Good day everyone, and welcome to the Five Point Holdings First Quarter 2020 Conference Call. Currently, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. Today’s conference may include forward-looking statements regarding Five Point’s business, financial condition, operations, cash flow, strategy and prospects. Forward-looking statements represent only Five Point’s estimates on the date of this conference call and are not intended to give any assurance as to actual future results. Because forward-looking statements relate to matters that have not yet occurred, these statements are inherently subject to risk and uncertainties. Many factors could affect the future results and may cause Five Point’s actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements. These factors include those described in today’s press release and Five Point’s SEC filings, including those in the Risk Factors section of the most recent Annual Report included on Form 10-K and quarterly report on form 10-Q filed with the SEC. Please note that Five Point assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. And now, I’d like to turn the call over to Mr. Emile Haddad, Chairman and CEO of Five Point. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. I hope that everyone on your side is healthy. Today, I'm joined by Lynn Jochim, our Chief Operating Officer, Erik Higgins, our Chief Financial Officer, and Mike Alvarado, our Chief Legal Officer. On March 16 we had our fourth quarter call, and I shared with you that the previous Friday we had asked all of our associates to work from home. I also told you that we always ran the company with the plan which is ready to be implemented in case of any unexpected event which creates a major sudden shift. On that day we started implementing that plan which is comprised of the following. One, considering the potential for no land sales in Valencia and the Great Park for the remainder of 2020, we are managing land development operations to support, to only support the efforts of our guest builders, who are still moving forward with construction activity. If there is demand for builders earlier, we need approximately 45 days to finish development of projects at the Great Park. And at Valencia, we have inventory ready for sale. We have benefited from the fact that approximately two thirds of our total expenditures are variable costs. Two, we also said in the past that 50% of our G&A related to our employment costs and our discretionary bonuses, which we pay in January. That gives us the ability to reduce G&A significantly without the need to reduce our workforce if we elect not to pay or reduce our discretionary bonuses. Three, we amended our internal financial authority policies to limit the ability to commit the company to buy new contracts or approve invoices. The only people who have that authority since then are our CFO, COO, CLO, and me. Four, since March 16, the four of us have been at the office every day making sure that the plan is implemented, that our associates are well, and that we are doing what we need to do as responsible corporate citizens. On the transaction side, since mid-March and during our stay-at-home orders here in California, we closed the second takedown of 34 home sites at the Great Park for $20.3 million and 70 homesites previously sold in Valencia for $16.5 million. We credit a note on that deal that is due at the end of the year. We view these transactions as a vote of confidence in our communities by our guest builders, and it speaks to our strategic partnership with guest builders. We are on the verge of taking the first step to normalize our strategic partnership with the City of Hope by closing the under sale of an office building at Five Point Gateway campus, which will be developed and operated as a comprehensive cancer center. This closing is much more than a transaction; it is a strategic partnership which, in collaboration with other healthcare providers, will envision the future of healthcare and prove new concepts of healthcare delivery in our communities. This was the vision before COVID-19, and the impact of the virus on our lives is amplifying the need for a better way of healthcare delivery utilizing technology. It was evident that we started planning for a substantial portion of our non-residential land to be utilized even for healthcare, both providers and research. In terms of builders and home sales at the Great Park, in the first five weeks of the stay-at-home order, our home sales were affected. Builders shut down their sales offices and started selling virtually. Over the past four weeks, however, we started seeing weekly sales build back to almost pre-COVID-19 levels. Last week we had 10 net sales, which is pretty much our historical average for the Great Park. The lack of inventory of homes in general and in our markets in particular is helping maintain home values and bodes well for the future of the residential market. This is especially true when it is coupled with the historically low mortgage rates. On a different note, I have been asked to serve on the government’s taskforce on business and job recovery and I am co-chairing the capital markets and infrastructure affinity segment. The taskforce is not only looking at certain plans to reopen the economy but is also acting on key long-term initiatives ranging from housing to innovation to climate change. Now, I would like to turn it over to Erik, who will report on our Q1 financial results.

