you is a terrific one, and we just haven't seen that opportunity. Okay. All right, great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, you have Jenny Li for Ron, good morning. Just two quick ones for me. I think the first is, if we just dig in on the pipeline right now, like, in this even higher, like, rate environment, do you think that's even slower, your conversations in the last quarter? That said, if the deal conversations are going right now, is this still on the same pace, or every party rather wait a little bit longer to continue? Like, any color on that would be helpful. Thanks. Steve, you gonna take that or Matt? Is the question if conversations have slowed? I'm sorry. Yeah. I wasn't following. Like, even slower in the last quarter, or do you think, like, all the conversations you have ongoing right now is still on the same pace or? Yeah. No, I think... Look, I think the markets obviously cause people to kind of react, I think, at a little more measured pace. So I think there's probably some truth to the fact that things are moving a little slower, and people are constantly reevaluating where things sit and where things stand. So I don't disagree with that. I think that's accurate. Nice. The second one is a follow-up question about the refinancing. I'm seeing, like, the current interest rate on that $400 million is only 3.35%. Given this higher for longer environment, like, think about 2024, like, from a modeling perspective, like, how should I think about the potential, let's say, interest rate headwind on AFFO in 2024 or even 2025? Any color on that will be helpful. Thank you. I mean, if we were to refinance it with a 10-year, we're talking mid-sevens. So you're right. Obviously, our cost- Right. Yep of borrowing, like everyone else, is going up. Yeah. If I think about, like... Yep. Yeah, right. Yeah, maybe the market will give our equity the price it deserves, and we'll raise a lot of cash that way. Look, I said earlier today that we look, this is a tough environment for everybody in the borrowing world. We look at equity, we look at bank debt, we look at bond debt, and it's an everyday process. I mean, literally, random. People are wandering around the halls among this group here saying, "Where's the window?" We're not gonna hold out for the unimagined. You know, we're gonna be opportunistic as we see best, but we're also gonna be practical. So we're gonna pick that point along the way that seems to make the most sense for us. Really thinking about where it is, we want the lowest prices, you know, however we get there, and only time will tell just where that's gonna go. But look, we keep an eye on that. Yep. Every day. Yeah, that makes so much sense. Yep. Thank you so much, Peter. Yep. Yeah, and by the way, your guess is probably as good as ours, of where we might end up, so. Yes, makes sense. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of RJ Milligan with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Just two quick ones. First is, what is the expected impact of the rent reset on the Penn Master lease coming up here in a few days? Right. So, we gave you that in my introductory points. We expect it to be between $5 million and $6 million of a rent reset down for Penn. Okay, thanks. And then what is the expectation for internal growth for 2024, just sort of based on the rent escalations? Right. So the maximum escalation that we can get in any year is around $20 million. Okay. That's it for me. Thanks, guys. Operator, I think we'll take just one more call. We're past 11 o'clock, and I think it's time to wind things up. I'm sorry if we have to cut somebody off, but do you have anyone else on the line? Next question, Mr. Milligan, are you done with your question? Yes, I'm all set. Thanks. All right. Next question comes from the line of Chris Darling with Green Street. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Good morning. Thinking about the Marquette transaction and given that you now own all of Casino Queen's assets, can you help me understand how you think about the holistic risk of owning the entire portfolio of a single operator? And I suppose the flip side of that is, you know, you might also benefit from incremental growth opportunities given that deep relationship. So just any thoughts there would be helpful. The quick answer is, if they're doing well and have demonstrated they're capable of running these properties, successfully, we're thrilled to have it all. Want every last dime of their, opportunity. So far, I think I could say with some confidence, they're doing a terrific job, and we're delighted to be partnered with them. Any other thoughts around the table? That's the quick and completely honest answer. Steve, do you have any thoughts? No, no, I mean, I just harken back to, like, when we did the Pinnacle transaction. There was only one asset that they retained that we didn't own the real estate of at that point, and that was a tax-driven, negotiated point. So, it's not the first time that we'll have a tenant where we'll own, you know, all or almost all of their underlying properties, and we've done it before, and it's-they've managed successfully, and, you know, that's kind of how we look at the underwriting. Yeah, assuming they're doing well, we wanna own all of everyone's property, so. They are one of our best performing rent coverages at around 2x, almost 2.4x, and, you know, with the addition of the new Baton Rouge property, we expect that to continue to be strong, so, it, we feel it's a good underwriting effort. Yeah, we feel good about it. So... anything further around? I think that's all. Okay. Well, look, I think we're kind of out of time right now, but we invite you always to contact us directly. If we've left somebody at the altar here, and you have a question, call any one of us, and we'll do our best to provide what you would wish. With that, we thank you very, very much for dialing in this morning, and we hope this has been helpful. See you next quarter. Thanks, operator. Thank you. This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.