Thank you again for being here with us today. Michael Funk, Bank of America. Really happy to have Jordan Sadler from Digital Realty. We were just saying before we walked in that we're going to have Digital Realty, I think, speaking three times in the next week and a half at Bank of America. So thank you again for being here with us this afternoon for the first of the three presentations. I do not know if you had any kind of safe harbor that you wanted to read off first, Jordan, or anything else?
No safe harbor per se, but please do visit our investor relations website in the event anybody has any questions about some of the numbers or statistics or data we put out here today.
Okay, perfect. I appreciate that. I wanted to start with the core FFO growth because the commentary, the language, it evolved last quarter.
Yes.
Right? The way that you talked about the growth rate. Prior to last quarter, or I will get this partly wrong and you can correct me, but I think that the narrative was more of a high single- digit for longer and steady narrative, and I am paraphrasing. Then, last quarter, I think you talked about double-digit growth for 2027 and beyond, right? So leaning more into development-based growth and other factors driving higher growth. What was the genesis of that change in language or communication, if I am framing that right?
Yeah. If I may, I am going to back it up a couple of years to maybe tell a little bit of the story to how we got to where we are.
Please, yeah. Give the background.
Just to give a little bit of a context, and thank you again, Michael, for all that you do and your coverage for us and spreading the word and for having us out here today and setting up meetings with folks. Just backing it up to 2024, February 2024, which was the fourth quarter of 2023 earnings conference call where we gave guidance for 2024, which was in the low single digits bottom line growth.
Right? Which was not a super satisfactory number in the context of what was going on in the world.
But you were still coming through negative release and spread. Is that right?
We were coming through. Right. There's plenty of things dragging on us.
Yeah.
Rising rates obviously were a big impact. We had delevered tremendously, two turns. From virtually seven times at March 31, 2023, to five times by the end of the year. So that two turns delevering was definitely impactful in dragging on us in 2024 as well. So that low single- digits growth number we put out there was not super satisfactory in a construct or a world where NVIDIA was seeing explosive growth and AI was ripping and taking hold. On the earnings conference call, you may recall, Matt sheepishly gave the low single digits growth guide. But when asked about the algorithm, what does growth look like longer term, he said mid-single- digits. Right? He walked through a construct where in 2025, he was pointing folks to basically 5% growth.
Roll forward through 2024 and into early 2025. At the outset of 2025, he ended up giving guidance for the year that was a little bit better than he had originally forecast. He said we're probably going to do closer to 6% this year. Right? So it was a little bit better. Things had come along. Obviously, the environment was helpful. Our leasing got better, our leasing spreads got better, to your point. Our development started to come along. Rates certainly weren't helping, but the business was definitely getting better and we were executing. Roll forward to the beginning of this year. We ended up delivering 10% bottom line growth versus the 6% we expected last year. For this year, we were saying, "Hey, we think we can do really well again this year. Things are really strong."
We are building a really nice backlog and we have got momentum in all aspects of our business, which I will get to. We guided to 8% growth, not the double- digit number. What happened in between February of this year and our July conference call was we had very, very good progress in both 1Q, 2Q signings. Very strong signings in the first half of the year. Year-over-year, relative to all of the leasing in 2025, we were ahead. That resulted in a backlog at June 30 of $1.9 billion of signed but not commenced leases, including the lease we signed in July, post quarter end, that we reported on, which is a $400 million lease. We were at $2.3 billion. That $2.3 billion equals north of 30% of our in-place data center revenue.
As you look to that signed but not commenced revenue commencing, 31%- 32% on a base of $5 billion and change of data center revenue, you got more than 10% compounded. That is really where the bulk of this is coming from, and that is what enabled us to sort of reset the course and the cadence for guidance. We said it, to your point, we said this year we will deliver double-digit growth. We will also do it next year and potentially beyond that.
I want to dissect some of the drivers and the change in guidance, but I would characterize Digital Realty management team as being incredibly prudent and thoughtful the way that you approach the business and in underwriting risk. This is probably my interpretation, but I am an equity analyst, so I always try to create my own narrative, right? Is that maybe a year or two ago, there was less certainty of Digital Realty in the staying power or longevity of the AI demand cycle, or maybe specifically where that cycle was moving for development. It feels to me as if, based on what you just said and some of the lease signings and where you are developing a recent site acquisition, that there is greater confidence now at Digital Realty and the duration sustainability of the AI demand cycle. Is that accurate framing?
