I would like to welcome everyone to the Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP NYSE ticker symbol GHI fourth quarter of 2025 earnings conference call. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. After management presents its overview of Q4 2025, you will be invited to participate in a question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. During this conference call, comments made regarding GHI, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual future events or results to differ materially from these statements. Such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words like may, should, expect, plan, intend, focus, and other similar terms. You are cautioned that these forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date. Changes in economic, business, competitive, regulatory, and other factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the projections or forward-looking statements made today. For more detailed information about these factors and other risks that may impact our business, please review the periodic reports and other documents filed from time to time by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Internal projections and beliefs upon which we base our expectations may change, but if they do, you will not necessarily be informed. Today's discussion will include non-GAAP measures and will be explained during this call. We want to make you aware that GHI is operating under the SEC Regulation FD and encourage you to take full advantage of the question and answer session. Thank you for your participation and interest in Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP. We'll now turn the call over to our Chief Executive Officer, Ken Rogozinski.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP's fourth quarter 2025 investor call. Thank you for joining. I will start with an overview of our portfolio and investment strategy. Jesse Corey, our Chief Financial Officer, will then present the partnership's financial results. I will wrap up with an overview of the market and our investment pipeline. Following that, we look forward to taking your questions. As we mentioned on our earnings call in November, we are pursuing a strategy to reposition our investment portfolio. Specifically, we are focused on exiting our remaining investments in market rate multifamily JV equity investments while maximizing value to our unit holders from those exits. We will then reinvest the capital returned to us from those exits into additional high-quality tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond investments that are expected to provide longer-term, stable, tax-advantaged earnings, which we believe will provide long-term value for our unit holders. As we noted in our November earnings call, we believe that this change in investment strategy provides three key benefits to our unit holders. First, by their nature, our tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond investments earn stable returns based on the net interest spread between the bond interest rate and our related debt financing As a result, we expect increasingly stable earnings as compared to the uneven returns on joint venture equity investments due to that income being recognized primarily upon property sales. Second, in recent years, the majority of income allocated to our unit holders has been taxable because of the taxable income from joint venture equity investment sales. As we allocate more capital to tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond investments, we expect that the proportion of income allocated to our unit holders that is tax-exempt for federal income tax purposes will increase in the long term. In the near term, potential gains from sales of our remaining market rate multifamily JV equity investments will continue to generate taxable income for unit holders. Third, we are investing capital in a proven asset class that is core to our operations and also leverages the strong relationships and knowledge base of Greystone's other lending platforms. We currently have eight market-rate multifamily JV equity investments that have completed construction and are either in-LISA or stabilized. Overall occupancy is increasing for these investments in-LISA. On assets that have reached stabilization, we have seen some variability in occupancy as local market factors impact demand and rent levels. Decisions regarding when to sell an individual property are made by our joint venture partners based on their views of the local market conditions and current leasing trends. We currently have two market rate multifamily JV equity investments that are sites for potential development. Our joint venture partners are evaluating the highest and best use for the development sites as of December 31st, 2025, which may include a sale of the land, or the commencement of construction. Our remaining funding commitments for those investments will be terminated if the land is sold. Meanwhile, we continue to see strong investment opportunities for our traditional investments in tax

exempt mortgage revenue bonds associated with affordable multifamily properties

as well as for seniors housing and skilled nursing properties. Greystone's strong lending relationships across affordable housing, seniors housing, and skilled nursing business lines are also providing investment opportunities for the partnership. We believe these opportunities will allow us to redeploy the capital, return from the market rate multifamily JV equity investment sales events soon after the capital is received. We and the board of managers acknowledge that it will take some time to cycle our capital out of our market rate JV equity investments and into tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond investments. We currently report minimal earnings related to our JV equity investments during the holding period. We expect that the reinvestment of capital from sales of JV equity investments into tax exempt mortgage revenue bond investments will increase the partnership's recurring earnings in the long run. The new quarterly unit holder distribution level of 14 cents per buck is reflective of a level that we and the Board of Managers believe is sustainable while the partnership undertakes this repositioning of its investment portfolio. We look forward to providing additional details on our progress in this effort in future communications and on future earnings calls. With that, I will turn things over to Jesse Corey, our CFO, to discuss the financial data for the fourth quarter of 2025. Thank you, Ken. For our fourth quarter ended December 31st,

