Good morning, welcome to the KKR Real Estate Finance Trust Inc. first quarter 2023 financial results conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star, then two. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jack Switala. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks, operator, welcome to the KKR Real Estate Finance Trust earnings call for the first quarter of 2023. As the operator mentioned, this is Jack Switala. Today, I'm joined on the call by our CEO, Matt Salem, our President and COO, Patrick Matson, and our CFO, Kendra Decious. I would like to remind everyone that we will refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures on the call, which are reconciled to GAAP figures in our earnings release and in the supplementary presentation, both of which are available on the investor relations portion of our website. This call will also contain certain forward-looking statements which do not guarantee future events or performance. Please refer to our most recently filed 10-Q for cautionary factors related to these statements. Before I turn the call over to Matt, I'll provide a brief recap of our results. For the first quarter of 2023, we reported a GAAP net loss of $30.8 million or -$0.45 per diluted share, including a CECL provision of $60.5 million or $0.88 per diluted share. Distributable earnings this quarter were $33.1 million or $0.48 per share. Book value per share as of March 31st, 2023 was $17.16, a decline of 4.7% quarter-over-quarter. Our CECL allowance increased to $2.48 per share from $1.61 per share last quarter. The increase was primarily due to additional reserves for two five risk-rated office loans, where the sponsors have commenced sales processes for the properties, as well as heightened market volatility, uncertainty, and reduced liquidity, particularly in the office sector. Finally, in March, we paid a cash dividend of $0.43 per common share with respect to the first quarter. Based on yesterday's closing price, the dividend reflects an annualized yield of 15.5%. With that, I would now like to turn the call over to Matt. Thanks, Jack. Good morning, thank you for joining us today. KREF generated strong Distributable Earnings this quarter of $0.48 per share relative to our $0.43 per share dividend as our 100% floating rate portfolio continues to benefit from the high interest rates environment. As you have heard us say for the last few years, we have been hyper-focused on our liability structure and liquidity. This focus has created best in class non-mark-to-market financing and very high levels of liquidity. Maintaining KREF's defensive posture remains our primary focus today, given current market dynamics. Rising interest rates and recession risks continue to weigh on real estate transaction volumes and valuations. Beginning in the summer of last year, the largest money center banks were largely inactive, and since our last earnings call, we have seen two large regional bank failures. While KREF does not have any financing or direct exposure to regional banks, we do expect this to cause tightening credit conditions as regional banks take a more conservative posture and regulators increase their oversight. The expectation of tightening credit conditions has weighed heavily on non-bank financial institutions and created a narrative around already declining real estate valuations. In our own portfolio, our asset management focus is on our loans secured by office properties. We have increased reserves this quarter and put two more office loans on our watch list with a risk rating of four. The office sector continues to be challenged with limited liquidity and values down significantly. Given KREF's high levels of liquidity, we have taken a proactive approach in working through resolutions on our identified loans with our sponsors. Our approach has been direct. We are leveraging the full resources of KKR to optimize outcomes. To be clear, we're not looking to kick the can down the road. Where we find reasonable liquidity and valuations, we will transact. However, we're not forced sellers, where there is little liquidity, we will take title and manage the property at our lower basis. Patrick will discuss updates to our watch list in detail later in the call. As we signaled last quarter, we expect the portfolio to turn over modestly throughout 2023. In the first quarter, we received loan repayments of $87 million and funded $204 million for loans previously closed in previous quarters, or a net increase of $117 million. Our portfolio is built defensively. With focus on resilient property segments of the market. Nearly 60% of our portfolio at quarter end was comprised of multifamily and industrial properties. We had no new loan originations this quarter as we look to maintain a robust liquidity position. Our partnership with our manager, KKR, and the strength of our real estate platform allow us to maintain a sophisticated view of the current operating environment. We have a dedicated team of approximately 60 real estate credit investment professionals. Beyond