Greetings and welcome to Gaming and Leisure Properties fourth quarter 2023 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. A 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. I would now like to throw the conference over to your host, James Leahy. Thank you. You may begin. Thank you, Rob. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Gaming and Leisure Properties fourth quarter 2023 earnings call and webcast. The press release distributed yesterday afternoon is available on the investor relations section on our 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 risk factors and forward-looking statements contained in the company's filings with the SEC, including its 10-K 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 at Gaming and Leisure Properties. Also joining today's call are Brandon Moore, Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel and Secretary; Desiree Burke, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Steve Ladany, Senior Vice President, Chief Development Officer; and Matthew Demchyk, Senior Vice President, Chief Investment Officer. With that, it's my pleasure to turn the call over to Peter Carlino. Peter, please go ahead. Well, thank you, Jim, and good morning, everyone. We're especially pleased to be here with you this morning, talking about the windup of a very good year last year and off to a good start in the first quarter of this year. I think the critical issues are well outlined in the first four paragraphs of my written comments in our press release. I would encourage you to read them there rather than have me repeat them. As is our normal approach, I'm gonna ask Desiree Burke and Matthew Demchyk to make some or to highlight some things that we thought you might wanna hear, and then we go straight to your questions and answer the things that really interest you. So with that, Desiree? Sure. Good morning. For the fourth quarter of 2023, our total income from real estate exceeded the fourth quarter of 2022 by over $32 million. This growth was driven by the addition of Bally's Biloxi and Tiverton, which drove an increase of cash rental income of $12.1 million. The Rockford acquisition increased cash rental income by $3 million. The Casino Queen Marquette acquisition and the Baton Rouge landside development increased cash rental income by $2.3 million. The recognition of escalators and percentage rent adjustments on our leases added approximately $3.6 million of cash rent, and the combination of higher non-cash revenue gross-ups, investment and lease adjustments, and straight-line rent adjustments drove a collective year-over-year increase of approximately $11.6 million. Our operating expenses increased by $12.8 million, primarily related to increases in non-cash expenses such as depreciation and the provision for credit losses. The annualized rent reduction in the amended Penn percentage lease was $4.4 million, which began in November of 2023. However, we did achieve full escalation on that lease of $4.2 million annualized and $3.5 million escalation on the Penn 2023 Master Lease annualized. In addition, our Penn amended and Pinnacle-Boyd Master Leases have rent resets occurring on May 1st of 2024. We expect these resets will increase percentage rent adjustments between $4-$5 million annually. From a balance sheet perspective, during the fourth quarter, we sold 3.9 million shares of common stock under our ATM program, raising approximately $179 million. Subsequent to year-end, we sold an additional 182,000 shares. Our net leverage remains under 5x EBITDA. Included in today's release is GLPI's full year 2024 AFFO guidance, ranging from $3.70-$3.74 per diluted share and OP unit. Please note that this guidance does not include the impact of future transactions. For modeling purposes, our non-cash straight-line rent adjustments for 2024 will be approximately $62 million, which will be needed to be included in revenue and then deducted for AFFO purposes. I would also like to note that our first quarter dividend was declared of $0.76 per share, and our rent coverage ratios remain strong, ranging from 1.95-2.75 on our master leases as of the end of the prior quarter. With that, I will turn it over to Matthew for his comments. Thanks, Desiree, and thanks to everyone for joining today. Over this past quarter, we've watched as market participants vacillated between diverse views on interest rates, inflation, and the economy, headlines around looming commercial real estate loan issues and the potential for more abound. It's a very interesting backdrop to further highlight the relevance of GLPI's enduring cash flows. Our thoughtfully constructed portfolio of safe, endurable cash flows, combined with our liquidity and capital markets discipline, have set the stage for opportunity. And to that end, this past quarter, we again demonstrated our team's ability to uniquely source and structure a transaction for the benefit of our shareholders. Our team created a bespoke solution for a new tenant partner, American Racing, with our recently announced Tioga Downs acquisition, in which we issued OP units and achieved an 8.3 initial cap rate on a $175 million investment. The transaction took a long time to finalize and underscores the sweat equity that our team invests into deals as we compete on capability and not just cost of capital. Our capital market actions reemphasize our commitment to balance sheet strength and our respect for the role it plays in our long-term success. With an appreciation for our pipeline of opportunities, including Tioga, we also opted to lock in equity through our ATM program. Our very healthy net leverage positions us to be highly opportunistic in our use of debt and equity for new deals. We've underscored our dual commitment for GLPI to be both safe and evolved in the environment and also very well positioned to take advantage of opportunity if and when it arises. Our core message to potential counterparties is that, despite the macro backdrop and volatility, we are very much open for business. Our overarching objective remains the same: increasing long-term intrinsic value per share. Thank you to our shareholders for the confidence you've placed in our efforts to make prudent long-term decisions for you. With those comments, I'll turn the call back to Peter. Well, thanks, Matthew. I think that well summarizes kind of our philosophy of operating with this company, and the growth that which I'd love to look at. The 19 properties we left, when we spun from Penn, we did so with 19 properties. Today, we have. 62, including Tioga. Yeah, we just added that. The script I have here says 61, but, you know, things get old here quickly. So we're pleased to say 62 properties in the time we've been in this business. We're proud of that. Okay, with that, time to open the floor to your questions. Operator, would you please do so? Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you'd like to remove your question 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 hold for questions. My first question comes from Jay Kornreich with Wedbush Securities. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning out there. You previously mentioned having a number of opportunities to hit singles and doubles this year with new acquisitions. So I'm wondering how you currently see the opportunity set, and based on your conversations, you know, what the appetite of regional casino owners currently looks like. Just for fun, I'm gonna give that to Brandon Moore, who's looking. We'll have it at Steve. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the second part of the question? Yeah, sure. The second part was just based on your conversation. What. With current regional hotel casino owners, kind of what their appetite currently looks like for sale-leasebacks next. Sure, sure. Look, I think from a pipeline perspective, it remains very healthy and active. Our dialogues are plentiful. I think from a regional owner perspective, we're currently having more dialogues with folks who have either generational ownership type of complexities that they're working through or tax matters that they're working through. I think things right now are not necessarily down the middle of the fairway as far as people just out there looking to transact for the largest number and regular way transaction because of where the capital markets sit in the macroeconomic environment. So I think what we're really seeing is, interest is remained high for people that have needs, and those needs are various. But we continue to have dialogues, and I think we feel very good about, you know, the upcoming quarters. And Jay, I'll add, if you, I mean, look out in the environment. We're building on this reputation of being a unique problem solver. You look at Tioga, Steve's point, the fact that we used OP units, that we're able to help this tax structuring, did the same exact thing in a different way with Cordish. That tends to help, and it also tends to help us get back to the sweat equity theme a better than market return when we close these deals for our shareholders 'cause we have a true partnership with our counterparty. I'm smiling here. You can't see it, obviously, but my suggestion that we direct that question to Brandon as our general counsel was his always caution that we don't get too far ahead of what's out there. Look, we're very active in chasing down opportunities. These things are often complex, take a long time to get done. So with those cautions, you know, we continue to work away. Early on, we used to get the question, "Where's your pipeline?" Well, we've never had a pipeline. Yet I highlight, we've gone from 19 to 62 properties, and it's not an accident. So we're encouraged. We'll see where it goes. Okay, well, I appreciate all that color. Then just as a follow-up on the capital raising front, you know, as you commented, you've recently been tapping the ATM. You have a robust $684 million of cash on the balance sheet, it looks like. So just wondering how you think about funding upcoming acquisitions, if that will largely be done through the balance sheet or if you think about or how you think about match funding kind of new equity and debt capital with new acquisitions. Yeah, Jay, I mean, one thing we've been certainly focused on is making sure that we're not exposed to the whims of the capital markets. So, you know, towards the end of last year, we did de-risk our bond refi that we'll see later this year with the bond raise that we did. And you're right, we've used the ATM to cover effectively all the cash needed for Tioga and then a little bit from a position where we already had really strong debt-to-EBITDA. And the goal is really to be in a position to play offense. And when you think about the relative costs of debt and equity, there's a period where they converge decently, and they're beginning to diverge a bit. I mean, if you look at our bonds that we did towards the end of last year, they're trading in the low sixes. That's really late in earnings potential, to your point, on incremental deals. I mean, we have the opportunity to use debt as a tool, maybe more so than we have over the past few years because our leverage is so low, and expect us to continue to pre-fund and match fund acquisitions with ATM equity at the same time as maybe balancing things a bit more from an earnings perspective. But it's gonna be a function of how big the opportunities we close are and the timing around those. And don't forget, we've also got Lincoln still outstanding. We've got the spend with Penn on the back burner to ultimately get spent. So we want our balance sheet to be able to handle, you know, walk and chew gum at the same time, handle multiple things at once. Okay, all makes sense. Thank you very much for the time. Our next question is from Greg McGinniss with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Maybe just a follow-up on that funding question. So VICI's used the forward feature on its ATM pretty effectively in terms of building up dry powder with a limited dilution impact. Is this a tool that you've considered using, or what are you looking for before utilizing it? Yeah, I mean, we have used the ATM in the past. You know, we closed on an acquisition in February of this year. So the fourth quarter use of the