All right, so everybody can go ahead and please take their seats. We're gonna go ahead and get started with our next session. I'm Matt Niknam, Infrastructure Analyst here at Deutsche Bank, and we're very pleased to welcome CEO of SBA Communications, Brendan Cavanagh. Brendan, welcome. Thank you, Matt. It's a pleasure to be here. Great. Great to have you. So you recently assumed the role of CEO, having been at SBA for over 25 years. What's top of mind for you as the company enters 2024? And are there areas where we may see maybe an evolution of strategy relative to what investors saw from Jeff, your predecessor? Yeah. Well, first of all, as you said, I've been with the company a long time, over 26 years, actually, and I've worked very closely with Jeff during that whole window of time and played a role in all the key decisions we've made over the last 15 - 20 years. So I say that because it means that there shouldn't really, you shouldn't expect a material change in terms of the approach or the strategy. I've been a part of that for the whole time. However, the environment has shifted some, and more than the change from Jeff to me, whether that had happened or not, we're in a different environment today. There are certain challenges that we face that we didn't face before, that we have to address, but also certain opportunities. And so, I would expect that what you'll see from us is a little bit more of a refined focus of what, basically, a maturing company would do, right? Looking at our existing operations, looking at ways to squeeze out, incremental returns, maybe, things that don't align with our core premise or mission, that we would think differently about. So it's really more of a refinement of the focus than it is a, an overall shift in strategy. Got it. Got it. Well, yeah, maybe that's a good segue into the next question. So on the last call, you talked about undertaking a broader portfolio review. So maybe we can get into some of the goals here, what you're looking to solve for, and I guess you kind of answered it a little, but why now? Well, yeah, I think. Well, I guess some of it is due, in part, to the transition, in the sense that I've spent a lot of time with my leadership team, kind of reviewing, okay, where do we sit? What does the future look like? What's our strategy going forward? Where should it change? In order to do that properly, it requires a fulsome review of everything that we do, and kind of putting that up against what the mission of the company is. What do we think that investors are looking for? Because the overall goal is to maximize shareholder value. That remains our primary focus, but the circumstances are different, and how you do that obviously needs to adjust. So against that backdrop, reevaluating everything that we're doing, looking for ways to improve in areas that maybe were not performing as well, certain markets or certain business lines, and in other areas where we are figuring out what we could take from those successes and implement in other places. So that, that's really the primary driver, and I think in an environment like this, where cost of capital is higher and opportunities for material investment are perhaps a little more limited than they've been in the past, this is the perfect time to kind of reevaluate those things. Is this more about exiting markets where you may be subscale, or is the review somewhat aimed at surfacing maybe newer growth opportunities or markets where SBA is less active today? Yeah, I think. Well, it could be either. It's not the goal is not necessarily to exit markets, although we did, we mentioned one that we have exited, and that could possibly be a result. It's really to figure out how to improve the ones that are underperforming. If we're gonna talk about markets, that's, it's not just about international markets, but in that area, looking at markets that we are subscale, where we don't have a strong position relative to our key customers, or relative to the tower industry as a whole in that market, figuring out if there are ways to improve that position, either contractually with customers, adding assets. So it could actually be growth. It doesn't have to necessarily be shrinking. Ultimately, at the end of that analysis, if you determine that, hey, I don't really see that opportunity going forward, or I think there's gonna be other challenges in this market that we're not well suited for or well positioned for, then, yes, we would exit markets. You used the term quality and stability on the earnings call. How does the portfolio review fit with those types of attributes? Yeah. Well, that's really kind of at the base of what we're doing. Mm-hmm. when we sat back and said: Well, what is attractive about the tower industry? Why do people invest in it? What has always made it successful? There's a variety of attributes, but one of those is the stable, constant cash flow from high-quality counterparties that you can count on to be there and to grow over time, and that stability, no matter what the environment is, is very attractive and important. If you have things that you're invested in or markets that you're invested in, that don't align as well with that, and there's some level of instability introduced into it, we want to look at that and figure out, okay, how can we actually soften that and improve that? Because it sort of goes against the heart of what we believe is the core value of the tower business. It's a long-term. You know, we are a public company, so we have to report every quarter and talk about what's happening quarter to quarter, but really, this is a very long-term business with long-term contracts that you have to look at over an extended period of time. And if we see things that disrupt that, potentially within certain investments that we've made, we want to figure out how to adjust that and improve those. Got it. So maybe segueing into sort of longer-term growth, with SBA's current mix of U.S. and international tower assets, how should investors think about