KREF, we are actively lending for our bank and insurance SMAs, as well as our private debt funds. This diversified capital base allows us to stay active in the market and service our strong client relationships. As a result of our defensive posturing, KREF was one of the first mortgage REITs to begin lending during COVID, and we feel we are well equipped to utilize a similar playbook when the market stabilizes. Also worth noting is our manager's long-term hold position of 10 million shares in the company. We're approximately 14% of KREF shares outstanding today. We believe this is the highest ownership percentage held by a manager in the mortgage REIT sector and demonstrates meaningful alignment between KKR and KREF. As I mentioned earlier, we are operating KREF with a high level of liquidity with nearly $1 billion as of March 31st, including $254 million of cash in our $610 million corporate revolver, which was undrawn at quarter end. As we have discussed in prior quarters, we added over $4 billion of additional non-mark-to-market capacity over the past two years with the support of the KKR Capital Markets team. Approximately $2.5 billion was added in 2022, two-thirds of which was done on a truly bespoke basis with financing providers such as foreign banks and insurance companies and away from public capital market sources. 76 of our secured financing at the end of the first quarter of 2023 was completely non-mark-to-market and diversified across a number of facilities, and the remaining 24% is only mark-to-credit. With that, I'll turn the call over to Patrick. Thank you, Matt. Good morning, everyone. I'll focus today on our efforts on the liquidity and capital front. First, let me provide an update around our CECL reserve and watchlist loans. This quarter, we recorded a $60 million increase in our CECL reserve for a total reserve of $172 million, or 224 basis points of our loan principal balance. Slightly more than half our total CECL reserve remains held against the two Five-rated office loans. We have a total of seven loans on the watchlist as of quarter end. As we detailed previously, we executed a modification of a Philadelphia office loan earlier this year and subsequently removed it from the watchlist this quarter as anticipated. During the quarter, we downgraded two office loans to a risk rating of four. Consistent with past quarters, we highlight those loans in our earnings supplemental. Touching on our two Five-rated office loans in Minneapolis and Philadelphia, the respective sponsors have commenced sales processes for the properties. We increased our reserves this quarter to reflect further weakness in the office sector. As Matt mentioned, we will evaluate the prices and determine the appropriate path forward with the option to sell or own and manage the properties ourselves. In either case, we anticipate some resolution in the coming months on both assets. The two new watchlist loans are secured by properties in two of the more challenged office markets: Washington, D.C., and Chicago. That said, both properties have experienced positive leasing momentum recently. The D.C. loan, which is the larger of the two, is backed by a well-located Class A office near Dupont Circle, and following two recent leases, is 84% leased. The Chicago property is also a Class A asset and is located in the Central Loop submarket. Following some known vacates, along with 83,000 sq ft of recent leasing, the property is currently 70% leased. Of the 14 office loans, eight loans in our portfolio, equating to half of the outstanding principal of a principal balance are risk grade at three. This segment of our office loan portfolio is 89% Class A and 91% leased with a weighted average debt yield of 8.3% and a median 8.8 years of weighted average lease term remaining. The average risk rating of the company's broader portfolio was 3.2, consistent with year-end. 87% of our portfolio is risk grade at three, and we collected 100% of scheduled interest payments across the entire portfolio in 1Q and through the April payment date. An important differentiator for KREF, particularly in times of capital markets volatility, is how we finance our senior loan portfolio. At quarter end, our diversified financing sources totaled $9 billion, with $2.7 billion of undrawn capacity. 