Thank you, Emile. Our 10-Q was filed on May 11, and a summary of our financial results was included in the earnings release issued earlier today. As Emile noted, the first quarter was an interesting one as we adjusted our business to address the potential impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, we are taking immediate steps to protect the health and well-being of our associates and to preserve the financial strength of the company. Our associates are working remotely, and the team is analyzing the impact of the deferred land sale revenues caused by the pandemic. Our financial performance in the first quarter reflects our investment in inventory expenditures at Valencia, the collection of management fees, and an accounting valuation adjustment to our equity method investment in the Great Park Venture. I’ll start with our consolidated results and then address each of our four segments. The company’s consolidated revenues for the first quarter totaled $9.2 million and primarily reflect the recognition of revenue generated from management services. Equity and loss from our two unconsolidated entities was $30.9 million for the quarter. This includes the $26.9 million impairment which we recorded against our investment in Great Park Venture. Total consolidated costs and expenses were $32.6 million, including $24.6 million of selling, general, and administrative expenses for the quarter. Net loss for the quarter was $53.2 million, of which $28.4 million was allocated to the noncontrolling interest and $24.8 million attributable to the company. Moving to the segment results, the Valencia Segment is consolidated for accounting purposes. Revenues for the Valencia Segment were $0.8 million, primarily related to agriculture and energy operations. SG&A expenses totaled $3.7 million for the quarter, and the Valencia Segment loss for the quarter was $4.8 million. The San Francisco Segment is also consolidated for accounting purposes. Revenues for the San Francisco Segment were approximately $1 million and were primarily related to management services. SG&A expenses were $3.6 million for the quarter, and the segment loss for the quarter was $2.1 million. The Great Park Segment includes operations of the Great Park Venture and Great Park Neighborhoods, as well as management services provided by the management company to the Great Park Venture. Just as a reminder, we own 37.5% of the non-legacy percentage interest of the Great Park Venture and 100% of the management company. The Great Park Venture is an unconsolidated entity, with our investment in the venture accounted for under the equity method of accounting. For segment reporting, we include the full results of the Great Park Venture as the venture's historical basis to the current one. The Great Park Venture is a self-funding operation with no debt. The Great Park segment revenues were $29.5 million for the first quarter, of which $22.2 million was related to the Great Park Venture and $7.3 million was related to the management company. The Great Park Venture closed 35 homesites during the quarter before the second and final takeover from the sales contract that was closed in the fourth quarter of 2019. The base purchase price for these homesites was $20.3 million. The first-quarter net loss for the Great Park segment totaled $2.5 million, consisting of $1.8 million of net income related to the management company and a loss of $4.3 million for the Great Park Venture operations. The company recognized a loss of $30.4 million on its investment in the Great Park Venture, which includes our share of the Great Park Venture’s loss and a $26.9 million impairment we recognized against our investment balance. For our commercial segment, which includes the operations of Gateway Commercial Venture and management services provided by the management company to the Great Park and the Gateway Commercial Venture, we own 75% of the Gateway Commercial Venture and 100% of the management company. The Gateway Commercial Venture is an unconsolidated entity, with our investment in the venture accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Commercial Segment revenues were $8.6 million for the quarter, while operating expenses, interests, depreciation, and amortization totaled $9.2 million. The Commercial Segment loss for the quarter was $0.6 million, comprised of $0.1 million of income related to the management company, offset by a $0.7 million loss through the Gateway Commercial Venture operations. The company recognized a loss of $0.6 million on this investment in the Gateway Commercial Venture. I’ll wrap it up with a few comments related to our balance sheet and our liquidity position. As of the end of the quarter, total liquidity was approximately $372 million, which was comprised of cash and cash equivalents totaling $248 million and borrowing availability of $124 million under our corporate revolver. Our balance sheet debt to total capital ratio was $25.5 million. Let me turn it back to the operator, who will now open it up for questions.

Thank you. We will first hear today from Stephen Kim with Evercore ISI.

Yeah, thanks a lot, guys. Appreciate the info. I wanted to ask you a bigger picture question first. The early signs are that the pandemic is driving a pretty significant shift in attitudes towards both home buying as well as recreation, you know, with regards to either home size, densification, working from home, communal venues and stuff like that. I'm wondering which of the shifts do you think are temporary and which do you think are likely to be more lasting? Can you give us an idea of how you think maybe some of the longer lasting changes will influence what would be the optimal design of a master plan community such as yours in the future?