sort of steady-state, top and bottom line AFFO per share growth for SBAC, looking forward on a multiyear timeframe? Yeah, I think... Well, when you use the term steady state, I think what you're getting, correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is-... as you get, as you get beyond a couple of these headwinds that are temporal in nature that we're dealing with now, primarily churn, consolidation churn, specifically Sprint being the, the primary component of that, and frankly, interest rates as well. The interest rate environment has obviously changed, as everybody knows. Its interest rates are much higher. We do have a lot of debt that over the next several years, will need to be refinanced. It's fortunately at very, very low rates today, but that means it's going to, in all likelihood, be refinanced at rates that are higher, and that creates a headwind. So those two things are temporary headwinds that will weigh on the AFFO per share growth. I think when you kind of normalize for that and you look out longer term, I would expect something in the high single digits, maybe even low double digits, type of growth in AFFO per share, which you've seen us do, actually exceed for, much of our history. Yeah. I know you're CEO, but I'm gonna have to go back into a CFO question. Cap allocation. Yeah. Can you talk a little bit about your framework for capital allocation and uses of excess cash? Yeah. So we, for a long time, been basically a leveraged capital appreciation story, and ideally, we would remain that. Of course, in an environment where the cost of leverage is higher, that requires an adjustment in the valuation points for incremental assets that you might be buying. And if they, if they adjust in a way that is consistent with each other, you can continue that strategy, and we would. However, we haven't necessarily seen that be the case. We've seen valuations, particularly on private, you know, multiples of private assets that have traded in our space, be still elevated relative to what we see the increase in cost of capital being, for us. That being the case, we haven't done as much in the way of buying assets over the last year or so, and you've seen us delever because we've seen that to be the best use of our capital during that time period. The ultimate goal is to grow AFFO per share, high quality AFFO per share, over the long term. That's the primary thing that we're focusing on when we're investing capital, when we're allocating the capital that we have. And so, that will probably result in a mix, as it has in the past, of asset investments, both builds and buys, stock repurchases, and delevering. And of course, we have a dividend that we pay out as well. So those are the primary areas. I would expect that to remain the same, but in a given window of time, you might see one that's stressed more than others because of relative valuation opportunities. So on the leverage front, you're now nearing six turns. You've largely paid down the revolver. I think there's about $70 million left as of the end of last year. What's the optimal leverage level for the business looking forward? And is it different from the sort of historical 7-7.5 turns we've gotten accustomed to? Well, I think it kind of goes back to what I just said on the previous question, which is, it is sort of dependent on the opportunity to use that leverage and the price points, specifically around assets. If you see what we've seen recently, which is that they haven't adjusted in a way that they should, relative to the cost of capital, then you'll see our leverage coming down, which is what's happened. And if it remains that way, I think a little bit lower leverage is appropriate. Ideally, though, we would like to use that leverage capacity to add value-creating assets to our portfolio, but we'll see whether those opportunities present themselves or not. I mean, historically, and it doesn't sound like there's a ton of opportunity out there today, but historically, I remember talking about Jeff always talking about a 5%-10% portfolio growth target. Is that something that's even remotely relevant in, given your scale and where you are today, given a smaller supply of sites that are up for sale, elevated competition from smaller privates? Is that something investors should still have in mind? Well, I think it's not a goal so much in, in the sense that we have to get to that number, we feel like, to create value. I think as much as anything, it was an internal goal that allowed our teams to focus on something. Because ideally, we do want to grow our portfolio. That is, that is something that's important to us. However, it's ultimately a financial analysis and a financial decision, and as you were alluding to, in some cases, we haven't seen that. So if you go back two years ago, we grew our portfolio by way beyond that range in terms of percentage. Last year, we didn't reach that, that range. So it really is dependent upon the opportunities in a current environment, and I think that will remain the same. We would like to continue to grow and expand, but only at the right financial terms. On the topic of valuation, so again, similar, I think it was actually a conversation with Jeff in the past, where we talked about sort of this, the widening gap between public and private. I think the expectation in years past was higher rates would effectively force a little bit more of a tightening in that gap. We haven't seen it. I think that somebody else yesterday was talking about maybe a 5%-10% compression off the peak valuations. Is there a catalyst that could bring valuations in the private market closer to public levels, or are we sort of in for now, it's at a different environment right now? Yeah, I guess, you know, it's interesting because I think what's causing it is you have folks that are investing dollars into a smaller supply of assets, so that obviously weighs on it. But the folks that are investing those dollars, in many cases, are using money, what we kind of call yesterday's