we reported a net loss of $2.6 million, or $0.17 per unit, basic and diluted, and we reported cash available for distribution, or CAD, a non-GAAP measure of positive $2.8 million, or $0.12 per unit. A significant driver of our reported GAAP net loss for the fourth quarter is our proportionate share of losses from non-vantaged JV equity investments of approximately $7.4 million or 32 cents per unit. We are required to report our proportionate share of losses of such JV equity investments under GAAP. These are not impairments or realized losses to the partnership. The individual multifamily properties associated with these JV equity investments by design incur operating losses during the development and lease-up phases. Operating expenses, such as interest, property taxes, and insurance, are incorporated into the overall development budgets for each project and are typically funded by reserves and construction loan proceeds. Such losses are also driven by non-cash depreciation charges after construction completion when lease-up is in its early phases. The increase in our share of property operating losses during the fourth quarter is due to the completion of construction of four properties during 2025. The Lodge Senior Living Carson Valley, the Jessamette Hayes Farm, Freestone Greenville, and Freestone Ladera. We add back our share of property operating losses to net income when calculating CAD as such losses are not direct expenses to the partnership and we expect such losses, which are largely funded by the development budget, to be recovered upon future transactional events. Our book value per unit as of December 31st was, on a diluted basis, $11.70. We'll note that this metric is based on our joint venture equity investments at net carrying value. As a result, it does not include any potential gains or additional income that may be realized upon sale, nor the recovery of our share of GAAP operating losses from JV equity investments that are also expected to be recovered on sale. As the market closed yesterday, March 18th, our closing unit price on the New York Stock Exchange was $5.87, which is a 50% discount to our net book value per unit as of December 31st. We regularly monitor our liquidity to fund our investment commitments and to protect against potential debt-deleveraging events if there are significant declines in asset values. As of December 31st, we reported unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $39.5 million. We also had approximately $49.2 million of availability on our secured lines of credit. We also have a significant amount of investments scheduled to mature in the first half of 2026, which, after repayment of the related debt financings, will provide additional liquidity. At our current liquidity levels, we believe that we are well-positioned to meet our current funding commitments. We regularly monitor our overall exposure to potential increases in interest rates through an interest rate sensitivity analysis, which we report quarterly and is included on page 83 of our Form 10-K. The interest rate sensitivity table shows the impact on our net interest income given various changes in market interest rates and other various management assumptions. Our base case uses the forward SOFR yield curve as of December 31st, which includes market-anticipated SOFR rate declines, if any, over the next 12 months. The scenarios we present assume that there is an immediate shift in the yield curve and that we do nothing in response for 12 months. This analysis shows that an immediate 100 basis point increase in rates will result in a decrease in our net interest income in CAD of $1.1 million for approximately 4.9 cents per unit. Conversely, a 100 basis point decrease in rates across the curve will result in an increase in our net interest income in CAD of $1.1 million for approximately 4.9 cents per unit. We consider ourselves largely hedged against significant fluctuations in our net interest income from market interest rate movements in all scenarios, assuming no significant investment portfolio consists of mortgage revenue bonds, governmental issuer loans, and property loans that totaled $1.28 billion as of December 31st, or 85% of our total assets. We own 83 mortgage revenue bonds as of December 31st that provide financing for affordable multifamily, seniors, and skilled nursing properties across 12 states, concentrations in California, Texas, and South Carolina. We own four governmental issuer loans as of December 31st to finance the construction of affordable multifamily properties in California. Three such properties are 100% complete and nearing maturity when their Freddie Mac permanent loan forward commitments will be exercised and will redeem our governmental issuer loans at par. During the fourth quarter of 2025, we funded approximately $38.7 million of our mortgage revenue bond and governmental issuer loan related commitments, which was offset by redemptions and paydowns of approximately $12.1 million in the normal course. Our outstanding future funding commitments for our mortgage revenue bonds, governmental issuer loans, and related investments totals $11.6 million as of December 31st, before consideration of related debt proceeds, and exclusive of investments we expect to transfer to our construction lending joint venture with BlackRock. These commitments will be funded over approximately 12 months and will add to our income-producing asset base. Our overall mortgage investment portfolio performed steadily during the fourth quarter, with the exception of four mortgage revenue bond investments in South Carolina, which I will discuss in a bit. All mortgage revenue bond and governmental issuer loan investments were current on principal and interest payments as of December 31st, 2025. Physical occupancy for the stabilized mortgage revenue bond portfolio was 86.7% as of December 31st, which is down from 87.8 percent as of September 30th. The decline is primarily at properties in Texas where local markets are experiencing higher vacancies due to recent increases in multifamily unit supply. We expect occupancies will recover once available units are absorbed and new supply deliveries decline in the near term. As mentioned in our previous earnings call, we reported asset-specific provisions for credit losses for three 501c3 nonprofit mortgage revenue bonds secured by properties in South Carolina. The rehabilitation of each property was completed, and each property was working to stabilize operations. However, actual property operating results did not meet originally underwritten levels. Similarly, a fourth South Carolina mortgage revenue bond property, the Ivy Apartments, also known as Century Plaza Apartments, failed to meet its originally underwritten levels as well. In January and February of 2026, we completed the deed in lieu of foreclosure process on these four South Carolina mortgage revenue bond properties. We believe that by owning and managing these properties directly, we can maximize the value of our investments. Upon closing, the original mortgage revenue bonds were redeemed, and the related tender option bond financing trusts were collapsed, and the partnership now owns the underlying multifamily properties directly, funded with first mortgage financing provided by a group of two banks. This is similar to the process that the partnership followed for the Suites on Paseo student housing property in San Diego in 2015. We have retained a third-party property manager to operate the properties on a day-to-day basis under our oversight. We are also being assisted in this effort by Greystone's corporate asset management team. The results of operations for these properties will be reported in our MF properties segment going forward. On the liability side of our balance sheet, we use various debt financing facilities to leverage our debt investments. Our outstanding debt financings have an outstanding principal balance of approximately $1.02 billion dollars as of December 31st, which is relatively unchanged from September 30th. We manage and report our debt financing in four main categories on page 74 of our Form 10-K. Three of the four categories are designed such that our net return is generally insulated from changes in short-term interest rates. These categories account for 802 million dollars or 79 percent of our total debt financing. The fourth category is fixed rate assets with variable rate debt with no designated hedging, which is where we are most exposed to interest rate risk in the near term. This category represents approximately $217 million, or 21% of our total debt financing. Of this amount, approximately $150 million is associated with debt investments that are scheduled to mature on or before May 2026, which will repay the associated outstanding financing. As such, we expect the unhedged period to be relatively short. Ken previously provided updates on our 10 market rate multifamily joint venture equity investments. The remaining funding commitments for these investments totaled $19.5 million as of December 31st. These remaining market rate multifamily commitments relate to sites being considered for future development. We will not fund these commitments until a construction contract is signed and construction commences. The managing member may also choose to sell the sites and terminate our related funding commitments. In addition, we have two market rate seniors housing joint venture equity investments, which includes our newest investment in Village Mount Rose, located in Reno, Nevada, that closed in December 2025. We have an outstanding funding commitment of $7.7 million for Village Mount Rose as of December 31st, 2025. I'll now turn the call over to Ken for his update on market conditions.