76% of our outstanding financing is fully non-marked to market, and the remaining balance is marked to credit only. KREF is differentiated in the diversity and resiliency of these sources, which includes not only two managed CRE CLOs, but also multiple bespoke financing facilities supported by a number of financing partners. We are not reliant on a single type of financing with no outsized exposure across any of these categories. In the first quarter, we extended a $600 million repurchase facility by two years to December 2025 and a $500 million warehouse facility to March 2026. In a challenging macro and banking environment, we were able to extend an aggregate $1.1 billion in financing by roughly 2.5 years between the two facilities. KREF is well capitalized with a debt to equity ratio of 2.2x and a total look-through leverage ratio of 4 x as of quarter end. As of March 31st, we had $254 million of cash and $610 million of undrawn corporate revolver capacity. In addition to this, we had $100 million of unencumbered and unpledged senior loans, plus under-drawn capacity on our credit facilities, bringing our total liquidity position to nearly $1 billion. As noted, we have cash on the balance sheet, plus ample capacity on the revolver to retire our May 2023 convertible notes maturing next month. Following the convertible note maturity and excluding match term secured financing, KREF has no debt maturities for nearly two and a half years. Thank you for joining us today. We're happy to take your questions. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then One on your touchtone phone. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press Star then Two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question will be from Don Fandetti from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Hi. Can you talk a little bit about the new four-rated loans and what, you know, sort of drove you to move those? I guess, are we looking at, you know, just a scenario where every quarter you're getting migration to the fours and fives? Why not just build more reserves today, just given the economic environment and the pressures in office? Hey, Don, it's Matt. Thank you for joining. I can start by addressing that first question around, you know, the new loans that we moved to a risk rating of four. You know, when you think about the overall, you know, office exposure, certainly it's not our expectation that, you know, we'll continue to see all those loans migrate. I think Patrick did a nice job summarizing why some of the loans that remain at three, within our office portfolio, they're well leased, long-term leases, and some of which are in extremely strong markets as well from a, you know, from an office perspective. Just as you start to think about the transition, it's certainly not our expectation. We look at it every quarter, are kind of evaluating, you know, all the loans in the portfolio for any changes. There's a big component, about half of that, currently that we still feel very comfortable with on the office side. In terms of the ones we did transition over, you know, I think that those two in particular are in, you know, some of the softer markets for office. Obviously, D.C.'s got the impact of GSA, and the work from home policies of those tenants. You know, Chicago is a particularly weak market as well. That was a lot of the reason why those were, you know, those were transferred in at that time is even despite, you know, some of the leasing momentum we've seen at those assets. Thank you. Thanks, Don. The next question will be from Stephen Laws from Raymond James. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Matt, can you, Matt or Patrick, can you talk about the reserve and kinda how we should think about that allocated across the fives and fours versus, you know, maybe a general for the remainder of the portfolio? As, you know, if we read into kind of that rough allocation, what valuation does that imply for the five-rated assets versus or, you know, the valuation of the origination? Stephen, good morning. It's Patrick. I'll take that question. Yeah, if you think about our fives, you know, what we'd indicated was about half of our total reserve, a little bit more than half our total reserve is allocated to those. If you just sort of apply the math there, that implies a loss on those loans in the kinda magnitude of 25%-30% against those five-rated loans. You know, if you remove those loans from the portfolio and look at our remaining CECL, it's about a 1%. All of our remaining assets. There's obviously some concentration, with our fours because those are attracting a, you know, a higher reserve than our three assets. Hopefully that gives you some sense of direction. Clearly, when the assets move from a four to five, we're seeing sort of a jump in our reserve and sort of loss expectation and, you know, that's reflected in our reserve analysis. That's helpful. I appreciate that, Patrick, the comments there. You know, with the mini assets specifically, you know, next month maturing, I believe, you know, and maybe even kind of apply this broader across the watchlist loans. You know, Can you walk us through the process of how you determine what makes more sense as an REO? You know, how you go about finding a new sponsor, maybe to recap one of these deals and provide seller financing. You know, how early can you start those discussions ahead of these, you know, watchlist problem maturity dates? Maybe some color on how that process will play out on the sample of loans in the coming months. Sure. It's Matt, I can take that. Thanks again for the question, Stephen. You know, specifically on Minneapolis and the two five-rated loans and our affiliate asset as well, you know, those are instances where the existing sponsor is running a