It is. That is absolutely a key piece of the puzzle. We talk about three core pillars of growth, right? We talk about the zero-to-one plus interconnection business, which we have been driving.
Yep.
The hyperscale business, which you're speaking to now, right? Big leases going into the backlog.
Execution there is imperative, and to the extent you're signing those, you're de-risking future growth. The third piece of the business, which is strategic private capital, which is relatively nascent. We've been raising private capital through joint ventures for well over a decade, but we really started down the path towards building a funds business, a commingled funds business, a couple of years ago. We were really successful last year. We raised $3.25 billion of LP equity for our first closed-end fund, which is going to support north of $10 billion of investment activity at cost in data centers, right? What did that do? That gave us a checkbook, right? A $10 billion checkbook to fund the hyperscale leasing that we were doing, what we had already done, and what we're going to do in the future.
We continued down that path on the private capital side. We continue to raise money, because we think capital is paramount in a world where there is tremendous demand for capital. We're 4.7x levered, debt- to- EBITDA, the mothership, but we're also using private capital to fund the development of the hyperscale data center capacity. We think as long as we have capital and we can sign leases, so we have powered land that we can sign into new development, those are the pieces that are going to de-risk the future growth. Sign lease, raise capital, and lease raise capital.
Are there specific indicators that Digital Realty sees? I had lunch with a private data center company a few weeks ago, and what they said is that they can see through their own monitoring that today versus a couple of years ago, when they deliver capacity to a customer, that usage, however you want to qualify it, goes to almost 100% overnight. Whereas before it would scale slowly. That gives them confidence in the durability of demand. Customers are asking for 100% of contract capacity on day one today, where in the past, maybe they would've scaled into that capacity over a number of years. That company provided a number of examples of what they were seeing internally through their own systems and their contracts that give them confidence. Do you have similar examples from Digital Realty that have increased confidence?
A similar anecdote along those lines, and this is just pretty consistent, which is we consistently hear from our customers who we are building data centers for, before we sign leases, as we sign leases, we know that time to power is paramount today.
Yeah.
That happens when we are marketing a piece of a potential property or a data center. That would be a development, and that happens when we are underway, we are already developing it. They are looking for us to hand off the rooms or the data halls as fast as we can. Some are even looking for us to accelerate it, right? Meaning add resources. We want an extra crew in there. We want to be commissioning at the same time these folks are fitting out the PDUs.
So we want double the workers in the room. And we have seen that in our data centers. As we have even been touring them, as we are doing fit outs, we see how active the construction is. And so it is just a function of this time to power that we are seeing in this current environment. And a lot of that is obviously AI- oriented.
I want to talk about the contracts here in a second, but you just mentioned labor and the workers in a room. Maybe think back to Nareit in December. I think I met with you and Matt. Last question I asked was, what is the biggest risk or thing concerning you in 2026? The answer was labor. At that time, maybe it was not as obvious how tight labor was becoming in data center development. Today, I think everyone is very aware of that. What is Digital Realty doing to solve the labor shortage, specifically, master electricians and plumbers? How do you address that relative to peers?
There are a couple different things that we are doing. One, we are building in a lot of our existing markets in certain locations. You have been to Digital Dulles, for example.
Yep.
This is a site that we took down the site in 2018. It has essentially been under construction for five or six years. Because it is a gigawatt site with a sort of a 10-year build plan, right? When you pull onto that site, one GC's construction office is on the right, the other GC's construction office is sitting on the left, and they have consistent work on that site, these GCs, right? Two different GCs, so diversity, where you are essentially feeding the beast and handing them work somewhat consistently. So keeping those crews active. That is a big piece of it.
So part of building the relationship, building the track record. Sort of multiply that by what we are doing across our development life cycle or across our footprint. We are doing this in 30, 40 markets globally, and have been for some time, and that is helpful to the overall being able to bring resources to bear where we need them, when we need them. We get pretty good priority. So that has been helpful.
But I think you are also asking, what are you actually doing to build up the workforce and to make sure that we have the people we need. There are lots of things that we are doing from our human resources department, from our ops department, across all markets and all regions to continue to bring additional people into the data center workforce. Our internships are up dramatically. The number of folks that we are bringing in new from colleges into the data center are up significantly. So interns converting into new hires, and we are adding people onto the platform at a pretty rapid pace as well.