Thanks, Jesse. The fourth quarter of 2025 saw the year end with a nice recovery in the performance of the U.S. municipal bond market. Through the first six months of 2025, the muni high grade and high yield indices were both in the red. Improved performance in the second half of the year allowed the high-grade index to show a 4.3% return for 2025, along with a 2.5% return for the high-yield index. The performance of the high-yield index was negatively impacted by the performance of MSA tobacco bonds and bonds associated with the Brightline rail system, which are included in the index. The MMD housing bond interest rate scale, which is used to mark our core mortgage revenue bonds to market, is correlated to these two broader muni bond market indices. At the end of December, 10-year MMD was at 2.76 percent, and 30-year MMD was at 4.24 percent, which were basically flat to November's levels. As of yesterday's close, 10-year MMD was at 2.87%, and 30-year MMD was at 4.33%, reflecting slightly higher levels from year-end due to inflation uncertainty stemming from the current conflict in the Middle East. The 10-year muni to treasury ratio was currently at 81%, and the 30-year muni to treasury ratio was currently at 89%, both wider from last quarter's levels with a significantly larger cheapening for the 10-year ratio. 2025 saw another record year of muni bond issuance at a total of $582 billion. Funds flows into the muni market remained high, with the total funds flows for 2025 at a level of positive $49 billion. The market's ability to handle this increased level of new issue activity is a good sign for the overall secondary market liquidity in muni bonds, like the mortgage revenue bonds owned by the partnership. The HUD appropriation bill fully funding the department's programs, in many cases at expenditure levels higher than the previous year for the remainder of the current federal fiscal year was passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. The federal low-income housing tax credit program is beginning to adjust to the new rules set forth in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. With that, Jesse and I are happy to take your questions. Thank