full sales process. We're able to obviously modify and give short-term extensions to help effectuate, you know, those transactions. We're also able to provide the market with information around, you know, where we'd be willing to provide financing on the potential acquisition. There's a lot of flexibility there. You know, in terms of how we think about owning, you know, versus potentially a sale and a, and a finance is we're running very detailed analysis similar to what the real estate equity team on within KKR would run in terms of what does the go forward look like from a return perspective, factoring in the current market environment for leases, and tenant improvement costs and leasing commissions and, you know, cap rates, obviously. We're just evaluating, you know, all that information to make a buy or effectively a buy or sell decision at this point in time. Great. Appreciate the color on that, Matt. Thank you. The next question is from Sarah Barcomb from BTIG. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks everyone. As you talked about earlier, both KREF and its peers are sort of playing defense right now, with respect to maintaining liquidity. While you executed on some prior quarter fundings, looks like there weren't any new originations in the quarter. Can you talk about any deals that you might have taken a look at but didn't cross the finish line, and why those maybe didn't look as attractive even with spreads, where they are now? Was it mostly just a function of preserving liquidity given, the watchlist migration? Thanks. Oh, Sarah, it's Matt, I can take that. Thanks for the question. I think for, you know, for KREF in particular, it's more the latter, to point of your question. It's, it's really about just preserving liquidity until we get into a more normal market environment. We weren't looking at, you know, a lot of new fundings for the quarter. Of course, as we mentioned on the call, away from KREF, we have a larger real estate credit business here at KKR. We lend on behalf of banks. We lend on behalf of insurance companies. We have private debt funds that we lend on behalf of, all three of those are actively in the market lending today. We do like the market. We think it's attractive. I think despite some of the headlines you may see, it is a, you know, a fair and competitive market. As I said, the insurance companies are very active, foreign banks are very active, regional banks are active. I'd say almost everyone, all the lending types are still actively lending in the market, albeit at a lower, a lower basis because values have come down and the market's just a little bit more conservatively postured, so LTVs have come down. We find it to be a pretty attractive, overall lending market right now. You know, obviously, as things stabilize, we hope, you know, KREF will be one of the first to come out and lend within the mortgage REIT segment again. Great. Thank you. Just one more quick one. You talked about how the remaining office book, that three-rated segment, you know, 90% Class A, 90% leased. Are there any indicators of upcoming lease expirations that investors should know about, or any other signs where you think there could be incremental risk to NOI at the property level for that bucket? I mean, these are Just given the, I think we call it the median WALT on those. For the most part, these are very well leased for a pretty long time. Some of them are multi-tenant and do have... I'm sure there's some near-term lease expiration, but not one that comes to mind in terms of like one we're particularly focused on from a re-leasing perspective. Okay. Thanks. That's it from me. The next question is from Jade Rahmani from KBW. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Starting with the CECL reserve, seems you've taken substantial reserves on clearly the risk five-rated loans. The risk four-rated loans, some math I was doing, just assuming, you know, 50%-75% of this quarter's $60 million provision would imply something like a 10%-15% loss. I was surprised by that, given those are LTVs below 60%. Addressing your comment about the 1% remaining CECL reserve, I mean, that's far below the bank's reserve levels on their CRE portfolio. Just two examples, USB at 2.5% and Wells Fargo at 1.76%. Could you comment on the overall reserve adequacy and how you're thinking about it? Hey, Jade, good morning. It's Patrick. I'll take that. Yeah, in terms of, I guess, the latter part of your question, I think it's really a reflection of kind of where we would sort of view ourselves in this progression. Clearly, with the asset earlier this year where we had a realized loss, we've got, as you noted, heavier losses against these five-rated loans. You know, when we start to clean up that book, we would expect that we would get to a more, you know, normalized loss number. Think about what that portfolio looks like also when you start to remove, you know, some of those office assets. We're already 60% multifamily and industrial, remove the office component or a heavy part of it, and that's