ATM, we knew we had that transaction Tioga coming at us, so there was no need to enter into a forward for that equity raise. But we absolutely know that that is a tool that we have to use, you know, when it makes sense for us to use it. Okay. Then I'm just trying to understand on the guidance range how you might hit the bottom end, because if we annualize Q4, we're kind of in the middle of the range, and embedded escalators appear to offset any additional share issuance. Does guidance include share issuances beyond what we've already seen, or is there something else to consider there? Yeah, so, you know, we as you know, the yield curve, the forward curve, it moves pretty quickly on us. And so just as of last week, when the Fed came out with their announcement, the curve actually shifted up as they didn't expect some of the rate declines to occur. So we do have some room in our guidance around what that curve might do in the future based on future announcements and whether or not the 75 basis points or so of rate reductions will occur at the end of the year. So there is some noise and interest expense as well as the fact that we've told you about our pipeline of Rockford funding. We don't know exactly the timing of the funding of some of the transactions that we have out there. You know, we have a commitment to fund that loan, but we don't know exactly the timing of it. So there is some, you know, room around the timing of those transactions and the fundings of those loans. Okay, so if those are delayed, then that's potentially how we get to the bottom end. I guess. Right. It's just the term loan, right, that would be the, Yes, that's $600 million term loan. That's right. Okay. All right, thank you. Our next question is from Todd Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, hi, thanks. Good morning. I guess I just wanted to follow up first on the comments around. All right. That capital costs. Matt, you said they've come in, you know, a little bit. You know, what's in the guidance for the September the $400 million? for sure. September maturity at 335? And then if you do look to utilize debt capital more in 2024 with pricing a little bit more favorable today, can you just remind us how comfortable you are, taking leverage up from current levels? Right. So in the guidance, clearly, we've already pre-funded the $400 million 335 that we're taking out, right, with the $400 million that we issued at the end of 2023. So that is a known item and not a variable item. And, as Matt, Matthew mentioned, we will use our balance sheet when we think it's optimal to use our balance sheet, but, you know, we can always increase our leverage. We don't intend to keep it below 5 forever. We just, you know, want to have it as a tool to use when the timing is correct to use it. Todd, I mean, over cycles, we've talked about our, our target range being 5-5.5. We've said, "Hey, in this environment, our sweet spot's definitely towards the lower end of that, but to Desiree's point, we're well within it right now." So that gives us some, some flexibility on incremental deals to, to navigate and, and think about what's best given those relative costs. Okay, and then, just in terms of the investment pipeline and pricing, you know, how should we think about pricing, you know, for any future investments, just vis-à-vis the Tioga Downs deal at 8.3%? Can you just provide some insight on pricing for future deals that you're seeing in the pipeline today and how we should think about that? I'd say, Steve, yeah, sort of not really. So, not to be a joke, but, I think, look, every transaction is very different. There are aspects of each transaction which either garner additional risk-adjusted return, and therefore higher cap rates or potentially lower cap rate depending on the transaction. So I think, directionally speaking, I feel like you can look at where the market has been on gaming regional gaming transactions, even, you know, in the last 12+ months. And most transactions have come in that 8% area, plus or minus. And I don't see cap rates moving materially in a very expedited way. So I don't anticipate seeing 9.5% cap rate anytime soon, nor do I expect to see 6.5% cap rate in a regional market anytime soon. Vegas obviously has its own differentiating factors. But, I think right now, it's hard to say you should definitely model X% into your forecast because each transaction is very different, and it stands on its own two feet. Okay, and is there any update at all on Lincoln, whether you have any insight or can discuss, you know, how you feel about that potential opportunity, you know, prior to the end of the year? Yeah, we don't have really visibility or color into that. Obviously, it's an asset that is a premier regional asset that we would love to own in an accretive way. And so, all those factors remain true. The win is very unknown. Obviously, as we did with the Tropicana transaction, we pushed out the option to the end of 2026 to give ourselves additional time to pursue and ultimately acquire Lincoln. So we do have additional time. It's not required that we would close that by the end of this year. So we're, you know, kind of standing by and waiting to, you know, hear updates. Okay, thank you. Our next question is from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, thanks. Hey, Matt, I think you briefly mentioned the PENN development funding, but can you give a broader update on that and when you would expect those funds to start being drawn? Obviously, Aurora's had the groundbreaking. I mean, we really point you to the comments they made around their expectations. I mean, all that we've heard is pointed to them likely, given the mechanics of the agreements, and Aurora likely using their balance sheet and using us probably closer to the end of the development period versus early as more of a takeout. But it's really up to them, as. No, I think that is the best update. I mean, I believe they're well, they are committed and moving forward on these projects. We'd love to put up money sooner, but that's, you know, that gets down to their balance sheet management and what they choose to do. So we