you. And I'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to be placed in the question queue, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A The confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you'd like to move your question from the queue. One moment, please, while we pull for questions. Our first question is coming from Matthew Edener from Jones Trading. Your line is now live.

Hey, good afternoon, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I appreciate the color as always. Jesse, could you get into a little more specifics around the kind of $7.000,000 there? You know, I guess what came online during the quarter, you know, how do you guys, I guess, expect to get so-called losses back, you know, upon a realization of a sale? And then, you know, how should we look at it going forward with other properties as they start to come online?

Thanks for the question, Matt. So, yeah, the driver of that was, as I mentioned, four properties that really came online or completed construction in the second half of 2025. And so, as soon as they complete construction, they start having depreciation charges, and they're no longer capitalizing interest in the cost basis of the assets. And so, that's generating operating losses. You know, just rough breakdown of those numbers, particularly for the Q4 amount, roughly half of those operating losses are non-capitalized interest expense, and roughly the other half is non-cash depreciation charges.

So we're really, fourth quarter is kind of the biggest period in which we'll take that

hit because as these properties can start complete construction, occupancy is low in the 10-ish percent level, so they're not generating a lot of revenue to offset their expenses. And so, you've got a real big hit there on gap operating losses. As occupancy increases at these properties, we expect those losses to narrow, and hopefully by the time they stabilize, be near break-even from a gap perspective. But I would say the value of the underlying real estate is not impacted by operating losses directly. We still think these properties will lease up, they'll stabilize, and then based on those stabilized operating results, we'll sell to other investors at levels at which we'll recover the original cost basis of the assets before even considering any of these gap losses that erode gap bases.

Got it. That's very helpful there. And then, you know, if you guys are able to kind of speak to the leasing trends that you guys are seeing so far, you know, I guess with spring leasing coming up, going into summer, it's kind of the strength of leasing for some of these guys. So, any insight that you could provide there, what you guys are expecting would be helpful.

Yeah, Matt, it's Ken. I think what we can say on that front is you're right. This sort of March to June or July time period is traditionally the strong point of leasing in the annual multifamily cycle. We have a number of these assets that are still in lease up where we're starting to see those trends in terms of traffic at the individual properties and leases being signed. So that's something that we're having a weekly dialogue with the property management firms about. I think it's a little early for us to say, given that we're here in mid-March, but it's certainly something that we and our joint venture partners are having weekly dialogue with the individual property managers about to see what the trends are in their particular marketplace, see if there are adjustments that need to be made from a pricing perspective to be as competitive as possible and to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Got it. That's helpful. Appreciate the comments as always, guys.

Thanks, Matt. Thank you. Our next question today is coming from Chris Muller from Citizens Capital. Your line is now live.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess on the four properties that you guys foreclosed on in the first quarter, Will that flow through as a loss in the first quarter? And if so, is the $8.7 million provision you guys took for that last quarter, is that a good ballpark for what a realized loss would flow through as?

Thanks for the question, Chris. Yeah, we're still finalizing our accounting for those properties that came onto our books. I think our initial basis in those properties will be around $112 to $150 million, which is the $120 million of mortgage revenue bonds less the $8 million credit loss that we took on those. I still think that we'll manage those properties to the best of our ability and hopefully get out at the original basis of the mortgage revenue bonds at $120 million or even higher.

I think, Chris, it's Ken. What I'll add there is that we believe there are long-term value in these assets. They're well-located. They're in good markets. They're in Greenville and Spartanburg and Columbia. I really do think that it was just a situation where the ownership and the multiple property managers that they had just did not focus on getting these deals stabilized the right way after the REAC was completed. So, you know, they're on our books now. We're exercising that same level of weekly oversight on these projects. we've retained a third-party property management firm that we have had good experience with and that Greystone as a firm has had a good experience with. And so, you know, we're going to, you know, we're going to keep at it. And that is certainly our goal is to get the properties operating to a point where, just like the Suites on Paseo deal, we can list it for sale and hopefully recover

our original basis. Got it. And is it too early for any timeline on when those sales could occur?