a pretty significant, you know, percentage of our overall book. I think in terms of the change this quarter, clearly, you know, bulk of that, as we said, was in these five-rated assets. Across both the three-rated assets and four-rated assets, you know, we saw an increase. I think it's just a reflection of, you know, a market that's further deteriorated since the fourth quarter. Those losses or loss reserves carry through. At the moment, we feel like we are adequately reserved across the portfolio. Obviously, we'll continue to evaluate next quarter, and we'll, you know, we'll adjust as appropriate. At the moment, we feel like we're at the right level. Looking at the office portfolio, you mentioned some statistics on the eight loans rated risk three. You know, those seem pretty fully occupied or fully leased with the market where it is today. The debt yields do seem somewhat close to office cap rates, you know, given the uncertainty around secular changes there. What's the outlook for performance on those deals? Are you expecting further deterioration? I just wanted to mention there's another D.C. office loan in that portfolio rated risk three. The Plano Texas deal was also originated right before COVID. Lastly, if you could touch on Bellevue, Washington, that looks like, you know, a large construction loan. I believe Amazon is the anchor tenant there. You know, what would be the prospects there, as Seattle does have quite a lot of supply? Sure, Jade. Matt, I can take that one. Let's just work backwards. I think you threw out a couple of those deals. You know, when you think about, like, that construction loan you mentioned that's in Bellevue, Washington, you know, you identified the tenant there as Amazon, obviously a very strong credit, and that they have a lease, a signed lease for 16 years for that asset. We feel, I think, good about, you know, the prospects of that particular deal, just given the long lease term and the strength of the tenant. They're gonna actively build out that space and, you know, we expect them to occupy it. That would be the, you know, the Amazon deal. Plano, that's an asset that's done extremely well. We like the Dallas market a lot. We've got actually a couple other assets in the portfolio that are in Dallas. They're a little bit more close to rent in Uptown and Preston Center. All three, I would say, have experienced very strong leasing momentum and leasing rates. So that's why, you know, that and that deal has some long-term leases as well. I think that's why we remain, you know, we remain, that remains a three and remain confident in that asset. I you know, the D.C. office market is definitely a tough market. You know, it's two of our loans or four-rated loans are located in D.C. I mentioned the GSA comment earlier. That particular asset that you're highlighting remains a three because we have a very long weighted average remaining lease term to the U.S. government. we feel good about the credit and we've got a lot of length there to, you know, decent debt yield as well. you know, each deal is gonna be a little bit different, but a lot of how we're factoring this in is obviously what's the cash flow and how durable is that for how long. and those, I think in all three of those, we've got pretty long, very long lease terms. Just with the debt yield close to office cap rates, what are your thoughts on that? Well, I mean, certainly we've seen leverage, you know, our implied leverage increase on these loans, right? As we've seen the widening of, as you mentioned, of these cap rates, not just for office, but you know, across everything, given the interest rate environment, obviously more acute in office for sure. When we're looking at, you know, values of our, you know, when we're revaluing the assets, and we do a lot of work on a quarterly basis to understand where we think the value is on each individual deal. You know, certainly when we're looking at these three rated loans, we don't think that, you know, we're above the value of the asset by, you know, by any stretch. Thank you. Thanks, Jade. Is from Steve Delaney from JMP Securities. Thanks. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking my questions. I think I'll give you a break from talking about office. The West Hollywood multifamily, $2.8 million per unit, that's obviously a nice property. Could you just give us some color as to what's going on, you know, on the ground there in terms of the, you know, the appeal of the project or the units? Are there any, you know, conditions going on there with respect to homelessness or crime that are could possibly impact that property? Thanks. Yeah. I can touch on that. Steve, thank you for the question, Matt, again. You're right. It's a relatively high per pound loan amount. That's because it's effectively best in class kind of trophy-type of asset in the market. It was built for condo, you know, for condo sale, it is a very nice project. It's well located. Not concerned about crime or homelessness at all. Okay. Good. I think it's extremely well located. We had