Yeah. Hi, Stephen. That’s a great question. It’s a question that we obviously ask a lot, and my experience in conditions like this, which I've had in a previous life, is you have to be very careful about extrapolating from a moment in time when we're all behaving in a very unnatural way because we are forced to do it. And I think about that we mistake to assume that because people today, for instance, are weary about being in higher density places, that that means we're never going to see higher density. I think what you have to wait for is what the behavior of the consumer is going to look like when this issue is behind us because there is no doubt that there will be a modification to consumer behavior. I mean, probably the simplest example is there is a certain segment of the population, in particular the elderly people, who were not comfortable using online shopping and because they are now forced to do it, they found that it is convenient. I'm sure that that is actually part of the consumption that is going to change because a lot of people are going to say it’s nice that things can be delivered at home. I think that working from home is going to actually force all of us as companies to start rethinking our whole model that we've been living with for the last several decades—being with nine to five and all these things that I think were products of previous industrial revolutions. That means we have to start thinking more about maybe some of our workforce might work part-time or even full-time at home and therefore we should be thinking about designing homes with much more fully-equipped offices. I personally think that technology and diagnostics at home and telemedicine are going to become real, and I think, as a part, we will probably start thinking of that. I can tell you for us as a company, we are not ready yet to jump to any conclusion until we see what the consumer is looking for after this thing is behind us. Now the good news for us is when it comes to the Great Park, you know, the way we designed the Great Park with a lot of trails and open space and a lot of areas is now proving to be very helpful for our residents because people are going out for walks and being able to actually have that ability, whereas in other places they don't. But I'm not in a position right now to jump to any conclusion; I think it's too early and we are in a very unnatural situation right now.

Yeah, that makes sense. And certainly the Great Park, your pivot to a little bit more of a healthcare focus certainly seems pretty prescient at this point. So I'm sure this is going to be an issue we'll hear more and discuss with you in the months and years ahead. The second question…

Yes.

I was wondering when you anticipate having another round of land sales at Newhall. Has your perspective on the upcoming land sales there changed in any way?

Sure. So I'm going to take you back to before the end of 2019 when we were guiding about the number of home sites that we were expecting to sell. At that time we were talking about something around 500. We had more demand, and as a result, we ended up doing 784 out of close to 711 closed in the year we just announced. We actually just announced the closing of the other 70. That leaves us with about 257 of inventory standing right now, and I can share with you that we have builders who have already started talking to us and have expressed interest in moving forward with some of these transactions. We're not in need of it; we're not going to force it. We want to make sure that the builders who have actually closed on the transactions are moving forward and comfortable. But I would not be surprised if you hear some announcements in the near future about transactions with other builders. So we're going to do what the builders feel comfortable doing, and we're not going to force anything. I have zero interest in discounting land over there. But I think that based on what you're seeing right now, we have builders who believe that the market likes that there is demand in housing and the environment is favorable.

All right. Thanks very much, guys.

Of course.

We'll hear next from Trevor Allinson with Wells Fargo.

Hi, good afternoon, guys. I’m glad to hear you all are healthy. The first question on the impairment equity part for $27 million impairment. Could you just elaborate on that a little bit? What occurred? I imagine it's from writing off the land and possibly some pricing. But could you just run us through the moving parts of that and some of your assumptions?

Allison, I was hoping that somebody would ask that question because it's probably one of those areas that people are misunderstanding, not because of anything it’s just because it’s a little bit of an odd situation that has to do with accounting. So let me take a shot at it, and then, if you need any more color, Erik will provide that. So there are two methods of accounting that you use to analyze impairments. The first method applies to wholly-owned assets, where it’s a static analysis. It simply says, if I look at the life of any deal that I own and, at the end of the day, I am able to prove that I’m going to recover my investment plus a dollar, then it is not an impairment. So it’s especially for assets of the size of our assets, and time is on our side. It would be easy to look at an asset and sell it. If I have the time and I look at it, I’m going to be able to recover my investment plus a dollar. That’s why we don’t see anything close to impairments on the other two assets. We would have applied the same method to the asset itself being at the Great Park; it wouldn’t be impaired. However, the accounting rules state that if we are in an unconsolidated venture, we have to do an analysis of our distributions from that venture and do this current method, which is the net present value of that scheme of distribution. So it becomes very punitive because now you're not looking at the static analysis; you're looking at a cash flow analysis. The reason why we ended up in an impairment of our investment is because we have a stream of cash flow that is coming out of that based on distributions, and we've been doing this analysis every quarter since we did the consolidation back in 2016 and we haven't been impairing it. But what we did now after COVID-19 is we assumed that home prices are going to stay flat for 2020. Because we delayed land sales, that has pushed back our distributions from the venture, and the combination of the two, when discounted using a 9% unlevered discount rate, leads to a negative arbitrage that results in an impairment to our basis because we marked our basis up in 2016 to market, and that's really why you have this impairment. Again, if I were to look at it as if I'm looking at it at the asset level, this would be far from being impaired. But because of the method of accounting for unconsolidated ventures, we end up having to impair the investment.