I think it's really too early for us to say at this point in time, you know, we've only had fee ownership for, you know, anywhere from 75 to, you know, 20 days at this point in time. And the, you know, the new property manager is still kind of getting settled in and, you know, and going through the transition from the previous property manager companies. So I think it's a little too soon to tell, but I think as we start seeing any leasing trends there into the course of 2026 that we can report to people that will certainly focus on sharing what operational data we can through that MF Properties section of our financial reporting.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And then I guess the other question I have is, I did not see any mention of any JV property sales, and I don't think you guys mentioned it in your prepared remarks either. But looking at the slide deck, I see a $4.5 million return of capital. So what's going on there? And then the flip side of that, on the contributions, do you guys have an estimate for how much additional capital you guys expect to contribute to existing projects?

I'll take the first part of that. On the $4.5 million return of capital, that relates to two projects, Bellage Senior Living, Carson Valley, and Freestone Greenville. We had the opportunity for both of those deals once they got through their construction phase to refinance or right-size the construction loan financing on those deals. And so they were actually able to get additional construction loan pricing proceeds that they then could return to us to minimize our capital in the deal and increase our returns.

So those were two circumstances, Chris, where our JV partners did a great job. Projects got delivered on time and under budget. And as Jesse said, the construction lenders were willing to make sort of final right-sizing construction loan advances reflecting that that allowed those loan proceeds to be used to return capital to GHI.

Got it. And then just any expectations on additional contributions going forward?

That really depends on a case-by-case basis, Chris. A lot at this point in time, particularly on the deals that have reached stabilization or are close to stabilization, is the timing of property tax payments, in particular in Texas. And so, you know, the need for, you know, for additional capital contributions is really driven by the timeline of those local property tax payments. So, you know, if we get to a situation where, you know, in a lot of jurisdictions that payment is due in November, if we still have those investments on the books, then we may need to look to make additional contributions to pay property taxes if the operations of the properties are not able to support those payments from free cash flow. So, you know, it's a little early for us to tell at this point in time. As I said, a lot depends on the timing of what potentially may happen with our exits from those properties.

Got it. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the questions today.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Larry Linden, a private investor. Your line is now live.

Thank you very much. I have a factual background to my question. In February 2019, when GHI was still ATEX, I invested at the price of $19.49 per buck share and continued to invest until it reached a high of $23.05. Today, the current buck share price is $5.89. My question, why should I continue to have confidence, faith, and extend my credibility to a GHI management team that turned a basically safe and sound municipal revenue bond core investment strategy, producing excellent dividends into a speculative, questionable, and volatile joint venture equity investment in market-rate multifamily properties that has resulted in a financial disaster for its investors. Why should I believe that the same team that created this disaster has the ability and common sense to turn this into a profitable investment even in the next five-plus years? Why are we granting a mulligan to a losing team? The honorable and realistic cost would be for the entire management team to resign and be replaced with fresh new leadership. I say this respectfully and not on a personal basis. I would like an answer to that question.

Well, Mr. Linden, I'm not sure how I can answer that question for you. We serve at the pleasure of the board. If the board decides that that is the right force for the partnership to take, that's a decision for them to make. In terms of your comment about changing the investment strategy of the partnership from 2019 to present, what I will mention is that at 2019, the partnership did have significant investments in market rate multifamily JV equity investments at that point in time. And, in fact, if you look at a lot of the CAD that was generated by the partnership in 2021, 2022, and 2023, a significant amount of that CAD that was distributed to unit holders came from that investment strategy. The four properties that we currently have on our balance sheet that are at stabilization or close to stabilization, the initial investment committee decisions to invest in those properties were made from Q4 2020 to Q3 of 2021. So it's not like we woke up yesterday and decided to put more money into the market rate multifamily business. If anything, we clearly communicated last quarter the board's direction to us as a management team to try to exit those investments as efficiently and as profitably as possible and to recycle that capital into those traditional tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond investments.

Okay. I just have to question the proceeding. How is this thing going to move forward? but I don't think anything's going to turn around in many, many years. I don't want to jump ship now at a tremendous loss, but I don't see between a rock and a hard place. So I'm going to have to make my own decision as to whether or not to go forward with your group. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from John Baum, a private investor. Your line is now live.