moved that to a four because we were in some, you know, modification discussions around an interest rate cap with that particular sponsor. It's not really necessarily an asset or value issue. We hope to resolve that here shortly. Got it. Sounds like more, more technical than fundamental. Thanks for that color. Just on your workout on the Philly office loan, just to confirm, your junior mezz, or I guess we like to call them hope notes, there's no carrying value associated with that on your books at this time, is it? Or are you carrying that? Hi, Steve. It's Kendra. That's correct. That was fully written off the $25 million on the senior mezz. Got it. You're obviously below the senior mezz that the sponsors has put up. That's right. That's right. The new money that's coming in is ahead of that hope note. Yep. Okay, great. If you could on the four rated loans, or should we assume that all four of those loans, the fact that they are still four and not five, that you are accruing interest or there is interest being paid by the borrower on those loans each month and quarter? Hi, Steve. Kendra again. On the five rated loans, we are still current. The sponsors are still current on paying us interest each quarter. As you'll notice in the financial statements, we have put both of those loans on cost recovery. As you know, that means the interest is not running through the interest income line. It's actually being held against the carrying amount of the loan. Right ... until there's a resolution or until we think it that there are indicators that we can go ahead and start recording that interest income again. I can tell you that the run rate on the two five- rated loans interest income is about $7 million a quarter. In terms of quarter-over-quarter, because we kind of staggered when the two loans went on non-accrual, the difference in interest income quarter-over-quarter from Q4 to Q1 was about $3 million. You'll see another $3 million go into cost recovery in Q2, and then it's, at that point, it's stabilized on those loans. Okay. Thank you. I apologize, Kendra. Because I was actually asking about the four- rated loans and the. Oh. Sorry. No, no. I probably didn't make it clear. No problem at all. I just wanted to confirm. I assume five rated loans each would be a special situation. On the four rated, wanted to confirm that those are all accruing interest or borrowers paying interest one way or another. Both things are correct. Okay. Accruing and receiving. Okay. Thank you all very much. Appreciate the conversation. Yeah. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. Once again, if you have a question, please press star then one. The next question is from Rick Shane from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks everybody for taking my questions this morning. Look, I wanna talk a little bit about capital allocation. Dividend yield is mid-teens now. In order to support the dividend on a book basis, you need to generate an ROE of north of 10%, which is a pretty high return even in this environment with high rates. At the same time, the stock's trading at a substantial discount to book value. Does it make sense to reallocate some of the distribution or return of capital to shareholders, reduce the dividend and be more aggressive in terms of repurchasing shares? Thanks, Rick. Appreciate the question. Matt, I can, you know, I can take that one. You know, just as it relates to, you know, the dividend and the coverage, I think, you know, you had asked about there. Obviously this quarter, as we've seen over the last few quarters and, as we look ahead a little bit, we're really benefiting from, you know, the current interest rate environment. So we're, you know, easily cover the dividend this quarter at $0.48 a share of Distributable Earnings, you know, versus the $0.43 payout. So I think we feel good about the earnings power of the company just on a, you know, kind of on an operating earnings basis. That's, you know, that's probably the biggest consideration when we start to think about, you know, when we start to think about the dividend. Yeah, I mean, I understand that when we think about the reserves and the implication that the reserves will manifest into charge-offs. There's this there's an accounting narrative of Distributable Earnings that Distributable Earnings is the basis for dividend, and that it is impacted by charge-offs, not provision. Over time, accounting also suggests that Distributable Earnings and GAAP earnings should converge. Presumably, that's gonna happen in the second half of this year. You're gonna wind up in a situation potentially where Distributable Earnings is below dividend. Why not get ahead of that and also give yourself the opportunity to buy the stock at this discount? Yeah. I mean, let me touch on the share buybacks. I think we've been pretty consistent in terms of certainly versus the peer set in terms of buying back stock when we thought it was attractive. I certainly think the stock's attractive now. You know, we've been weighing liquidity a little bit more