balance sheet, dollars that they've raised previously, and so there's an incentive to put that to work. For us, it's a little more live, and so as the cost of capital changes, we're reacting a little more real time to that. If rates stay elevated for an extended period of time, eventually they won't be using yesterday's balance sheet. And so I think it would have more of an impact. And it has had a little bit of an impact, I would say, but not, not to the level you've seen in the public valuations. So, just generally speaking, and when you talk about, you kind of, the way you phrase it, you sort of talked about a catalyst, I think maybe for those, third-party price ranges or valuations to come down. I, I'm hoping that the catalyst goes the other way, that's for the public valuations to go up. But and I think the primary thing, is really interest rates. I mean, there's other factors, but the interest rates get focused on very heavily as it relates to our cost of borrowing and the cost of refinancing debt that we have. But that's only one element of it. It actually affects our customers as well, and I think that it is a contributor, and maybe a very material contributor, to the level of network spending and capital investment that they're making as well. And so in a way, when you see it improve, rates come down, I think you potentially see an uplift on two sides that actually is helpful to our valuation. And through that, you get a little more parity, I think, with where the private valuations are. On the topic of just, you know, growth, inorganic growth, are there any specific markets or regions with healthier underlying dynamics where you'd like to scale up further? Well, we have a number of markets that have been successful for us, but the scaling up is really more relevant to markets where we're subscale today. What we found is that in places where we don't have a very large presence or we're over-indexed to a weaker carrier, that those have been our markets where we've struggled the most in terms of returns. And so ideally, we would like to scale up in those places and improve that indexing in terms of the carrier mix. But again, back to the earlier comments, it sort of depends on whether that's possible or not. In some cases, it may not be, and in those cases, we probably shouldn't be in those markets. So my focus would be really on improving the markets that are subscale, as opposed to feeling like I need to add to markets where we already have a strong presence. On the organic front, historically, I think, I guess, in more recent years, you've been less open to build-to-suit opportunities, particularly, I think, in the U.S. Has the stance and the opportunities had changed at all, and does it vary by region? Yeah. I don't know that I would say that we were not open to build-to-suit. I think we are very open to it. It's, it was actually, in large part, how the company was founded, at least in its transitions into a tower company back in the 1990s, we built most of the sites. And we still have that skill set, obviously, internally and feel like, in many ways, those assets present a better return profile than where you're paying a premium to somebody else who's built them. So ideally, we would like to build towers. However, the reason that we haven't built that many is that the way that most of the tower opportunities, in terms of build-to-suit, are handed out in the U.S., the carriers obviously control what they're handing out. They're able to push certain financial terms and other contractual terms associated with that, that we've not found to be attractive, or they eat away at the value of those assets. And so in those cases, we've generally stayed away from that and been a little more strategic in the builds that we've done. Internationally, many of the build-to-suit opportunities are tied to tower portfolios that have been sold. So in a sell or leaseback type of transaction, they typically have committed away build-to-suits. And so to the extent we haven't participated in those, which generally speaking, we have not, that's limited that. So we're having to go out and kind of fight and scrap for those, which is why the volumes are a little bit lower. But the positive side is that everyone that we're doing, you should take a high degree of comfort that they're very valuable and high-quality assets. On the topic of buybacks, obviously, we talked a little bit about how public valuations have pulled back more materially relative to private companies. So with your stock and generally your peers trading well below these private market valuations, how do you think about the prospect for increasing buybacks with leverage now getting near six? I understand it's gonna be dependent on what other opportunities are out there, but is there maybe a specific lens criteria you would think about in terms of maybe getting more, I guess, dare I say, aggressive with the buyback, with where leverage is now? Yeah, I mean, buybacks have always been a component of our capital allocation. Over the last year, we didn't do that much. I think we bought back $100 million of stock last year, because the focus was more heavily on paying down some of our highest cost debt that we had outstanding. So that was the focus then. I would expect buybacks will, will always be, or certainly will be, at least in the near term, and I would expect over the long term, a meaningful component of our capital allocation. Sometimes the timing can vary as we're looking at different opportunities, in particular, if we look, look at a large acquisition. Sometimes what people don't see is that when you look at that and you spend time and energy and focus on that, you may not end up doing it. But during that window of time, you're having to think about how you manage your balance sheet and preserving the capital accordingly. So sometimes that will hold us back from a buyback. But otherwise, you should expect that we'll be opportunistic and buy back our shares when we see valuations at levels we think are