Hi, guys. I don't think I'm going to be as stinging as that last commentator. commentator, I might say that, you know, the market has been declining for some time, and it's open Monday through Friday, and everybody is willing to, or is able to buy or sell as they see fit. I've been around since 2010, as you probably know, and excellent distribution paying investment. I think the foray into the JV was well-intentioned, but the market changed. I'm not going to hold you guys to that. But I have, regarding the current valuation right now, as I look at the balance sheet, I see investment in unconsolidated entities, I assume that's the JV, of $146 million. If I divide that by 23.6 million buck units outstanding, that's $6.20. If I deduct that from the net book value per buck as of $12.31 of a little under $12, I arrive at a figure of $5.57, and the current price right now closing is $5.89 per buck, which impliedly means that the market is giving you zero credit for $146 million on the balance sheet of investments in unconsolidated entities. My question, obviously, is twofold. First, are you required to market test the valuation of your investment in unconsolidated entities such that the $146 million is the lesser of what you're carrying at book? or fair market value. And secondarily, it seems incredulous that there is this much disparity between the net book value as a 1231 and the current closing price as of today. And I'd be welcome to listen to your commentary. Yes. Thanks for the question, John. The numbers that you

cited there in terms of investments in unconsolidated entities, which is the joint venture equity investments that we're referring to. And the math that you presented does seem correct based on my understanding. We are required under the accounting guidance to assess that $146 million of carrying value of our investments in unconsolidated entities or impairment at each reporting date. And so we do a detailed analysis internally of what do we think the stabilized exit values for those properties will be, and will those exit values support the return of our capital at a minimum? And if not, then we are required to report impairments, and we have not to date reported any such impairments. But John, it's kind of me. To your

point about the math you went through there, I think that's a fair way to say that we would have to have a total loss of all of our invested capital on all of our joint venture market rate multifamily transactions in order for the book value to reduce to that level. And as Jesse just said, we do have to go through that quarterly evaluation for impairment process on

all of those investments. I mean, these are tangible properties. Here comes a comment. I mean, your cash, your mortgage revenue bonds, those trade, but, I mean, the math has to be off somewhere here if the JV, you write them down to zero, and we're close to the current price. I mean, I understood tax law selling last year. I'm a big boy. I get it. But the market, and I don't want to get into speculation, the market can do anything. But it appears just incredulous as to how the market can write these investment and JV entities down to zero. So I'll listen to any response, and one of two things is possible. Either that $146 million figure is incorrect, or the market has you guys off by 50%. I'll listen.

I don't think we can say that the $146 million figure is incorrect because we're reporting it in our audited financial statement. So I don't think that that's really a possibility. So that leaves your other option.

Okay, I agree with that. And obviously, to the gentleman before and myself, this looks to be like a street, you know, a screaming buy. I'm not seeing goodwill or other intangible assets. Contained in the $95 million of other assets, if I could pursue that, is that figure, Is that – I'm not sure what comprises that, but is that a tangible figure right there? Is that tested? So I guess if the error of truth has to point anywhere, it's got to be – the market is dramatically undervaluing the $146 million of JV assets.

Not quite sure. I caught all of that.

You know, I see – you know what? I see – you know, fair enough. I got my answer right there, and each investor is free to do what they're to do, but I consider the management to be crackerjack when it comes to the mortgage revenue bonds, and I welcome your redirection back into the core business because management of real estate can have its own vicissitudes. Thank you, and I look forward to your next quarter.

Thank you, John. Our next question is coming from Jeffrey Neal from Merrill Lynch. Your line is now live.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Ken and Jesse, and thanks for taking my question. Actually, the heart of my question was covered by the last caller, who I want to compliment with regards to looking at book value. I missed the early part of the call. The book value figure at the end of the fourth quarter was what exactly? Per share.

$11.77.

Okay, thank you. And so my follow-on question, and maybe you've already addressed this in the last responses. When you look at book value, I guess, how do you think investors should be looking at book value when making investment decisions in your stock? At this stage of the cycle, my personal opinion is it's extraordinarily important in accepting the fact that the stock has dislocated from fundamentals for a very, very long period of time. The stock traded at a premium to book value, and while book value has declined over the last several years, it hasn't been dramatically so. It certainly is not reflective of the performance of the stock as previously described. How do you guys think about book value and moving forward, what do you think you can, quote, do with that book value to improve market perceptions? Thank you.

