Gladstone Land Corporation (LAND) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Appreciate that, Rob. Good way to set things up. I'm David Gladstone, and I'd like to welcome everyone to this quarterly conference call for Gladstone Land. We're grateful that all of you dialed in today. The time you spend listening to what we have to present truly means a lot to us, and our hope is that we can deliver some genuinely positive updates on this occasion. That said, before getting started, we need to hear from Michael LiCalsi. He serves as our General Counsel. Michael, the floor is yours.

Thanks, David. Good morning, everyone. This report could contain forward-looking statements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about how we'll perform in the future. These forward-looking statements carry certain risks and uncertainties that rest on our present plans, which we consider reasonable. Many factors could make our actual results differ materially from the future results stated or suggested by those forward-looking statements, including every risk factor in our Forms 10-K, 10-Q, and other documents we submit to the SEC. Those are available on our website, www.gladstoneland.com, on the investors page in particular, or on the SEC's site, www.sec.gov. We assume no duty to publicly update or revise any of these forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events, or anything else, unless the law requires it. Today we'll talk about FFO, or funds from operations. FFO is a non-GAAP accounting term, meaning net income, not counting gains or losses from selling real estate and any property impairment losses, plus depreciation and amortization of real estate assets. We might also cover core FFO, which we generally describe as FFO, adjusted for certain non-recurring revenues and expenses. And adjusted FFO, which takes core FFO and further adjusts it for certain non-cash items, like converting GAAP rents into normalized cash rents. We think these give better indications of how we're operating and permit better comparability of how we perform from period to period. Please go to our website, again, gladstoneland.com. Sign up for our email notification service. You can also find us on Facebook. The key word there is The Gladstone Companies, and on Twitter, we're @GladstoneComps. This call provides an overview of our results, so please look at our press release and Form 10-K, both issued yesterday, for more detailed information. With that, I'll hand it back to David Gladstone.