attractive, which generally we've been at recently, I would say. On the dividends, I mean, how do you think about longer-term dividend per share growth, and is there an optimal payout ratio of AFFO you'd like to get to over time, relative to the sub 30% you're at today? Yeah, we've kind of managed our dividend relative to our net operating losses, right? As a REIT, we can balance our obligations through both dividend payments and through using our NOLs. And through that, we've been able to have significant growth in our dividends over time. I think this year, when you look at the public tower companies, we'll be the only one. not only growing it, but materially growing our dividend. And I think the way that we structured it allows us to continue to do that for an extended period of time. Eventually, we will use up those tax attributes, and that will impact the level of growth and the percentage of AFFO that our dividends represent. I don't really target a certain percentage of AFFO. I would think that when we're through our NOLs, we'll probably be somewhere in the mid-40%s to maybe 50% of AFFO. So we still will have a decent amount of capacity, even at that stage, to invest otherwise in the business. Got it. So maybe let's pivot to the U.S. business. So at a high level, can you talk about what you're seeing in your business here domestically, what you've assumed in the outlook for $42 million new leasing this year, just in terms of cadence and activity? Yeah. A lot of that is based on activity that happened in the latter part of last year, latter half of last year, really. So, much of it is already contracted. There's a certain amount in there of assumed lease up during this year, but, as you sign stuff up this year, given the lag between signing something up and when it actually hits your financial statements, it has limited impact to the current year, even if you're signing it up now. So, most of it is what's baked in. The cadence, in terms of the growth, is expected to be a little bit more front-end loaded, and that's really because you still had some carryover from the first part of last year, where lease up was a little bit stronger. As we've gotten into 2024, it's obviously very early days, but, we've seen growth levels very similar to what we were seeing in the second half of the year, thus far, but it's, it's early. So I would expect that what we put out will be very close to what it actually ends up being, given the certainty in, in much of those numbers. So when we think about just. Obviously, we've heard a lot about from yourself, from peers, around moderating activity. Is the slowdown you've seen of late, is that broad-based, or is there some level of dispersion across the different carriers? It's, I would say it's, I guess it's broad-based, but every carrier's every carrier has different situation, different dynamics going on, and the relative change is perhaps more significant with certain carriers. So if you go back a year or two ago when leasing was much higher in terms of activity levels, there were two carriers that were significantly contributing to that, for us, in particular, but I think broadly for the industry. And so when those carriers have slowed down a bunch, that's the most material impact to the growth. The other carriers are a little bit more steady and perhaps are actually up a little bit from where they were before, but it's a much smaller change than the ones that have slowed down. Are you assuming any sort of inflection or pickup, at least in services activity in the back half of this year, that could translate to better leasing, maybe exiting into 2025? Yeah, I don't think it's quite what it's been in previous years. We've had two of the best services years in our entire history, the last two years, given what we just discussed on the carrier activity, and particularly the ones that have slowed down, those were our largest services customers, too. So, our guidance assumes, actually, that our services revenue contribution is slightly higher in the second half of the year than the first half of the year. So some of that is based on an expectation of a slight uptick in activity with those carriers as we move into the second half of the year. That doesn't necessarily materially impact the leasing revenue results for this year, but it obviously would be a good sign to see that increase starting to happen. Got it. I think when we think about long-term growth for the U.S., collectively, I think that this year we're sort of implied to see around 5.5%-ish growth, organic growth, escalator plus new leasing. Seems a little bit lighter than what we've seen over the last decade. Ultimately, we talked about why. What would you say are some of the bigger catalysts that can drive this higher? Well, I mean, the obvious thing is just more carrier spending. And that, I think, will be driven in part by what we talked about a moment ago in terms of the general capital market interest rate environment. I think as you see interest rates pull back, you'll see carriers spending a little bit more freely on their network. Because what you had happen over the last year or so is a definite shift from network focus. Not that they're not focused on their networks, but in terms of prioritization, a little less on network and more on financials than perhaps you've seen in the past. And they can do that because there isn't this major, what a lot of people like to call killer app, 5G killer app, right? If you don't have something that's making a huge difference in terms of, consumer or subscriber behavior, in terms of network-based decisions, it gives them more freedom to pause and to focus on improving their financial situation and balance sheet situation. And so that's really what you see going on here. However, the flip side to that is there's a ton of spectrum that they're holding, that they spent a lot of money on, that has to be deployed, that they have not yet deployed. Our sites in terms of mid-band 5G upgrades, are about 50% upgraded, so we know