Jeff, it's Ken. I mean, I think from our perspective, the repositioning of the investment portfolio strategy that we've been talking about last quarter and again today is really at the core of the actions that we have as a management team are going to be taking. You know, it's, you know, we understand the, you know, the volatility in earnings and the longer hold period that we've seen with these remaining JV market rate multifamily investments. And so I think by exiting them as quickly and efficiently and profitably as we can and recycling that capital, I think we'll go a long way towards giving people confidence in that more reliable income stream versus what we've seen in the past. But just, you know, factually in terms of the computation of the book value, you know, as Jesse said, our mortgage revenue bonds are marked to market by a third-party evaluation firm. And we do have to go through this impairment analysis on a quarterly basis on the JV equity investments. So, you know, in terms of the presentation or the calculation of the book value itself, I believe that we feel very confident in that.

Maybe just a follow-on question. Given this big discount to book value, will the board of directors get consideration to utilizing, let's say, cash proceeds from sales of the apartments to repurchase stock as opposed to either maintaining or paying out dividends?

I don't want to speak for the board, Jeff, but I think depending on the timing of those sales and the amount of capital that's returned, I think it's certainly something given the discount to book value that we're currently at that has to be open for consideration.

Very good. Thank you.

Next question is coming from Nathan Beam from Capital Management. Your line is now live.

Hey, good afternoon, and thank you guys for taking my call. A lot of the questions had thus far have already been answered, but just had two on my side of things themselves. The first one's going to be in regards to the distribution rate of the business here moving forward. As the company continues to move further into the mortgage revenue bond side of things and reduce the JV investments themselves, How long does the board or management itself determine or believe that the current rate of $0.14 per unit will continue before a potential increase would occur? That's my first question.

I think the question from that perspective is it's really dependent on how quickly and how much capital we can recycle from the existing JV equity investments into more traditional fixed income investments. I think, as Jesse mentioned during his remarks, we're currently recognizing a minimum level of income associated with the JV equity investments, given where they are in their life cycle. So taking capital from investments that are generating a modest amount of current income and reinvesting them into mortgage revenue bonds, which I think will generate a more regular, higher level of income associated with that capital, So then the board will be able to make decisions about what they want to do with distribution at that point in time based on the improved potential earnings power of the partnership.

Thank you for that clarification. The only other question that I had was from the perspective, and it somewhat was asked by the individuals before me, is going to be in the aspect of obviously there's been a huge move in the stock price of the company itself, especially when looking over the past 12 months, 14 months or so. When looking at insider management, both from the executive side as well as the board of directors, could you give us your guys' thinking as to why or why there has not been, I guess, more insider management and the business, considering the drastic move inside the stock price? That's all my questions today, and thank you for your time as well.

I think, Nathan, the one thing that you need to be mindful of there is that both the board and individual employees are subject to a variety of trading restrictions. We're not able to just go into the market and buy units whenever we want to. We have rules that we have to follow, and there are specified time periods when the trading window is open for those individuals. So we don't make public announcements regarding that, but it's certainly something that we are subject to and we have to be mindful of. So I would just make that point to you that, you know, to the extent that you may not have seen a significant amount of insider activity over, say, the past three or six-month time period, that there may be, you know, there may be other reasons behind that other than we just didn't feel like buying any shares.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I wasn't necessarily looking at three to six months. If you just look back, I mean, the last insider purchase from an executive was August of 2024. There was a board purchase back in October and November of 2025. But the stock since that time period has obviously moved downward. And so completely understand the blackout and obviously other provisions that you guys have to administer. But the stock has consistently moved lower, even though book values stayed relatively constant or consistent. So just was looking for any color on that as far as the confidence level of both the board and then also to current management and buying the stock at its current levels as well.

Again, I really can't give you any direction on what might happen when insiders have the ability to transact again in the future. I think what I can say to you is that as you've evidenced that there's really only been buying activity, there hasn't been any sale activity. So take what you will from that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We've reached out of our question and answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over to Ken for any further closing comments.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to speaking with you again soon for the Q1-2026 results.

Thank you. That does conclude today's teleconference webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.