Okay. And if I'm understanding this correctly as well, I'm thinking of maybe all the debt analysis at the end of the quarter, at the end of March whenever conditions were much more uncertain, whereas today, I believe you said Great Park demand is back to pre-COVID levels. I would imagine if you did an analysis today, you might not have written off the land. Is that a fair assumption?

Well, it's a very interesting point because we have that discussion even with our accountants, and there is actually a way for us to look at the situation as a temporary situation. Therefore, we could have waited until we see what happens and then make a decision whether there is an impairment or not in the second or third quarter because we are using the cash flow right now for ongoing operations, and that's the cash flow that we're using to run the business. I did not feel comfortable at all, maybe it was a subjective decision. That would overrule what the math is telling us based on cash flows we are using. That would have left us in a position that looked like we were trying to avoid an impairment. If the math at that moment shows an impairment, we made a decision to take an improvement and explain what it is, and the fact that this impairment has nothing to do with the value of the asset; it just has to do with the way the math works for a nonconsolidated venture.

Okay. This next question is also on the Great Park. And, you know, it's kind of a multipart question. Could you just give the builder orders cadence from March through May, maybe a little bit more color as well as what incentives you are seeing there?

Sure.

And then…

I think…

Sorry. Could you also discuss your lot sales in Great Park, how you're thinking about those in 2020, and whether or not you're seeing builders starting to add to their lot positions or want to add to their lot positions in Southern California? We've been hearing a lot of builders completely pulling back on the land market. Maybe more recently, over the past week or two weeks, they've started to re-engage in that a little bit more, but wanted to understand that a little better?

Sure. Let me give you the sales numbers, net sales numbers as of the beginning of March on a week-by-week basis. Actually, I'm going to go back even further so that everybody has a clear idea as to how this – the sales have moved. So, on the first week of the year, we had 10 net sales, then 11, then 13, then 9, then 16, then 9, then 9, then 14, and then we jumped to 21 and 28—that’s at the beginning of March. Then we go to 9 and that’s when we started the stay-at-home orders in California at that point in time we had zero sales. We had negative four, negative three, then four sales and zero sales—those are the five weeks following the stay-at-home. Then we ended up having nine sales, seven, three and last week 10 on a net basis. So that’s basically how the rate of sales has moved, and as you look at all of that, it’s pretty much on average. Remind you that builders, I think except maybe one builder, are still selling virtually and not from sales offices. And so, from what I said, you have 10 net sales without any interaction with salespeople or going and seeing models. So, we’re watching the trend. Let me answer the second part of your question, which is our homesite sales. At the Great Park, we have a cadence of sales. What we do is we usually monitor the rate of sales per rollout and how it's moving. As a result, we then bring on a product that will be either a replacement or something very similar, exactly at the same time. So we have a rhythm in terms of when one product is almost sold off and another product that is competing with our product comes online, and we do that for obvious reasons because we don’t want too much overlap; otherwise, you start compromising home values. So what we will do is we will monitor the sales reports; that's why you see me looking at the sales reports every day. What I’m giving them to you in total sales, the way we look at them actually on a product-by-product basis. We then start extrapolating and mapping forward what sales for the products would look like in terms of their burn-off, and that's when we bring that product line online. At the Great Park, it's different than Valencia where we’re not waiting for builders to come and express interest; we will put a product out when we think the timing is right. Because when we started seeing sales go down to zero, it’s during that period that we've made the decision that if the market is not going to come back, we probably will not have any sales at the Great Park until next year for homesites, based on the rates we're looking at now. If we maintain this rate over here, then I think we could be in a position to sell homesites by the end of this year. Does that help? Hello?

Oh, yeah. Sorry about that.

Oh, no problem; I just want to make sure that. Okay. Perfect.

Yeah, that definitely helps. Sorry, I was on mute. One other item: how are the builder incentives trending?

How do you mean? Interest from builders?

Yeah, the home builders' incentives.

What I don't think we've seen any real major changes in some of this is just something that is unusual. It's probably very consistent with the same type of incentives you would see when they want to close on the home or to end of the quarter.

Thank you. We'll hear next from Michael Rehaut with JPMorgan.

Hi, this is Lloyd on for Mike. Thank you so much for the color you did on sales trends and weekly sales trends. Very helpful. I just wanted to dive into the drivers of some of those moves, maybe first just what do you think were sort of the driver of this big jump at the end of February or early March in sales per week when it went up in those 20 sales per week type range and even a little higher? And then, secondly, more recently, where is that down maybe two weeks ago? It went from the year range to 9, 7, and then gets down to 3 and back up to 10. What do you think is kind of driving on some of those moves?