All right, thanks, Michael. I’ll begin by giving a quick look at what we hold in farmland. Right now, we have roughly 112,000 acres across 168 farms, plus more than 46,000 acre ft of water assets. A single acre ft equals roughly 326,000 gal, which means we hold around 15 billion gal of water. And while the land and water together are valued at roughly $1.6 billion, it will be interesting to watch where land and buildings move during the next year or two, as economic changes hopefully begin to show effect. At present, $250-$500 per acre ft, so $23 million worth of water. And without water, you cannot grow anything, so we are well positioned there. We have that all of this land we own, along with the water, is valued at approximately $1.6 billion. Our farms are located in 15 different states and, more significantly, in 29 different growing regions, while our water assets are entirely in California. These farms are rented to more than 90 separate tenant farmers, every one of them unaffiliated with us, and the tenants on those farms are producing 60 different crops, mainly fruits, vegetables, and nuts. You can find them in the produce aisle of grocery stores, which is where the majority of our crops, tenants sell our crops to those, to those individuals operating those grocery stores. And now I’ll provide a short update on some tenant problems we keep facing. At this time, we have five properties, around 15 of our 168 farms, sitting vacant, and we are also recording revenue from leases with two tenants who together lease five of our farms on a cash basis. So we are somewhat behind on that front. As for the vacant farms, we are talking with a range of possible buyers or tenants about purchasing or leasing those properties, and we hope to have everything arranged by this summer; and as for the two tenants on non-accrual status, one has now caught up on rental payments owed to us, and we keep working with the remaining tenant to recover payment from that tenant. The total year-over-year effect on operations from these two and other tenant matters got resolved during the year, but it lowered operating income by roughly $1.4 million in the fourth quarter and about $1.7 million for the year. I think you will see that appear next quarter. As we have said on the last several calls, we remain cautious about new investments because the cost of capital, both the borrowing costs we must pay and the equity we must issue, is still very high, and land prices remain too elevated to make sense in many of the acquisitions we review; so because of that, acquisition activity is still slow for us, and likely will be for at least another couple of quarters. Since inflation continues to run higher than the Fed's objective, borrowing costs will likely stay elevated for another six months or possibly as long as 12 months. Whenever reductions do arrive, they could get delayed even more, so it might take some time before we're in a position to expand our land holdings once more. On the whole, the farmland we already own keeps delivering results in line with what we anticipated, aside from the matters I brought up only a short while back. Following the close of the year — that is, past December 31 — we completed the sale of a single property. That gave us a favorable gain. Located in Florida, this farm was acquired roughly 7 years back for approximately $54 million, and in January we sold it for roughly $66 million. After subtracting closing costs, that produced a cash gain of roughly $10 million. Keep in mind that throughout those 7 years, rent had been coming in from the tenants on that farm. I should point out that the amount we received was roughly $2 million above the property's latest appraised value, which suggests to me that the appraisals underlying our net asset value tend to be somewhat conservative. Turning to leasing activity, starting with the quarter's outset, we extended or modified 7 leases covering farms located in 2 states. Collectively, those extensions should bring about a reduction in yearly net operating income from those properties — roughly $682,000 relative to what the earlier leases generated. That said, this figure reflects a single lease signed for a property replacing a previous tenant who'd been classified as non-accrual; the earlier arrangement used fixed rent, while the replacement is mostly structured as a crop share. We typically adopt that crop-share approach — taking a portion of profits — for new leases, purely to let a new tenant figure out what he can genuinely afford to pay for the property. So if you set aside that single lease, the other lease extensions ought to produce a total rise in net investment income of roughly $504,000. That works out to roughly 5.4% above the earlier leases, so things look favorable there. Going forward, just a single lease of ours comes due within the coming six months, and it represents under 0.5% of our overall annualized lease revenue. A group interested in leasing that farm is currently in talks with us, and at present we don't expect any extra vacancies stemming from this or any other situations on the horizon. There are a handful of other points I want to raise. For our Western portfolio, 2023 proved to be a genuinely strong year when it came to water. On the West Coast, water underpins virtually everything; and 2024, and where we stand now, has begun very favorably. Plenty of rain has been falling out there — in fact, even today, and definitely yesterday. So, with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act—SGMA, as we refer to it—that became law back in 2014, there are specific basins that need to reach groundwater sustainability by 2040. That gives us a lot of runway, but the team we have in California has really been concentrating on making sure we fully grasp how SGMA affects the long-term viability of our Western portfolio. Because of that, we've been developing projects in some locations that have been pinpointed as facing the danger of possible water shortages during the coming twenty years or so. In 2023, we finished building a sizable groundwater recharge facility located on a pair of our farms. We signed a variety of agreements with local water districts as well as private third-party individuals so we could obtain extra water supplies for the near term. For a significant portion of our holdings in the western San Joaquin Valley, California, we've locked in a long-term water supply contract. These purchases and projects have already had a major effect on securing long-term, sustainable water supplies for a lot of the farms in California. We plan to keep up this emphasis on water security for our farms in 2024, which has begun with yet another round of historic storms in California.

If these rain events keep up, we anticipate that the state's water supply will permit yet another year of tremendous opportunity for California farms, which would let us use the projects and contracts we locked in during 2023 to obtain additional water rights. We also have more water projects that we expect to finish in 2024 so we can secure further water rights. It's worth noting that these projects are mostly forward-looking. Right now our portfolio has plenty of water, and as of today, no farms have needed to fallow their land or cut back on plantings. Our aim is to stay in compliance — fully complying with SGMA through 2024 to 2040 and beyond. Although some other land might need to fallow part of its farms, which would lower the planted acreage for certain crops, we aim to keep production steady across every one of our farms. We plan to keep working with local groundwater management agencies throughout California so that we have — unlike any of our farming friends — a sustainable water supply for all our farms in the West. In Florida, of course, and out East, getting groundwater is much simpler. And just one more thing about California weather. They've had another round of storms and flooding during the past few weeks, but luckily, we've been able to say that none of our farms have taken any significant damage from these recent storms, and we truly don't anticipate our farms being harmed. We have solid runoff programs; and lastly, I just want to address a question that comes up now and then from some of our good shareholders — that we pay money, meaning your company pays money, to Gladstone Securities to sell the preferred stock we're issuing in the company. And Gladstone Securities serves mostly as a conduit in this process. It passes along a large majority of the fees it receives to other parties involved in the offering, such as participating broker-dealers and wholesalers. Ultimately, it's pretty much a break-even business for Gladstone Securities, so we aren't earning a profit from selling your securities. Please also keep in mind that preferred stock isn't part of the calculation for any fees that Gladstone Land pays to the advisor. So I'll stop here. That's enough on the operations. Now I'll hand it over to our CFO, Lewis Parrish, to tell you more about the numbers he reported in the 10-K.

Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. Let me begin by briefly walking through our recent activity on the financing side. We didn't take on any new borrowings, but since the beginning of Q4 we've repaid about $24 million of loans that had been scheduled to either mature or reset. On the equity side, since the quarter began, we've generated net proceeds of approximately $556,000 from selling our Series E Preferred Stock. Now, on to operations. For Q4, net income was about $1.8 million, and net loss to common shareholders was $4.3 million, also on a per-share basis; for the entire year, net income was approximately $14.6 million, while net loss to common shareholders totaled $9.9 million, or $0.28 per share. On a sequential quarter basis, Adjusted FFO for the quarter was about $5.4 million, or $0.151 per share, compared with $6.6 million, or $0.189 per share, in the prior-year quarter. Dividends declared per common share were $0.139 this quarter, compared with $0.137 in the same quarter last year. For the full year, Adjusted FFO in 2023 was approximately $20.3 million, compared with $24.3 million in 2022, and AFFO per share was $0.569 in 2023 versus $0.701 in 2022. Dividends declared totaled $0.554 in 2023 and $0.546 in 2022. The primary drivers behind the AFFO decline were lost revenue and increased costs associated with properties that were vacant, self-operated, or on non-accrual status for portions of the year, together with fewer participation rents being recorded and higher dividends paid to preferred shareholders during the year. Despite those revenue losses from vacant, self-operated, and non-accrual properties, fixed-base cash rents increased by about $255,000, or 1%, quarter over quarter, and by roughly $990,000, or 1%, year over year; those increases were largely attributable to additional rents earned on capital improvement projects completed at certain farms. In Q4, we recorded approximately $3.3 million of participation rents, compared with $4.7 million in Q4 of last year. For the full year, participation rents were roughly $5.9 million, versus $7.7 million in 2022. The decline in participation rents was primarily the result of lower yields, combined with weaker pricing for last year's crops. Those lower yields were expected, since the crops were harvested as a multi-year drought was coming to an end, and of course, water conditions in California and throughout the West have changed dramatically since then. Pricing remained somewhat depressed due to oversupply, particularly in the almond market. That said, almond prices are starting to recover somewhat as global inventories are drawn down. On expenses, excluding reimbursable expenses and certain non-recurring or non-cash items, our core operating expenses were essentially flat across both comparison periods. Total related party fees decreased in both periods, mainly because our advisor earned a smaller incentive fee this quarter and year. That decrease was largely offset by increases in a few other core operating costs — specifically, property operating expenses and general and administrative expenses. In the current year periods, property operating expenses were pushed higher by property taxes, and additional property management fees also contributed, which arose due to certain properties being vacant or self-operated during portions of 2023. At the same time, G&A expenses increased as a result of higher professional fees and additional costs associated with amending our credit facility with MetLife. One more thing I'd like to point out on the income statement: occasionally, tenants reimburse us for certain costs, or they cover those costs directly on our behalf, as stipulated in the lease agreement. When that occurs, we record additional lease revenue along with additional property operating expenses, and those two amounts offset each other, netting out to zero. Historically, this figure has averaged approximately $50,000 per quarter; however, in the fourth quarter, it jumped to nearly $550,000. It still nets out to zero on the income statement, but I wanted to call attention to the fact that both of these individual line items — lease revenue and property operating expenses — are each inflated by approximately $500,000 in the fourth quarter compared to what they've been recently. Finally, other expenses declined, primarily due to lower interest expense resulting from loan repayments made over the past year. With that, let's move on to net asset value. During the quarter, 31 farms were revalued, all by way of third-party appraisals. Overall, these valuations came in roughly $13 million under their prior valuations from about a year ago. So as of December 31, our portfolio was valued at approximately $1.6 billion, all of which is backed by either third-party appraisals or purchase prices. Using these updated valuations, and taking into account the fair value of our debt and all preferred securities, our net asset value per common share at December 31 came to $19.06, down from $20.33 at September 30. Most of that decrease stemmed from the change in fair value of our fixed long-term borrowings and preferred securities, since interest rates retreated somewhat between September 30 and December 31, along with declines in valuations of certain farms that were reappraised during the quarter. Turning to liquidity: counting availability on our lines of credit and other undrawn notes, we currently have access to more than $200 million of liquidity, which includes about $60 million of cash on hand, and we also hold over $130 million of unpledged properties. More than 99.9% of our borrowings are currently at fixed rates, and on a weighted average basis, those rates are locked at 3.34% for another 4.2 years. As a result, we've seen minimal impact on our operating results from rising interest rates. Regarding our current debt outstanding, we believe we're well protected should interest rates remain high. As for debt coming due soon, roughly $35 million matures within the next 12 months. That said, approximately $17 million of that figure consists of assorted loan maturities. Considering what the collateral behind them is worth, we don't anticipate any difficulty refinancing these loans should we decide to. Also worth noting, our monthly distribution equals $0.465 per share per month. So after removing those items, roughly $18 million of amortizing and principal payments is left to be paid over the coming 12 months, and that comes to about 3% of the debt outstanding for us right now. Beyond that, we also have approximately $10 million of loans that do not mature but have a fixed term at a fixed rate that runs out in the next 12 months. One additional item to note: our credit lines with MetLife originally were set to mature in April 2024. In the fourth quarter, however, we amended the MetLife facility, extending the maturity date on both credit lines to December 2033 — nearly 10 years of additional term on those lines. Finally, regarding our common distributions, we have just raised our common dividend yet again, to $0.0465 per share per month. That marks the 33rd instance of us increasing our common dividend over the last 36 quarters, producing a cumulative rise of 55% over that period; and with that, I'll turn the program back over to David.