If you look at our job site, we have got quite a bit of hiring going on, and this has been going on for as long as I have been here, which is roughly four and a half years. So, we are staffing up pretty significantly.
There are a lot of parts to that question. I will come back to it later. There is obviously kind of labor cost component, there is modular as part of your build process to address it. But I wanted to go back to development yield, which I mentioned a few minutes ago, because the investable data center universe has expanded tremendously in the past 12 months, which is great. Brings more eyeballs to Digital Realty. But, I think it also creates greater need for differentiation across the space. At least investors differentiating between the different operators. And in one metric where I do see differentiation is development yield. And I think that Digital Realty talks about targeting unlevered development yields of 8%-10%, let us say. That is probably about the right range. You and I were just talking about the same thing.
Some of the more transitional data center providers will talk about unlevered yields of low to mid teens. But I think there are differences beneath the surface here, as well, that I want you to go into for maybe why you are targeting a lower development yield. And that is maybe ability to control for risk, where maybe some companies are taking on more development risk, going back to the cost per megawatt, or even the cost of capital might be different or more risk in where it comes in versus projected. So, why is Digital Realty able to accept lower development yield? And I guess in your contract, how do you control for those risks to have certainty?
Yeah. So I appreciate the question, and I think the context of it comes relative to maybe some of the smaller or nascent hyperscale developers who are out there, maybe have a little bit of a smaller portfolio or track record.
Yes. Not same scale. Sure.
Just a little bit of a different story. We target 10%+ development yields. We have $20 billion under construction today, and 11.5% expected initial cash yield. When we talk to our, and sort of compare versus our large private peers, who alongside us, we tend to dominate the third-party hyperscale data center provider market. I think we're pretty consistent with those folks and maybe even probably get a premium relative to [crosstalk]
I would agree with that.
Part of that is because they are using significantly more leverage than we are, so their levered returns are higher, but they are using 75%-95% project level.
They might be levered 12x- 15x .
Correct.
Yeah.
That is sort of how we see the landscape. When we see some of these other numbers that are being quoted, I think it is really incumbent upon the investor and analysts like yourself to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. So are those developments, and are those yields on a GAAP basis, meaning are we looking at the average NOI over the life of the lease, or are you looking at initial stabilized cash, which is the number that we give you. The number would be 20% higher or so if you were using a GAAP yield.
So maybe your 11.5% would be 14%. Or what's embedded in the underlying cost that Digital Realty provides versus some of these other folks. Are they including land? Do their data centers have generators or redundancy? Are they including contingency in their costs and/or losses till stabilization? So some of the things that we embed in our costs, which we would say we have a fully loaded cost estimate that we're projecting a yield on.
So I think there are differences. So, I think in general, we command a premium, and I'll tell you why, in the marketplace. Number one, we have somewhat uniquely low leverage for a hyperscale data center provider. Number two, with that leverage, with that balance sheet, and with our diverse sources of capital, we have the ability to have patience, right? In many times, we've already procured the capacity, including not only the land, but also the power. We've signed an ESA, right, on our own credit or using our own balance sheet.
We don't necessarily need to go out and get financing, right? Most of our financing, we're capitalizing it at the corporate level, through our revolver, or cash on hand, or equity, et cetera. So we don't need to take a tenant lease and then go get it financed, or bring it to a power provider to get an ESA signed.
Yep.
I think we're able to have a little bit more patience, and for that, we're able to command a premium. But it depends who you're comparing us to, I think, to some extent.
Sure. And embedded in that question is actually a compliment as well, that I think you do a better job of controlling for development yield spread as well. Right? So, you can target the 9%-10%, because you have greater certainty in your cost of development, right?
Correct.
So I'd love to hear more detail in how you do that, because I think the devil really is in the details now when we're thinking about contracts, and specifically how they are written and how data center developers protect themselves, whether it's upside in development cost or other factors, just to ensure some certainty around the development spread. Is that something you can address, Jordan?
I think generally, we're controlling costs, right? We're underwriting deals. We buy land. We try and have a low basis. From a procurement perspective, you know well that we have had a vendor-managed inventory program for well over a decade, right? We've had multiple iterations of supply chain issues that we've seen over the last two decades, really. That experience has brought us to evolve our supply chain team and procurement process to really make sure that we have inventory or capacity available of this equipment that's needed to bring these developments to bear at a good or well-negotiated price. We have very good relationships with our largest vendors, and we're buying at scale, across the equipment stack, if you will.