stand ready, willing, and able, and anxious to put money to work with Penn if we can or as soon as we can. Okay, got it. And then the coverage ratios continue to work down, you know, fractionally each quarter. Are we at the point now where you think kind of the COVID tailwinds that were elevating those numbers are out of the numbers, and these coverage ratios are sort of representative of the true fundamentals, or is there still more to go? Yeah, that's a good question, probably more so for the operators than it is for us. But look, they've barely inched down, as you've noticed. The coverage we're still 1.95-2.75. It's still extremely strong. So we are confident that it's not related to COVID any longer. It's related to operational adjustments that they've made and strengthening their margins. But you know, that is probably a better question for how the operators feel about their coverage. Yeah, we've said for a long time, we expect some of the benefit to ultimately be kept. But I mean, there are a lot of forces that were one time in there. So we started from a strong position. It got incredibly strong, and we expect it to fall out, so we're in the strong plus category. Okay, thank you. Our next question comes from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho Securities. Yes, hey, sorry about that. So, first question's on the dividend. The new annualized dividend of $3.04 implies, I think, like an 81% payout ratio at the top end of the guide. So I guess I'm curious, are you changing your target payout ratio here, to something maybe above 80%, or is this basically just a reflection of your and the board's confidence in your ability to outperform expectations this year? Thanks. We are not changing, you know, around 80%. We've always been around 80% as a payout ratio. Obviously, it does change based on what our taxable income is, at any point in time, and we are reflecting that payout ratio to, you know, meet our taxable income distribution requirements. Fair enough. And then, a follow-up on the acquisition here, Tioga Downs, in the quarter, the racino asset. I'm curious, you know, kind of what drew you to that asset type? Are we gonna see you do more here in the near term? And any color on how that low 8% cap rate there may compare to where you think or have or seeing regional more traditional regional gaming cap rates in the market today? Thanks. Steve, yeah, look, the proprietor of that asset, Jeff Gural, we've known Jeff for some time. And Jeff had some tax things he was working through with respect to the transaction and minimizing the leakage and the like. So we were a natural fit to have the dialogue with him and try to find a complex bespoke solution. And so we endeavored down that path. Look, we were not in the state of New York. We obviously have an interest in geographic diversification. At the same time, you know, it's a wonderful asset. And, you know, I think we feel very comfortable that, you know, whether it's Jeff or someone will want to run that property long into the future beyond when I'm here even. So we felt very good about the longevity of the asset and the counterparty we were dealing with and our ability to solve some of the problems that he was working through from a tax perspective. So those are all the reasons that kind of got us to the table, as far as the transaction goes. With respect to whether you should take the 8.3 and just roll it forward for other transactions, I think I would go back to what I just said. I think each transaction's different. I think for smaller transactions with individual proprietors where we are providing additional benefits, I don't know, maybe for the time being, that's an okay area to think about cap rates in the low 8s. But I think as the markets kind of stabilize and the larger players come back and start to look at divestitures or larger-scale M&A, things of that nature, I don't think we'll forever see low 8s as kind of the normal go-forward cap rate for transactions. Got it, got it. Appreciate the color. Just more broadly, you know, are you interested in adding more of these assets to your portfolio? And is there anything specifically with this operator that you can do, any ROFOs or agreements to purchase any more? Thanks. Which assets? I mean. Well, I think if I understand the question, are we interested in adding more regional assets of this nature? I think if that's the question, the answer would be sure. Absolutely. We can underwrite them and get the right cash flow, sure. With the racing component, right? This one's a little different. So just curious on. Oh, well, we have plenty of assets that have a racing component to them. I think sometimes the racing component provides the entry point for these transactions, and other times, it's a necessary amenity to the transaction we're doing. Excuse me, I don't think we focus primarily on racing per se, but certainly, the racetracks are an important part of many of these gaming properties. And we don't shy away from them, and we certainly look for opportunities to get engaged in those transactions. I don't know that it's true, but I would wager just sitting here that we own more racetracks than anybody in the United States, physical facilities. So no, I mean, look, look, we're in the gambling and gaming business and everything that that entails. And I think Brandon said it well. It has been in many, many places the entree to broader gaming. So, no, some of the last things that I did at Penn were build the 2 racetracks in Ohio. And, you know, those are great facilities, great gaming facilities as well. So no, we're thrilled to own racetracks. Right. I would say we're thrilled to own racetracks with gaming component, right? So it is, the regulatory environment has historically allowed slot machines and other gaming because of the license. You don't love horse racing now, Desiree? Okay, it's kind of a joke in here. The racing business has, you know, been much of my life, but it's been the entree to a lot of great things for Penn in its time and certainly for us here at GLPI. So would we own more? We sure hope so. Well, Peter, thanks for that. I wouldn't wager