Okay, thanks, Lewis. Good report. We're still out there looking at the market, and if a solid opportunity comes along, we'd act on it—but on the acquisition side, we're continuing to take a more careful stance. Rates remain too elevated, though we're optimistic they'll come down this fall, which would let us get back to purchasing additional farms. A couple of closing thoughts. In our view, putting money into farmland and raising crops tied to healthier living—things like fruits, vegetables, and nuts—aligns with what's happening in today's marketplace. For nearly every region where our properties sit, demand for top-quality farmland used for berries and vegetables ranges from steady to robust, especially along the coasts, East and West alike. So keep in mind that buying shares here means a long-term commitment to farmland; it's a two-part investment in our stock. The first part, naturally, involves solid assets, somewhat like gold. It's a tangible holding. Farmland is soil, and soil carries inherent worth since the supply of good farmland across the United States is finite, and urban development keeps consuming it—particularly in California and Florida, where a lot of our farms are. The second part of owning this stock is that, in contrast to gold or other alternative assets, it's a working investment that generates cash flow for investors, and we think we beat a bond fund since our dividend keeps rising while bond payouts stay flat. We anticipate inflation, especially within food, will keep climbing over time; we anticipate the worth of the farmland underneath will rise accordingly, and we anticipate that will hold especially true in fresh produce, given the trends—more and more Americans are eating healthily. As our CFO noted, we've got the cash on hand to cover any loans reaching maturity. We hold cash along with credit facilities. The banks we work with would be happy to extend us additional funds, so we can use cash to retire maturing loans, and we also have room to borrow for the same purpose. That puts us in a very safe position, and were we forced to divest our farms, I'm confident we'd raise the money to clear any debts we owe, so we're solid on that front. From where I sit, then, the risk is quite minimal. Farmers require soil to grow food, and we've got plenty of soil, so we're ideal for farmers. At the same time, everyone has to eat, and farmers require soil to grow what they eat. I'll wrap up here. Let's take a few questions from those who track us. Operator, could you join in and help our listeners ask their questions?

Morning, everyone. David, regarding those 15 empty farms, which crops are being grown on them in Michigan and Washington? Is that situation driven more by what's planted and current demand for it, or does it come down to the finances of the folks who rented them before?

Honestly, a big part of it traces back to prior tenants. Blueberries make up most of what's there, and one renter ran into personal difficulties and couldn't manage the properties, so we're going to reclaim those farms and find another party to lease them. The crops themselves are doing well; what's causing us trouble in many of these situations is the farmer, since they've mishandled their money and that ends up hurting us, though it won't last forever. Some of you may recall that a while ago, a family leased a sizable farm from us. I believe that involved two farms. They ran into difficulties. The farmer passed away. There were serious issues, and we lost money that first year, and once things settled down, we leased it out again, and it continues to pay according to the terms, and we signed a 10-year lease at that point. So the same outcome will occur in this case. It simply takes time for us to recover them. Agriculture moves slowly, and nobody just hops onto a farm and declares, "Oh, I'm gonna grow some blueberries." There's a waiting period involved.