there's a long runway there. You have other things that are weighing on the network and putting pressure on it, even fixed wireless access. They've been able to use excess capacity in their networks to this point, but the amount of consumption there is so great, it's 20 x what the average mobile user is using, the average fixed wireless subscriber. And so that, as it continues to grow and have success, is gonna put more and more pressure on the network. So there's a number of things that are happening, and that doesn't even move into the question of, well, will there be a killer app, and will AI type of applications and other things put- A demand for speed and latency on the network that you as a subscriber, an end user says, "Hey, I need to have that." That's the old-fashioned way that we've driven growth, is that there's constant need to keep up so that I can do what I need to do as a subscriber on your network. And if I can do it on X carrier's network, and I can't do it on yours, I'm gonna go there. That's the cycle that we need because it drives the carriers to compete, again, based on quality, which is where I think it will ultimately end up again. We talked before about sort of long-term stabilized AFFO per share growth. If, if we maybe double-click on the U.S. business and think about what long-term normalized growth could look like, is mid-single sort of net organic billings growth, is that still sort of a relevant, long-term type growth framework to be thinking about? Yeah, I think so. It's, you know, well, obviously, as you get bigger and bigger, to keep the same percentage, you have to do more and more. But I do think some of the drivers I just mentioned will help that be sustained. If it weren't for this, the churn on a net basis, the elevated churn today, you know, we'd be close to that range anyway, even in a fairly subdued leasing environment, with our customers, as we just talked about. So when you start to see that cycle shift, and you see increased spending, and you get some of this consolidation churn, behind us, which we will over the next few years, I don't see any reason it wouldn't be mid-single digits. And just on the topic of churn, I think even outside of Sprint, you've historically talked about sort of a 1%-2% range. I think maybe we're splitting hairs here, but it's trended a little bit towards the upper end of that. Can you talk about maybe what's driving this and how you see that trending over time? Well, it's a variety of things that go into that. There are actually, we talk about Sprint consolidation, but there are other legacy consolidations that, believe it or not, are a big driver of churn that still happens, which kind of shows you how long the cycle can be. It can be a decade later, and you still have overlap installations. And there's also these sort of legacy types of technologies or networks. Believe it or not, we still have paging customers. And so what I think you'll see happening is you will see, I believe, my expectation is that over the next couple of years, you'll see that amount of non-Sprint consolidation churn in the U.S. really starting to come down even further because, frankly, you just have less and less of those potential customers to churn off. So I would expect us to be closer to the low end as you get out a year or two from now. So. Let's shift gears to international. If we can talk a little bit about your outlook for the international business this year, maybe the latest you're seeing across your top markets. Yeah. So, internationally, we've got every market that's a little bit different and in different places in terms of their wireless network buildouts and so forth. Generally speaking, I expect it to be a reasonably good year in terms of growth. It's perhaps a little bit lower than what it's been before, and that's primarily because Brazil, being our largest international market, has an outsized impact on the overall international results. And in Brazil, you've had consolidation recently of four carriers down to three. Oi Wireless was the fourth carrier, was absorbed into the other three carriers. And so while much of that has started to happen, it actually affects, I think, the gross leasing environment a little bit, too, because the carriers are focused a little bit more on that kind of synergies of those networks and rationalizing them together. And that's put a little bit of a lull, I think, on the spending on new leasing and growth outside of that. But a lot of that was experienced throughout last year and into the first part of this year. So I would expect, as we kind of get beyond that, that you'll see that improve again a little bit. Got it. Got it. Got it. Okay, so that's really driving it. Because I think in terms of, new leasing, there's about a $2 million decline in 2024 relative to 2023. It sounds like it's primarily coming from Brazil. Yeah, I think that's right. Okay. I mean, again, each market is a little bit different, but you, you really get into fairly small numbers when you talk about some of these markets because there's only a few hundred sites. Yeah. Any color in just, like, colo relative to amendment internationally? No, I mean, it's usually fairly balanced. I think the last couple of years, colocations represented a little bit more of the percentage of revenue added than amendments, but over our history, it's been relatively balanced. Yeah. Okay. On the churn front, obviously, Oi churn has been a little bit of a headwind that's maybe depressed some of the growth. Can you remind us how much longer this could last? And maybe we'll start there, and then we'll segue into sort of what longer-term churn could look like. Yeah, on Oi specifically. Well, how much Oi is left, and then what long-term churn for international could look like? Yeah, I think, so just broadly internationally, we talked about Brazil, and it's the biggest because it's the biggest market that we have. There are consolidations that have taken place or are taking place in a number of our markets among