against you. You've got a pretty good track record. Thanks for the color, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from Daniel Guglielmo with Capital One Securities. Please proceed with your question. Hello, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. The first one, Peter, you've been in the gaming industry a long time, and I've seen various cycles play out. When you think about ROI projects and things operators can do to bring more people in the door, what do you think's the best bang for the buck? Are there certain projects you'd be excited to see announced by your tenants in the coming years? Wow, that's a difficult question. Yeah, anything that makes money. I think you've hit case. Yeah. That Penn's engaging in. Well, yeah. Matthew just points out that Penn is a good illustration of folks wanting to invest more money in their projects. Two hotels that they're talking about, Columbus and at the end in Las Vegas, but both absolutely need room expansion, and Columbus has long needed a hotel. Plus, they're going landside in two Illinois properties, Aurora and Joliet. That's a positive thing. I mean, we could point to the Casino Queen's efforts in Baton Rouge and how successful that roll into a landside property has been. First, we were much involved in that. It's a terrific property, and it's had the desired result. It's really tremendous. So yeah, we wanna see our tenants investing in opportunities that can, you know, but that again, it's on a project-by-project basis. The ones we're looking at, I think, are pretty exciting, pretty positive, so. I'll go back to my original answer, anything that makes money. Great, thank you. Makes sense. And then kinda on a similar vein, and as you guys are kinda looking at development, just how has the development environment changed, if any, this year versus last? Is there anything of note that you're seeing around kind of labor availability, supply chain, underwriting versus actuals? Maybe Steve or whoever. Thank you. Operating and Steve. Yeah, so maybe two things. I think from a development financing perspective, not a lot's changed between last year and this year. It's a difficult environment for folks that are trying to raise dollars. So I think one thing that has maybe shifted a little is, I think, existing tenants are starting to take more of a longer look at their existing portfolios and what redevelopment opportunities or development opportunities may exist at those locations. So, I think that has increased more recently than maybe a year ago. With respect to supply chains and things like that, I feel like that in most cases, things have become a little easier. Not easy. There's still long lead items for mechanical things and the like. But I think that the process and maybe it's just that everyone has become more used to it, so everyone's adapted a little more. And so you know to put your order in significantly further ahead than where you used to. But I think things are becoming a little more normalized, with respect to the actual construction process. Great, thank you. Our next question is from Barry Jonas with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning, guys. Wanted to ask about the Tropicana. Can you talk about where things stand or maybe what are next steps there? I know the property's shutting down in roughly a month. And then just curious how involved you expect to be in development of the stadium or the pro or, or the new property. Thanks. Brandon's gonna take that. I finally got him to answer something. Yeah. I'll answer. Yeah, so look, I mean, I think a lot of the news coming out of Las Vegas lately has been somewhat negative, questioning the timing and development and maybe the viability of that project. I think from our perspective, a lot of that's noise. I think a lot of this is proceeding along the timelines that we would have expected. You know, we understand at this point that the Bally's and the A's are working pretty closely together to ensure that the A's new stadium design and the integrated resort really maximize the use of that property, that 35-acre parcel, and the value that's there. And, you know, we've had an opportunity to see the stadium architectural designs, and we've seen several variations of the integrated resort designs. And we still believe that the fully developed property will be a very good addition to that corner of the strip. I think as far as how involved we'll be, time will tell. We're the landowner, and obviously, we're taking a very keen interest in ensuring that the value of the remainder parcel that we hold is sustained. And if we can enhance that, we certainly are looking to do that. But at this time, I think we're waiting to see what Bally's is proposing to do for the integrated resort. And then we will figure out what our opportunities are to invest in that. And that, in some ways, will depend on Bally's needs for financing. So I think we're in kind of a wait-and-see mode, but we're still optimistic that this will be a good project on the corner of the strip. That, that's really helpful. And then just as a follow-up, kinda wanted to get your thoughts on the potential for maybe doing deals on tribal land. Curious if you have any thoughts on the types of structures that could potentially make sense. Thanks. Yeah, I don't know that I can shed a whole lot of light on the structures themselves. I can say this, you know, we have focused on the tribal land-held-in-trust market as a very large gaming market here in the United States. And if there's a way that we can find, from a REIT perspective, to generate good REIT income from an investment with those tribes on those properties, we see it as a tremendous opportunity. We've spent quite a bit of time and effort in structuring some things. And I won't say that we're there. We have a few ideas on how these things could work. And we'll continue to spend some time on that in conjunction with some of the tribes and see if we can come up with a way that we can safely invest in these in these assets for our shareholders. And I think if we're able to do that, it's a tremendous market. But we'll do so carefully, and