When you compare the net operating income from running these properties yourselves against leasing them out to a third-party tenant for a full 12 months, how should we think about that gap? Does it make a real difference to the bottom line that we ought to be weighing, or do the two come out pretty much the same?

They come out pretty much the same, though as a rule, when we bring someone on, those farms — a number of the empty ones — are these days being operated by individuals we've brought in to run them on our behalf. That means, with those folks, we're partly in the farming operation ourselves. That's a different kind of process from someone who has skills in both cultivating and marketing blueberries or strawberries or almonds, or whatever the crop may be. So I'd put it this way: it's. The moment you reach a point where you're installing someone else to run the farm, and you're essentially standing behind the farmer, you're in a different world. Folks who are genuinely talented at this line of work — and I'll always remember a politician characterizing farming as punch a hole in the ground, drop some seed in, and you'll be fine. That's simply not what it is. People fail to appreciate just how much, how much a farmer understands about what needs doing with respect to the particular farm they're working. So it takes us roughly a year to fix something that's turned a bit sour, and in certain instances, that sourness has been consuming some of our time. So we've spent this period getting into the water side of the business and making certain that when SGMA and these other government agencies require you to do A, B, and C, we're prepared for them; we have staff members who are genuinely skilled in this area, and I believe anyone on the government side of it would recognize that we're on their side. We want to be entirely clear of any notion that we've got to foul anything. My apologies, Rob — did I address your question?

Yeah, that helps. And then, I understand that storms and flooding out in California did some damage to certain buildings on a single property, but are any of the crops being hurt by that, particularly the permanent plantings? And, you know, if this keeps happening, should we be watching out for that?

Well, naturally, you watch out. We carry coverage that assists us considerably, and that single case you brought up, which resulted from the storm last year, involved a handful of wooden buildings that simply weren't prepared for weather. And so because of that, they were swapped out, and the renter in that location assisted us with a few extra modifications to their lease. No insurance existed for the truss trestles those sat on, so consequently, they absorbed a modest loss, basically; so Rob, my view is that isn't our issue. We even had — in case you recall the location — one of the locations on one of our properties is San Andreas, and the San Andreas Fault passes through certain of our properties. Although it won't wipe out the properties, it could create a sizable gap that would need to be crossed to get the crops done. But coverage exists for that; we pay for it. We want to be certain about fire coverage for a number of the buildings we own. So we're fairly well protected on all fronts, aside from the difficulties that certain renters have brought upon themselves. The banks are all bouncing back now; they're in a solid position. The majority of these are federal banks, federally licensed, so they're in a good position, and I wish the rates would come down. If you've got any sway with the Fed, would you kindly apply it to get them to cut the rates? Because a lower rate is needed for us to purchase properties, and so we're simply slowing down and making certain that we're going to be well ahead of everyone else in how we manage the water that's required on all of our properties. Put differently, there's another thing happening. Sometimes markets shift; take almond, for instance — the almond market was terrible for a period because we have a large amount of almonds that get sold beyond the United States. I've always thought that Spain and Italy held most of the almonds, but essentially, the United States is producing most of the world's almonds today and sells to Spain. One region of the globe was consuming a lot of almonds and practically halted for a period because of pandemic worries. And so we wound up with a lot of almonds, or rather, our renter wound up with a lot of almonds that didn't get sold, and nearly all of that has now been cleared out, and they sold almonds that they had stored. On the positive side, almonds have a long shelf life, so they aren't like strawberries, which are finished if unsold within 14 days. In fact, they can be held for years, so at present we're in a solid position, and assuming no new pandemic appears, we should be okay. The trouble with a pandemic is that restaurants stop using your products. Fortunately, likely over 90% of what we sell goes to grocery stores, and naturally, those stores moved ahead and increased their prices; sadly, they didn't compensate us more for what we provide, so the profitability went to the grocery stores. Still, everything on the banking side has realigned now, apart from the Federal Reserve and interest rates. Once that settles, I believe they'll take action this year, and we'll return to growing the business; also, I think we noted at some point that we back our farmers, and when they require additional work on the farm, we handle it, and we charge them a rate for that. Thus the rent increases by whatever we've done on their behalf, and that's been working quite well. Our farmers understand they aren't stuck unable to obtain money for the things they must do to keep their farms running. I'm not sure, Rob, am I... am I addressing your questions? What's going on?