That's obviously pretty helpful. Similar to what I was describing on the balance sheet side, that construct, taking equipment into inventory is not necessarily something you see on the private side as much. That's also beneficial. Then I would say, we just have to have line of sight to capital, which I talked about earlier, around the strategic private capital side. We're locking in. We know what our cost of capital is. At the same time, we have a robust global design engineering construction team who's accustomed to wash, rinse, repeat, in terms of standardized design, our process, and shopping our developments to our GCs and getting a GMP from these GCs, and thereby locking in the cost and locking in the spread.
Mm-hmm. I haven't even gotten to leasing yet. I'm surprised it's taken me so long. You talked earlier about the zero-to-one and the greater than one as normally question number one or two during these sessions. I want to start with zero-to-one first, though, because I have also heard in conversations with public and private data center operators that they are seeing not just increased demand from, say, hyperscalers or AI companies, but enterprise is now deploying AI. I think Digital Realty spoke about this in recent quarters as well, but there has been a real uptick. From what I am hearing, presumably, that will continue to drive the zero-to-one activity. I would like to hear what Digital Realty is seeing from enterprise demand and how much of that is related to AI inference.
It is a very relevant question. When we speak to our core pillars of growth, the first pillar is really the zero-to-one plus interconnection growth which is the enterprise and [colocation].
That is the sticky, that is the consistent.
It's a sticky.
Quarter after quarter. Yep.
Steady Eddie land and expand type of business.
Mm-hmm.
We've set a target of doubling our production a few years ago. Within this business, we were doing two years ago, $50 million a quarter of zero-to-one plus interconnection leasing.
Yep.
This past quarter, which happened to be another record, four of the last five quarters have been records. We put up $108 million of aggregate leasing in the zero-to-one plus interconnection leasing. You and I are doing this long enough to remember when $100 million was the total leasing bogey for Digital Realty.
Yep.
And probably even before that, when the numbers were even lower. We did $108 million of zero-to-one plus interconnection leasing this quarter. Not only was that a record, but we also had a record level of AI-related leasing or workloads embedded within that. It was north to 21%. That is generally our enterprise segment, enterprise business. We saw a significant uptick there. What is notable about that is that it is probably double the pace or the percentage of the total. Not only is the leasing up 28% year-over-year in the second quarter, but the percentage has also almost doubled.
The re-leasing spreads have not been talked about yet, which is also significantly above expectations coming into the quarter.
The re-leasing spreads. Yes, they were.
Yeah.
On the zero-to-one side as well as across the overall portfolio. What's interesting about re-leasing spreads, you're right, they were 25% in the quarter, which was almost anomalous type level relative to what we've been doing or relative to the sort of the, I don't know, 7%- 8% guide we gave for the year at the outset of the year. Now we're expecting to do 10% for the year. When you split out that leasing, we did 5.2% on the zero-to-one side.
Historically, right, it's a steady Eddie business as you described. Historically, that's a 2%, 3%, 4% increaser type business. We did 5.2%, so we're definitely above the high end of the range, and we are seeing upward pressure on that side of the business. A lot of that is being driven by reduced availability and increased or steady demand. That's on the zero-to-one side. We saw a very big number on the greater than a megawatt re-leasing spreads.
Yeah.
Those were 67%, and those were driven by a handful of leases in APAC that were up for renewal.
Yeah. I get this question frequently, and it's going to sound like a knock, but it's not. The question I get is why isn't growth in the industry, not Digital Realty, why isn't growth in the industry higher if occupancy is so high or supply is so tight? That goes back to re-leasing spreads. You're right, this past quarter, I mean, they were tremendous levels. But you've been averaging that high single digit level, and that was the expectation, I think, for the industry. So why shouldn't re-leasing spreads remain at teens or 20% if you're at 98% occupancy, right? It's a sellers market.
Yep.
Why accept anything less than 15%, 20% re-lease? You might have to say, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."
Yeah.
Why shouldn't they remain at that level?