our customers, and that obviously drives, similar to what happened here in the U.S., although on a smaller scale, some overlap of networks and, as a result, some churn. And, the approach that we've basically taken is to try to work with our customers, who are not all in the same financial position that the U.S. carriers are in, and getting synergies out of those deals that they did is a very important thing to them, as it would be to anybody, but really of high priority to many of these carriers. And so again, looking at what is important to our business and the nature of it, the long-term security of cash flow with high-quality customers over an extended period of time is what we're prioritizing. And so in some cases, we have worked with our carrier customers, and we continue to do this, to help them get to some of the synergies and some of the benefits that they're looking for. But in exchange for that, securing commitments for new business for us that we would not necessarily otherwise get, and securing long-term extensions and commitments on our existing sites with the remaining leases. And so what that does is, in some cases, it pulls forward churn a little bit, so our churn is elevated internationally. However, what you don't see is the benefit over an extended period of time, whereas we kind of work through that, we will have a much greater, more stable position with those customers going forward. And so, again, it's not great as a public company because it's always this quarter, what happened? But when you look at the core of our business, it's important to ensure the stability of that cash flow over a long period of time. That's the stability we talked about earlier in this particular case. So that's what I think you're seeing, and perhaps you should see over the next year or so. But I think over the long haul, it's gonna be actually a really good positioning for us. And so longer term, I mean, is 1%-2% that we're talking about for churn in the U.S., is that relevant, or are there other maybe structural differences internationally? Yeah. I mean, there's some structural differences. That's it's hard for me to say, but I would think if I was just, it's a little bit of a guess. I believe that that would be long-term a reasonable expectation because they will eventually become a more mature market, just as, and more similar in some ways to the U.S. So- Yeah. Probably a reasonable expectation. Understood. One area, I guess, that talked about a lot on prior calls hasn't really come up as much, but I am curious, is SBA Edge. What's the latest in terms of SBA Edge? Have conversations here picked up at all? We just hear so much about AI and this pivot from training towards inferencing. Just any updates you can share. Yeah. I mean, so we went into first of all, we own a handful of data centers, three data centers actually, that are standalone data centers. We went into that as a basis for educating ourselves on that business a little bit, with the idea of potential kind of micro or edge data centers, small data centers at our tower sites. So when we say edge, we mean the tower site, 'cause that's what's relevant to us. Other people will use the term edge, and it means something different. And so the key was, if there's a point at which compute needs to move all the way to the edge of the wireless network, to the tower sites, we obviously have an embedded advantage. We already own the properties. We're already at these locations, and so our ability to capitalize on that is what we're focused on. There was a lot of talk about that, particularly if you go back a few years ago. We've not really seen that develop, quite honestly, to this point. That doesn't mean that it won't, but I think it's a much slower crawl out to that far out to the edge. We've had some modest success at certain sites, but most of what we're doing at the sites where we have facilities is not really edge computing, it's more fiber regeneration, hubs and things like that. So it's, it's not really edge compute, if you will. So that being the case, that's fine. I think we're well positioned to take advantage of it if it happens, but at the same time, I don't expect that we would be deploying a significant amount of incremental capital into something that there's not a lot of uptake for today. Is this part of the broader portfolio review as well? It is, yeah. But, you know, the data centers that we have are performing just fine. They're, you know, we're not having any issues in terms of it. That's really more of a focus question- Yeah Because it's relatively small. But the idea isn't to necessarily run through and say, "Oh, we need to get rid of things." It's, again, to optimize the things that we have. So yeah, but looking at that business and those efforts is certainly part of the review. Absolutely. Maybe one last question to sort of tie this all together. If we're sitting here a year from now, what would you like to have look back? What would you like to look back on and say you accomplished or achieved in your first year as CEO? Well, so I think what I'd like to do is to have a fully aligned team that is. which we have today, but fully aligned around the focus on stability and quality and the things that set SBA apart in terms of its portfolio and its culture. So, those sound like a lot of generalities. Mm-hmm. High-level words that don't necessarily get to specifics, but internally, we know what that means, and I think we've got a great team that's really focused well on distinguishing ourselves in a business that sometimes gets blended together with everybody else. I think we can stand out through the focus on quality and making sure that we're always allocating capital to the right things. We have a long history of that, but I would feel good if in a year from now, you said, "Wow, you guys really maximized the circumstances and the situation that you had, and you outperformed. Great. It's a great place to end it. Thank you, Brendan. Great. Thank you, Matt. Appreciate it. Appreciate it.