Yeah, that's useful, thanks. Lewis, regarding that $1.27 sequential drop in NAV, what portion came from shifts in farm values, and what portion came from changes in debt along with other balance sheet items?

Of that $1.27 decrease, a bit more than $0.80 — $0.80 — came from our fixed long-term financing, the fixed rate debt, and the preferred securities, while slightly under $0.40 resulted from the valuation changes.

All right. And after that, how did you use the money from the Martin County sale? I believe it came to roughly $66 million before any deductions. Does that simply go toward reducing debt? Is it just sitting there-

We had-

You know, earning interest? What's the right way for us to think about that?

Closing costs came to roughly $1.5 million for us. There was $16 million of debt tied to the property, and we paid that off; since then we've also paid off another loan, a small one, and whatever remains at this point is sitting in the bank earning interest of about 4.5%.

All right. And that brings me to my final item. David, you mentioned that if you were to sell off certain farms you'd get a solid price, and with the stock sitting at over a 30% discount to NAV, how do you and the board view the idea of divesting a handful of farms and repurchasing some shares at current levels?

I'm not a fan of it. Buying back stock isn't something I want to do. My thinking is that we'll deploy that capital toward expansion. I follow Warren Buffett closely, and he rarely repurchases shares, but I'm not certain; it's an option, yet doing so would only harm us over the long-term future.

All right, thank you both for making room in your schedule.

Rob, you're up next.

Hey there, good morning, everyone. Yeah, I believe the prior caller covered the majority of what I wanted to ask, though perhaps you could shed a bit more light on crop pricing and the way supply and demand are interacting for, you know, almonds, berries, and pistachios. You brought up, or hinted at, that global excess supply is settling down as stockpiles get used up. I mean, how much room remains for that settling process to continue? Or honestly, any additional background you could offer to help me put that into perspective would be useful.

The way I see it, things with almonds are essentially finished. I don't believe any surplus remains, so that's a positive. Strawberries and blueberries have never had any. Occasionally, with blueberries, should a grower have shifted toward almonds or any of the juices made from blueberries, he's likely ended up with some extra on hand. So right now it's quite minimal. Nobody's sitting on a big pile of anything out there. Even the folks growing apples have become solid, which is a business I dislike purely because apples are difficult to hold onto. You spot them in shops, and they've all gone mushy, and I'd rather not be involved in that line much, despite the fact that we do have some out there. Other operations get hit at times, such as unfortunate cherries. A cherry crop can be entirely lost if any frost comes along. And so, we don't hold that many cherries, which means we're fortunate on that front. I don't see much of a gap between, say, the 2021 pricing and volumes that we had at that time and now, moving ahead. 2024 is going to be an excellent year for us since, after all, we're going to slide back into the same...; we were earning a lot of money prior to the pandemic and all of the damage done to the markets. And so I think if you'd like to note something down, here's what I'll say: 2024 will be tremendous provided we get interest rates moving. Markets look strong at present, and so the people growing nearly anything nowadays are sitting pretty. From time to time, you get, as happened in our blueberry operation, a, a fellow who lands himself in difficulty both personally and, just wrecks his entire business. But that will resolve itself. Sadly, you can't find someone to step in and take over that farm just by snapping your fingers. Folks need a bit of time to run it and get a feel for it, and afterward we can step in and say, "Okay, if you'd like to proceed next year, then we need to move to a fixed price lease." And typically they agree with us. We often have to work out pricing in those cases because a single year truly isn't sufficient for them to look into every option available; but we've been fortunate in that respect; we've got some fascinating farmers out there. I believe I've brought that up. One of the biggest farming operations on the planet is running some of our programs in strawberries. Our biggest strawberry operation also happens to be our biggest farm, and it performs really well. Beyond that, though, I'm not sure what else I can offer you, except to say that when it comes to pricing and growing, we've essentially returned to where we were in 2021, or possibly even early 2022 — whatever you plant, there's a buyer for it. That's a great market to be in, as long as it isn't hit by the wild disruptions that showed up back in 2008, when every market got turned on its head. At this point, I'd say all of us are in a solid position. And I believe this is the single moment when this business is going to transform.