Re-leasing spreads are like FOMC policy. They tend to have long and variable lags. The increases tend to look like this, right? They're sort of gradually higher as the market has tightened, as fundamentals have tightened and demand has increased and outweighed new supply or the ability to bring new supply to bear. We've seen re-leasing spreads march higher, but this quarter, right, it's higher with upside volatility. It's been steadily higher, but this quarter was +25% on a path towards 10% for the year. We do expect to see quarters where we're going to have meaningful upside volatility, and that's just along this path of tightening of overall fundamentals. When we look at, you didn't necessarily ask this question, but if you look at our renewal schedule-
I was actually going to get in there because you do lay out the rates and your renewals, right?
That's correct. The zero-to-one business, which is 40% of our rent roughly, right, tends to be a more steady Eddie, right? That you're going to see 2%- 5% increases each quarter. But the greater than a megawatt business and the hyperscale business tends to be a more volatile business. They're longer term leases, and so whatever we're renewing today was probably signed 10 years ago, or 7- 10 years ago.
Which was a down cycle-
Which was a down cycle.
-in pricing.
Exactly. When you look at our renewal schedule today through, let's say, 2032, that's a random number, but about 40% of our hyperscale rents are rolling between today and 2032.
Yeah.
That's 40% of the book. The expiring rates range from about $134 at the low end, up to as high as $160, but average really in that $140 range. We're signing new leases at $160- $220 in that bucket. There's a meaningful upside opportunity between now and really the next five or six years as we see it, if conditions continue to remain as they are.
That could provide upside even to projected growth. You don't have a point estimate for growth, right? I'm just saying it could provide upside to that low double- digit FFO per share growth.
Correct.
Okay. Something we haven't talked about yet is just the capital recycling, right? Part of the strategy, I believe, at Digital Realty the last few years is also to maybe move some of the fully stabilized assets off balance sheet. You've had JVs and things that allowed you to recycle that capital, right, and put it to higher and better use. Number one, I want to hear if that continues to be part of the financing strategy. A couple months ago, it might be my timing's not exactly right, but you took full control of an asset that was jointly owned, right? Blackstone was the co-owner.
I got a lot of questions around that transaction because it seemed like a bit of reversing course from you recycling assets, and what the catalyst was, if there was a put option in that agreement or what led to it? Kind of a broad question around capital recycling, but then also the catalyst for the acquisition of the asset.
Okay. I'll take them separate because they're somewhat discrete. A few years ago, when Andy took over as CEO, he laid out his key strategic priorities, the third of which was bolstering and diversifying our sources of capital.
Em-hmm.
That meant reducing our leverage, but also availing the company of meaningful incremental capital sources. Institutional LPs, retail investors, et cetera, largely through the strategic private capital business, but also through joint ventures. We did an $8 billion joint venture with our partners at Blackstone, the initial phases of which have turned out to be very successful, and I'll get to in a second. Through our strategic private capital business, we see an opportunity to capitalize the super capital intensive hyperscale side of the business. That business is growing very, very quickly. The size of those developments, they used to be 30 MW, 40 MW, 50 MW developments, and now they're multiple hundreds and even gigawatt type developments that can cost as much as, I mean, a gigawatt of capacity could cost $15 billion.
Yep.
Right? How do you capitalize that and then maintain this product mix that we've enjoyed, that we've targeted, right? We're 40% zero-to-one plus interconnection and 60% hyperscale w hich we like very much. We like the growth angle of this and of the zero-to-one plus interconnection. We very much love the credit and the growth profile of the hyperscale as well, and we believe they belong together, and we like the diversity that comes from both. We don't want to be 95% one versus the other, which is why we've gone in the direction of this strategic private capital. We will continue to use private capital to fund the hyperscale side of our business.
Coming back to the Blackstone transaction, in December of 2023, we signed up this seven, which ultimately became an $8 billion JV with Blackstone to develop hyperscale data centers. We made quick work of a handful of properties. We signed a handful of leases. We started developing them and got to a point earlier this year, really a few months ago, where there was an opportunity to recapitalize these out of the joint venture.
We and our partner opportunistically shook hands and made a deal. We bought in the remaining 64% interest that they owned in these three assets, cost us about $5 billion at just over a 6.5% cap rate for what we viewed as three of the best brand new data centers on the planet. We thought that was a very good deal for AA- rated credit with 15 year leases. We're happy to own those on balance sheet.