we continue to work on that. Awesome. Really appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Smedes Rose with Citi. Please proceed with your question. Hi, thank you. You've been through a lot of questions, but I just wanted to kind of circle back. You mentioned at the beginning that you're spending a lot of time with folks where there's generational ownership issues and maybe some tax discussions. I guess two questions. If those kinds of deals are they typically in this kind of rent range, kind of a, you know, call it $15-$20 million? And do you feel as a company that you have maybe sort of a competitive advantage against maybe the other experiential REITs or just more traditional REITs, you know, triple-net REITs that wanna play in this space? I'm just kinda curious, you know, who you're seeing kind of at the table when you start engaging these discussions. Yeah, look, I and maybe I'll jump in, and if anybody else wants to hop in afterwards, that's fine. I look, I think as far as the size of the transaction goes, I think it would be incorrect to assume that all sole proprietor transactions will be in the size range of $14 million rent. The Cordish family transaction was done with a privately owned business. Obviously, that was well north of a billion-dollar transaction. So I don't think that any deals cut with the same cloth in particular, like sole proprietor transactions or closely family-held businesses, which a lot of gaming enterprises still remain today. Some are very large. Some very notable assets in this country are owned by individual owners or a small group of owners. So I definitely don't think that there's an indicative size range for that. But separately, though, I do think as we continue to do transactions with this type of counterparty and we get and we perfect kind of our thinking around tax structuring transactions and the use of operating partnership units and the like, I do think we start to gain a competitive advantage. So I'm, you know, I do think that it's a helpful thing to us as we continue to do transactions with, you know, counterparty tenants that do have this form and shape that we do start to kind of better our position as far as competitive advantage against others in our space. Yeah, and I would just add, you know, from the competitive advantage standpoint that Steve talks about, when we spun this company out of Penn over a decade ago, it was really heavily focused on some very creative and in-depth tax structuring. And I think we've kept that notion here at the company. And when we look at potential counterparties and potential tenants, we often will put our resources, our tax resources and expertise behind trying to find ways to solve their issues. And so, sometimes people come, and they say, "Well, we'd love to transact, but we have these tax issues that we just are gonna prevent that." And we say, "Well, let us take a look at those. We might be able to help you find solutions to those. So I think, to Steve's point on a competitive advantage, you know, we show a willingness to try to take a problem and see if we can't put our resources behind it to try to solve it. I think that's led to the deals like Tioga. Yeah, let me make a small commercial, which I don't think I've ever done before. We, you know, it's been my practice for many, many years to, to bring our entire team to these presentations so that you've got a sense. There's no one person that makes it happen in this company. We have a killer team of people, highly skilled, highly capable, highly motivated. And I think what we do is special. So that, that, that's my answer to your question. I think, I mean, Smedes, as you asked the question, it just reminded me of the Cordish dialogue. I mean, they certainly had the opportunity to talk to whomever they wanted to. Hearing directly across the table that the others treat it like it's other people's money, but you guys treat it like it's your own, really underscores the philosophical differentiation with Peter and his history and being in the industry, the kind of compounded difference he's been able to achieve. You know, when people decide to take units in the company and become investors alongside us and this theme of partnership, it leads them to decisions that might be not fully economic to the last cent. And that's why, in their case, they said, "You guys weren't the best price. You were the best decision." And we hope to have that rhyme with future dialogues. It certainly gives us case studies we can put out and have them look at and understand the why behind the decisions that people have made to date. Great, thank you. I appreciate it. Our next question is from David Katz with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. Look, I, you know, covered a ton of ground. I think one of the areas we haven't really discussed much is international, and the degree to which, you know, you would contemplate assets at this point that are that are outside the United States. And yes, I do consider Canada to be another country, you know, international in another country. You know, any other territories that might be on your consideration board at this point? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, every time a transaction comes up, we do look at it. So we've looked at transactions in South America, Europe, Canada. Canada. Canada. Canada. 