heavily given what's going on in the banking sector and the overall volatility in the market. I think we'll continue to prioritize liquidity here in the, you know, in the near term. I understand the, you know, the math that you're thinking through as it relates to the, what's the sustainable earnings power of the company. Certainly, if we thought that that was gonna decline significantly and, you know, we couldn't sustain the dividend, then we would evaluate that. Obviously, the dividend is a board-level decision. Right now, from what we're looking at with the existing portfolio, you know, with the current interest rate environment and even, you know, thinking through the forward curve, which obviously is a little bit downward sloping towards the end of the year, we don't see what you're describing in terms of, you know, just the earnings power of the company right now. If that. Again, if it starts to happen or manifests itself, then it'd be something we'd have to evaluate, but not in our current projections, not what we're seeing. Got it. Totally fair. Look, at the end of the day, having too much liquidity is a situation that you can remedy quickly as you choose to. Having not enough liquidity is a lot harder to fix fast. Yeah. 100% agree with that. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Rick. Thank you. The next question is a follow-up question from Jade Rahmani from KBW. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking the follow-up. As it relates to liquidity, how are you thinking about the dynamics there post the convert repayment? That will clearly reduce your cash on hand. Are there good news items in the portfolio in terms of, you know, deals that have really executed well on their business plan that you expect to be paid off or to be sold, things of that nature, refinanced, that would create liquidity or perhaps those deals become more leverageable? Jade, it's Matt. I can take that. Like, I would say we fully expect to get repayments on our portfolio this year, even though Q1 was, you know, a light quarter of repayments. When you look at what we have in the portfolio, obviously our largest property type is multifamily. As those stabilize, I can guarantee you, we are not the most efficient financing for a stabilized multifamily property, especially given what the agencies are, you know, lending at in today's market, and where we see insurance companies lending as we compete against them with our insurance capital, et cetera. There's a lot of liquidity for, you know, the favored asset classes right now. It really is a tale of two cities in terms of the have and the have-nots, you know, with office obviously being on the have-not side. But I think we're gonna get a fair amount of repayments over the course of the next couple quarters, which will increase liquidity. Of course, you know, there's also capital markets opportunities for us as well. But, you know, right now with the convert, it's only $144 million, a small piece of the overall capital structure. Like you said, we've got cash to pay that down. What kind of capital markets opportunities do you think would be interesting? Is there a possibility to issue a CLO on very low leverage, very high performing collateral? Is there the possibility to be taking your best assets, selling A notes to the insurance company, doing affiliate transactions, participations, and things of that nature? I mean, the securitization market's open, so if we wanted to go that route, I think we certainly could. I don't think that would be a route that we would explore right now because, you know, we have our existing CLO facilities that are still in reinvestment period and priced, like, quite attractively. I don't think we need a new one of those. I think it would be more along the lines of, you know, some type of corporate finance opportunity for us, or option for us. You know, we could definitely think about selling, you know, some of the existing loan portfolio. I don't think we need to cut A notes on most of it. I think some of it we could just sell the, you know, the whole loan. You know, again, I don't think we're in the scenario right now where, you know, we need that level of liquidity. Right now we're kind of enjoying the higher earnings. We have a lot of liquidity. We have almost $1 billion of liquidity, so it's not something that, you know, we're actively pursuing. If the market were open and we had an option that was attractive, you know, clearly we could go down that path. Just to follow up, that presumably would be a preferred or perhaps another convert? Yeah. I mean, you've seen what we've done in the past, right? We've done preferreds, we've done converts, we've done Term Loan Bs. One of those three options, you know, we would look at. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Jack Switala for any closing remarks. Great. Thanks, operator, and thanks everyone for joining us this morning. Please reach out to me or the team here if you have any questions. Take care. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.