Well, I mean, I think that the math of them splits into two ways. So, yes, I think about the different periods. I think that what we started seeing in the – the drivers behind why all of a sudden we jumped to 21 and 28 in the beginning two weeks of March. Honestly, I think that it was similar to what I'm looking at which sales were driven by two different reasons. One, we had a lot of sales in the first week, which was 21; part of Novel Park, which is the small product and a very affordable product. I think it might have been driven by people’s expectation that rates were going to go down, and that product is really the product that competes with good rental in this market. So I'm speculating that there are probably people who were interested in that price point. The week after out of the 28, we had 12 out of price, which is our new project that we opened, and we typically see a jump in the opening opportunity for two reasons. One is excitement and two, you would have had a lot of builders who have had interest from buyers, and they convert them within a week, and therefore you see a jump. So that probably will sum up those two factors. In terms of the last four weeks, honestly, I think a lot of the driving factors beyond buying are emotional and all driven by whatever the news is telling you. If you look at the news today and the fact that people are starting to talk about depression, loss of jobs and all of that, and you're still selling homes is indicative of something. So, I don't know if you're asking me about why we have three in the last four weeks versus 9, 7, and 10. I really can’t tell you why.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you. My second question is just kind of shifting over to your land development activities and kind of your opening up a lot of those. If you're starting to build toward that, and you know, if you push out some of the homesite deliveries that you’re expecting, kind of how far or what your thinking is about the potential timing around those deliveries and lands on it? Thanks.

So, sorry, I mean, I’m going to take each of the three of these separately. In Valencia, we have 257 homesites in inventory, and we could fairly quickly develop another 230 homesites. So we would go through the standing inventory first, and get those very enough buyers for them at the right value, and builders feel like it's time for them to move. We have people who have expressed interest, so we don't really need to spend much in land development to sell the first 200 and keep 57, and a lot of the major land development for the other 230 is already done. So, as a result, we have stopped land development for any future deliveries at Valencia except for any activity that supports the builders' construction and movement for moving forward. At the Great Park, we have seen right now that we're not going to have any homesite sales until next year, and therefore we totally stopped land development. But as we said, if we see that there’s an opportunity to move up the land sales, we will see and we can go ahead and do that. It will take us 45 days from when we start land development again to when we finish homesites, so we can have delivery. We’re monitoring this every day, as we said, the four of us are together every day and we're monitoring every one of these situations in real-time ourselves and we’ll make the right decision at the right time. But it takes us, as I said, about 45 days to deliver a homesite at the Great Park, and I can tell you that if we see a rate of sales similar to what we’ve seen in the last two weeks or somewhere between 9 and 10, then chances are going to be higher that we're going to have more deliveries or earlier deliveries than we thought.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Sure.

Next we'll go to Zelman & Associates, Alan Ratner.

Hey guys, good afternoon. I'm glad to hear everyone is doing well. Thanks for all the detail.

Yeah, hi Alan.

First, just on the Great Park. You had given that you kind of just went through the analysis that I know you had been expecting a distribution this year. It sounds like that's getting pushed out, so is it safe to assume now that kind of your internal expectations is now 2021 is when kind of cash will start coming in the door from Great Park, and if so, can you share any magnitude that you're currently anticipating?

You’re right. I mean, if we end up performing or actually end up moving forward based on our existing plan that we've just started implementing in March. We will have distributions out of the Great Park in 2020, but we will have distributions in 2021. Remind you that that's an asset that's self-funding and has enough cash over there to self-fund so it doesn't require any cash, and because of all of the measures we've taken to conserve cash, we feel very comfortable with where we are in terms of liquidity. Therefore, the fact that we will have a delay in distribution from the Great Park is not that we’re going to have any impact on our liquidity or our ability to go forward.

Got it. Okay, that's helpful. And I guess the second one: I fully appreciate the comments and agree with them as far as not extrapolating what is going on today as far as longer-term investment decisions. But at the same time, I know you guys are in the midst of the planning process up in San Francisco, and that was a project or is a project where there is a very large commercial component to it. And for that matter, all of your projects have that. But specifically San Francisco, because it's in planning now, how are you thinking about the future of commercial real estate? Because I know office users are certainly a big expectation there and now with the remote working, you know, it's just a lot of ideas that perhaps there might not be as much need for as much office space going forward. Are you thinking about adjusting those plans or contemplating that at all, or maybe just you know, kind of push that a little bit until there's a clear picture about what the future might look like?