20 times. We have spent time. Obviously, it's not an easy endeavor because you have to do a bunch of tax analysis and understand what the leakage is. And when we look at that, you know, just like we do with our underwriting and we look at a risk-adjusted return, we look at what's the net tax impact cash flow and what does that mean from an investment perspective internationally. So we have looked in a number of international jurisdictions. We have bid on properties in a number of jurisdictions. But we've always looked at it with a net tax lens. And therefore, you know, at times, I think that's maybe caused us to not win in a particular bidding scenario. But nonetheless, that's the appropriate way, we believe, to look at these things. Is it fair to, I mean, it sounds as though among the, you know, if not the primary gating factor is the tax element of it. I wouldn't say that's the primary factor, but you certainly have to consider that you have leakage to that country that you have to pay before you bring the proceeds back to the U.S. for REIT purposes. You have to take that into consideration in what your return is that you're really getting. It's not a primary factor, but it is a factor which will cause us to need more income in order to overcome that. Yeah, I think when we look at these foreign jurisdictions, tax is certainly one of the leading indicators on whether or not economically, it makes sense. But there's a whole handful of other risks that we have to analyze when we look at that. And if you're talking about Canada, you may have less so, but you certainly have regulatory risks. There are different regulatory environments. You have currency risks. You have political instability. So depending on where you are, from South America to Canada, the risks could be numerous, or they could be a few, but tax is almost always one of them. Yeah, look, it's safe to say we look at a lot of stuff and don't miss a whole lot every now and then, but we don't miss much. We make conscious choices. We just have never been able to put one of these jurisdictions over the top. We'll continue to look as we do with many that those and many other opportunities. You know, until you see it, we, we're just not gonna make the move. Understood. Thank you very much. Our next question is from Caitlin Burrows with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning, everyone. Maybe just back to that how a lot of the deals you're looking at today are not the simplest type given where the capital markets are. I guess, what do you think would make that change? Is it just lower cost of capital supporting lower cap rates? Is it capital needs by operators? Like, what could get that traditional type deals going more actively? Yeah, my opinion would be capital market stability. I think, you know, if you think about people trying to maximize price, as a seller, or you think about large-scale M&A, for example, in all those inputs, that critical component is the cost of debt and the quantum of leverage you can put on a transaction. So clearly, you know, a few years ago, when debt was plentiful and inexpensive, we saw prices, you know, able to press higher because the amount of leverage, whether it be public gaming REITs or private real estate investors were able to utilize to maximize the purchase price. I think from a gaming perspective on the operator side, most of our tenants and even those that aren't our tenants fund most transactions via debt. There are not a lot of gaming operators that go out and issue equity to do transactions. So, as the capital markets are, you know, more expensive on the debt side in particular, it definitely causes a slowdown in regular way, quote-unquote, "traditional," sale-leaseback transactions and puts a little bit of a capping on the pricing aspect. Got it. Okay, that makes sense. And then, maybe just on that activity you guys mentioned earlier in the call, how the number of properties has increased substantially over the past number of years. So as you look at your current conversations and expectations for 2024, can you give any commentary on just your expectation for deal activity to kinda get over the finish line this year or even just in the first half? The answer is no. The answer is no. Look, I think it's been well said that, you know, there's a lot of stuff that is out there. We look at a lot of stuff. I sometimes use the Bible quote, you know, that, "Many are called, but few are chosen." So it's completely unpredictable. I could tell you the number of things I can't and won't, but I could tell you some things we're looking at and we'd like to see done. But they're getting done is completely unpredictable. Or even if it is likely to happen, is it gonna happen this year? Will it happen next year? A lot of complexities to the stuff that we do. There's regulatory approvals. There's so many parts and pieces so that nothing happens fast. Therefore, we're just gonna tell you we're working at it. Stay tuned. Okay, thanks. We'll stay tuned. Okay. Our next question is from Ronald Camden with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Hey, just two quick ones. So one on the Tioga Downs deal. I saw the presentation on the website, which I think is one of the first times you guys have put out a presentation after a deal. So obviously, curious why you decide to start with this one, which is super helpful. But, you know, the question on this one is just on this right of first refusal for Vernon Downs, any sort of conversations with American Racing? Are they looking to sell? A catch, what's the color behind that ROFR? I'll touch base on the ROFR, and then Steve can talk about the presentations, which, you know, you gotta start somewhere. So why, why not now? I think with the ROFR the, the ROFR, when we look at Vernon, is more of a defensive play. So Vernon doesn't generate a ton of EBITDA. And it has some challenges, some tax challenges and other things in the way that that property came to be. It's not something that we have focused on as being necessary for the transaction. And I don't think it's necessarily something that Vernon or, or that American Racing is focused on in monetizing. I think the issue in New York is or in any gaming jurisdiction, anytime you have a facility, and it's in its potential, you wanna see if you can get a right to acquire that facility. This is one where it didn't make sense to acquire it today, but that doesn't mean it won't make sense to acquire it in the future. So that's the reason we had negotiated that ROFR, with respect to Vernon. But I wouldn't say there's anything in the foreseeable future from either our side or American Racing where that will make much sense. Yeah, with respect to the presentations, I think we had heard, through the Rockford transaction that, you know, it would have been helpful in some cases for us to have some nice pictures for people to look at and things of that nature. So I think, to