Longer term, those also can become fantastic fodder and inventory for our strategic private capital business. They weren't ever going to sit in the Blackstone JV permanently, right? Because the nature of that JV was a development JV. We needed funding at the time to build those, and what we did in late June was we recapitalized the assets that had been essentially fully leased and were well underway in terms of development and/or completed. We recapitalized those, and you'll continue to see activity like that. That's just really movement before you get to the permanent financing.
We will leave that question. I think I asked that Nareit maybe later as well. So the process of the vehicle then for recycling those assets, will that continue to be through the JVs, so you can collect the management fee? Or there are some other avenues today, like blind pools looking to acquire fully stabilized assets. Could that be a path to raising capital from selling some assets like the recently acquired?
It could be. I think we will look to use private capital to be involved in the permanent financing ourselves.
Mm-hmm.
We would rather hold onto these assets in perpetuity with our customers on our campuses. The assets that we built and that we operate, right? We would rather hold those long term and invite investor partners in to capitalize some portion of that.
Yeah. The narrative has always been that we like collecting the management fee, too, right? That's always been part of the story.
It helps.
Yeah, it helps. Can we talk politics for a few minutes?
For sure.
NIMBYism. Every day I turn on CNBC, I look up during my work hours, and they talk about data centers and moratoriums and executive orders three or four times a day, right? It is obviously topical. It is top of mind. The National Republican Congressional Committee, whatever, put out a memo a few weeks ago specifically mentioning the Ohio gubernatorial race as a key indicator, right, for nationwide backlash. Both parties paying attention. It is bipartisan. I would love to hear Digital Realty's view on these moratoriums or executive orders, the risk that it poses to your development schedule, and if there is a company line on if you believe that this is going to dissipate or be reduced post November.
So, it is a great question, and obviously we are seeing the same headlines and the same media and receiving the same emails and questions that you are. Everybody is familiar with data centers these days. They are all the rage. Two years ago, nobody knew what a data center was.
Nobody cared
Besides me and you. There's obviously been quite a bit of activism around this. It's part and parcel with the growth in AI. AI has come along and come on the scene very aggressively, and there's been lots of different narratives around that. I think data centers, for better or worse, have become the physical manifestation of the ire for AI and potential job loss and fear related to AI and what the unknown is around it.
So there's absolutely some of that. Those have been correlated. There have been broad narratives. It's undoubtedly become harder to build data centers. Part of that is there's been a big acceleration in data center construction. We are doing, despite the fact that it's become more difficult, we have $20 billion of data center construction underway today versus $10 billion six months ago, or at the end of 2025. So we've doubled the amount that's underway.
Does it all get completed on time?
That's our track record.
Okay.
In the future, we sure hope so. That's what we've committed to do. We'll have to see what happens. I can't speak for other players in the market, but that's obviously the goal. In experiences I was describing earlier, our customers are looking for this capacity earlier, sometimes we're actually delivering it early. It may cost a little extra and they're paying for it, but w e've done that too.
But are there specific, and I don't want to rush you, but we're a little bit short on time. Are there specific regions or developments that you see most at risk in the political pushback? Anything to call out, just to give an investor some awareness so there's not a surprise.
In terms of what you have seen in terms of moratoria or pauses to date, we do not have a lot of development. We do not have any new development exposure-
Yeah, [crosstalk]
-in places like New York or Pennsylvania, right? We have not had a lot of exposure there. There was a temporary moratorium put in place in Charlotte. We have three projects underway in Charlotte. They are all vested.
Mm-hmm.
One of them is underway, and two of them are underway, and the third is certainly buildable and approved, despite the current moratorium. There are risks, and it is making it, as I said, more difficult. We feel very good about what we have underway today. There are certain markets where we have built historically, like in Northern Virginia. We are running out of available capacity in a place like Northern Virginia. We have 50 MW available today for lease, and probably another 96 MW building behind it. But after that, it could be some time.
Yeah.
You are accustomed to seeing us sign a lot of leases in Northern Virginia. We've moved to places like Kansas City.
Which we didn't even get to, where you recently acquired land and have greater capacity to develop now in Kansas City.
Yeah. Right. We're having to be tactical and change where we can site some of these data centers. But we're still picking our spots, and we expect to continue to be able to make some progress.
Okay. Well, Jordan, thank you so much for coming out. Really appreciate it.
Thank you for having me.
Okay.
Really appreciate it.
Hey, thank you all.
Thanks, guys.
Keep dropping this.