So I think as I said before, we have been rethinking the uses of our commercial starting with retail and what we did in San Francisco when we came to the conclusion that the outlet mall is not the right answer. We went through a couple of years on that and when we started rethinking that whole component in each of the communities, in the Great Park, we concluded a while ago to pivot to healthcare-related uses over here and we have a lot of interest right now because the City of Hope is a big catalyst for all of that, and a lot of people want to be involved in that sector. So here it's easy; we’ve concluded what we wanted, and we are looking at it as if you’re looking at a campus. We're looking at healthcare providers with research, housing, lifestyle, schools—all the elements to start with the Great Park as a campus in that sense with the main source of commercial being healthcare. The same goes for Valencia, where we started looking at that a while ago. Out of the first village of the neighborhoods, we have 750,000 square feet of our commercial earmarked for healthcare, and we have a lot of interest in these areas. In San Francisco, our commercial is divided into Hunters Point and Candlestick. On Candlestick, we have 1 million square feet of office space, about 300,000 square feet of lifestyle retail, and about 7,000 homes—that's what Candlestick is. As we said before, we're proceeding with Candlestick as our first phase. I can tell you that there is a very good chance that the 1 million square feet might also be healthcare-related. I can't speak about it yet; I don't know that we have anything firm. But, I won’t be surprised if that turns out to be a healthcare-related project as well. Our long-term sectors of commercial probably leaning towards industrial and healthcare are the safest right now. And I know our land does not lend itself to substantial industrial projects. So that's why I think the long answer to the question is healthcare, healthcare, and healthcare.

Got you. That’s very helpful, appreciate that. And then just a final one on just kind of more builder appetite for land. A few questions, and it sounds like builders have been performing on the take downs up to this point. A lot of the public builders when they were reporting their first quarter said that they've been negotiating extensions on take downs, maybe et cetera. It didn't sound like you guys experienced that much. But is there any sense just from looking—not necessarily in your communities, but elsewhere, people you talk to—are the builders coming back off the sidelines again in terms of their appetite for land, or are they still seeming to proceed cautiously because the sales results, to your point, have been rebounding quite nicely? So I'm just curious at what point they get comfortable enough to re-engage to the level they were at before?

So, I'm going to put them in three different categories. One category is a group that never talks us into this, and we have discussions with the buyer on the homeside that could have easily walked away from the deal. Honestly speaking, Alan, I know these guys very well and in light of the fact that the real trip that we make the deal with them, every builder was probably going to shut down the land acquisition, which is very usual. I called them and they confirmed that, and I looked. If you are not comfortable moving forward, the last thing I want is for any of the builders involved to feel like they're only doing it to avoid losing a deposit. If you want, I can give you your deposit back and we can talk after COVID-19 if you still have interest, or if you want to move forward, I’m willing to look at what your needs are and what the deal that works for everybody is in a very unusual environment. They came and said, 'now we would like to move, but could you give us a way to close with a note that gets paid by the end of the year, or after the year end, probably in November 30,' and that’s exactly what we did. So you have people who are still engaging with us, and because of our relationship with builders, we're not a one-time seller. Our discussions with the builders are more about partnership. We have another builder that was interested but didn't want to close before year-end. We are engaged with them; we are talking to them. Basically, we’re having the same conversation. Is there something that works for everybody because we're living in an unusual environment? Secondly, there's a group of builders that went silent and then, in the last probably week or two, started making calls, talking to lenders and others, saying, 'Hey, we haven't gotten the green light yet, but it sounds like we might be able to start looking at acquisitions again.' If we're going to do that, we want to start looking at the markets that you are comfortable with; Valencia and the Great Park are easy ones to look at. Lastly, we have a group of builders who are still silent. There's still a mandate from corporate with no acquisition, and therefore we can't talk about anything, but we’ll see what happens in the future.

Is that third group still a large number, or is that diminishing?

It’s interesting because the third group of builders, in totality, is not that large anymore. I mean with the consolidation and with the tightness we have, some builders are not even in our markets. We’re talking about probably about less than 10 builders that we actually talk to. I would say of the first category, there are about three; on the second category, there are about two or three; and then the last category is similar.

Got it. No, that’s really helpful. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

Sure. Are there any questions?

Sorry, with no other questions, on behalf of Five Point and Emile Haddad, I’d like to thank everyone for participating in today's call. And that will conclude today's conference. You may now disconnect.