Brandon's point, we just figured we'd start somewhere. And, you know, I think future transactions will have similar few pages of information for you to look at and glean a sense of what we're doing. Helpful. Look, my second question and we do appreciate the presentations, so. My second question is just moving to the guidance. So you guys sort of came in below consensus, right? It sounds like there's some conservatism baked in there. I think you made some comments about your interest cost assumptions. But is there any way we can double-click and get maybe, you know, what the expectations for interest cost changes versus the expectations for annualized change? Just Just the big picture line items other than just the AFFO situation, just so we can really piece together, you know, why the 372, which is basically just 4Q annualized, is shaking out. Yeah, I mean, we've given all of the information that we want to give. But we, you know, look, it's $10 million of a spread on a $1.05 billion. It's not a significant, you know, move to be in there. But I've tried to articulate where we think we've put some room for ourselves given the timing of the transactions that need to be funded during the year, you know, as well as the interest rate movement. I mean, it moved 38 basis points a week ago. So that was in one day. That's what the rate moved by. So that gives you an indication of what we're not sure that what will happen in the future as the Fed comes out with more information and as inflation remains very strong and not down to the 2% that they're looking to get to. So, I don't think it's significant, in the scheme of things. Our high point is 374. We will modify guidance as we get more information throughout the year and get a little bit smarter as to what's happening. But that is the color that we would like to give on this call. Great. Thanks so much. Our next question comes from Mitch Germain with Citizens JMP. Please proceed with your question. Thanks. And congrats on the year. Just toward guidance, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what's in it and what's not. So Tioga and, I guess you provided some perspective, Desiree, on Boyd and Pinnacle's resets. Is that in guidance today? Yes, it is in guidance today. Tioga is in guidance today. That's correct. Great. Okay, great. And just curious about the competitive landscape. Are you guys seeing, you know, more organized capital, you know, kinda coming off the sidelines these days? Well, it's very small sample size. But I would say not necessarily. I think the same organized capital, I think that's the word used, the same organized capital that has been chasing gaming real estate for the last, call it, you know, two years is the same organized capital that's chasing it. I don't think there have been new entrants that have raised funds or what have you to enter the space. And I know we've had dialogue with one, you know, provider, private real estate provider that's discussed potentially exiting the space. So I think I don't think the headwinds are there. I think it's mainly 'cause of the leverage component and the cost of debt that have kind of kept some additional folks on the sideline. Thank you. Our next question comes from John DeCree with CBRE. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning, everyone. I covered most of my questions, so maybe just one big picture question. Peter, you've got quite a bit of experience in on new states legalizing casinos. There's been some activity in long-hold-out states, on the legislative front, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, maybe a few others that could be interesting. So, you know, assuming you don't have a crystal ball there, is there anything that you're watching closely or anything that you think where there might be some momentum that, you know, maybe we should be paying attention about? Not sure if you have any unique views on some of those situations. We watch closely anything that looks like opportunity. So you can count on the fact that we're very much aware of what's going on out there in the world, period. Look, my general view is everybody gaming's gonna be everywhere. There's no place where it won't be. It's just a matter of time. States feel the pressure when the guy next door and half their population is going elsewhere to gamble; sooner or later, they break down and participate. So, we keep a close eye on that. Brandon, you wanna add anything? I think that's really right. I mean, we are very close to what's going on in both Alabama and Georgia and in addition in Texas. But I think Alabama and Georgia both have bills moving at the moment that could open the door for opportunities. I think the difference in the southeastern part of the United States now versus maybe five years ago is you've had a proliferation of sports betting in adjacent states and neighboring places. And people are becoming more accustomed to the idea of gaming being more of an entertainment source as opposed to all the negative influences that people have historically associated with a gaming property. And I think in those states, you're having the general population generally be supportive of more widespread resort-style entertainment gaming. And I think that's why you're seeing more bills. You're seeing more things moving further each year. I mean, I think each year, each one of these states kinda pushes things a little bit further along. And eventually, as Peter said, I think you'll see it in both of those states, and probably in neighboring states in the southeast as well. So we keep a very close eye on that. And those will be opportunities for folks if those states get over the finish line. That's great. Appreciate all that color. Thank you all. Thank you. We have reached the end of the question and answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Peter Carlino for closing comments. Well, thanks, operator. Thanks to all of you who have dialed in this morning. I hope that what we've presented is helpful. As always, we are looking forward to, to, seeing you all next quarter. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you for your participation.