Earnings call transcript: Greystone Housing Q2 2025 misses EPS forecast, stock drops

Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P. (GHI) reported its second-quarter 2025 earnings, revealing a significant miss on both earnings per share (EPS) and revenue forecasts. The company’s EPS came in at $0.25, falling short of the anticipated $0.36, marking a 30.56% negative surprise. Revenue also missed expectations, reaching $23.59 million against a forecasted $24.79 million. Following these results, Greystone’s stock dropped 4.3% to $10.25, close to its 52-week low. According to InvestingPro analysis, the stock appears fairly valued at current levels, while maintaining an impressive 11.7% dividend yield.

Key Takeaways

• Greystone Housing missed EPS and revenue forecasts for Q2 2025.
• The stock fell 4.3% post-announcement, reflecting investor disappointment.
• The company reported a GAAP net loss of $7.1 million.
• New joint venture with BlackRock could drive future growth.
• Additional $60 million capital commitment was received in July.

Company Performance

Greystone Housing’s overall performance in Q2 2025 was below expectations, with significant misses in both earnings and revenue. This performance contrasts with previous quarters where the company generally met or exceeded market expectations. The reported GAAP net loss of $7.1 million further underscores the challenging quarter. InvestingPro data shows the company maintains a ’Fair’ overall financial health score, with particularly strong cash flow metrics. Get access to 6 more exclusive ProTips and comprehensive financial analysis with InvestingPro.

Financial Highlights

• Revenue: $23.59 million, down from forecasted $24.79 million
• Earnings per share: $0.25, below the forecast of $0.36
• Book value per unit: $11.83, a decrease of $0.76 from March 31

Earnings vs. Forecast

Greystone Housing’s Q2 2025 EPS of $0.25 represented a 30.56% negative surprise compared to the forecast of $0.36. The revenue of $23.59 million also fell short of the expected $24.79 million, reflecting challenges in meeting market expectations.

Market Reaction

Following the earnings announcement, Greystone’s stock price declined by 4.3% to $10.25. This drop positions the stock near its 52-week low of $10.12, indicating a bearish sentiment among investors. The decline contrasts with broader market trends, where similar sector stocks have shown more stability. InvestingPro technical indicators suggest the stock is currently in oversold territory, with a relatively low beta of 0.67 indicating lower volatility compared to the broader market.

Outlook & Guidance

Looking ahead, Greystone Housing plans to continue exploring opportunities in construction lending, with expectations of increased capital deployment in the latter half of 2025. The company remains committed to its hedging strategy to manage interest rate risks and is closely monitoring municipal bond market dynamics. Notably, the company has maintained dividend payments for 40 consecutive years, demonstrating long-term financial stability despite market fluctuations. Discover deeper insights and access the comprehensive Pro Research Report covering GHI and 1,400+ other US stocks with InvestingPro.

Executive Commentary

CEO Ken Rogozinski highlighted the company’s strategic initiatives, stating, "We continue to be excited about the new construction lending joint venture with BlackRock impact opportunities." He also emphasized the importance of financial prudence, saying, "We’ve been very mindful about trying to run as much of a matched book as we can."

Risks and Challenges

• Continued underperformance in earnings could erode investor confidence.
• Market volatility, particularly in municipal bonds, may impact future revenue.
• The decrease in book value per unit could signal asset depreciation.
• The potential for rising interest rates may challenge profitability.
• Increased competition in the affordable housing sector poses a risk to market share.

Q&A

During the earnings call, analysts inquired about the company’s strategy in the municipal bond market and its joint venture with BlackRock. Executives addressed these concerns by explaining their interest rate hedging approach and the strategic importance of additional capital contributions for Vantage properties.

Full transcript - Greystone Housing Impact Investors (GHI) Q2 2025:

Conference Operator: Greetings, and welcome to Greystone Housing Impact Investor Call Second Quarter twenty twenty five Earnings Conference Call. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Jesse Corey. Thank you. You may begin.

Jesse Corey, Chief Financial Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Thank you. I would like to welcome everyone to the Greystone Housing Impact Investors, L. P, NYSE, ticker symbol GHI, Second Quarter of twenty twenty five Earnings Conference Call. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen only mode. After management presents its overview of Q2 twenty twenty five, 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 L. P. I would now like to turn the call over to our Chief Executive Officer, Ken Rogozinski.

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Greystone Housing Impact Investors L. P. Second quarter twenty twenty five investor call. Thank you for joining.

I will start with an overview of our portfolio. 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 far as the performance of the investment portfolio is concerned, we have had no forbearance requests for multifamily mortgage revenue bonds and all of our borrowers are current on their principal and interest payments as of 06/30/2025.

Physical occupancy on the underlying properties was 88.4% for the stabilized mortgage revenue bond portfolio as of 06/30/2025. We continue to advance funds to borrowers under our debt investments during the second quarter consistent with our funding commitments. Our Vantage joint venture equity investments consist of interest in five properties as of today, four where construction is complete and one site being evaluated for development or sale. For those properties in their initial lease up phase, we continue to see good leasing activity. Lease turns at the properties that have been leasing for a longer period have been driven by local submarket conditions.

As we have experienced in the past, the Vantage Group as the managing member of each project owning entity will position a property for sale upon stabilization. As previously announced, the Vantage at Halodis property was sold in May 2025. We have four joint venture equity investments with the Freestone Development Group, one for a project in Colorado and three projects in Texas. One project has completed construction and has begun leasing units. Two projects are nearing construction completion and have begun leasing activities.

And one project has commenced site work. Our joint venture equity investment in Velage Senior Living Carson Valley, a 102 bed seniors housing property located in Minden, Nevada has received its certificate of occupancy and began move ins in the second quarter. The project is currently 49% occupied and is pre leased to 55%, which matches the original underwriting for the transaction. Our joint venture equity investment in the Jessamet Hayes Farm, a new construction three eighteen unit market rate multifamily property located in Huntsville, Alabama is approaching construction completion and has begun leasing activities. With that, I will turn things over to Jesse Corey, our CFO to discuss the financial data for the 2025.

Jesse Corey, Chief Financial Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Thank you, Ken. Earlier today, we reported earnings for our second quarter ended 06/30/2025. We reported a GAAP net loss of $7,100,000 or $0.35 per unit basic and diluted. And we reported cash available for distribution or CAD, a non GAAP measure of positive $5,700,000 or $0.25 per unit. Our second quarter GAAP net income was significantly impacted by provisions for credit losses and non cash unrealized losses on our interest rate derivatives, both of which are added back to net income or loss in our calculation of CAD.

We’ve reported a provision for credit losses of $9,100,000 during the second quarter, which is added back to net loss in calculating CAD consistent with our historical treatment of credit loss allowances. The second quarter provision primarily relates to three non profit owner mortgage revenue bonds secured by properties in South Carolina. The nonprofit owner acquired the properties in 2022 and 2023 to undergo rehabilitation and conversion from market rate operations to rent restricted affordable properties. The rehabilitation of each property has been completed and each property is working to stabilize operations. Property operating results have not met the originally underwritten levels and collateral values are less than originally expected.

We are in active discussions with the owner about opportunities to improve property operations and potential refinancing and sales options to maximize the value of our mortgage revenue bond investments. We recorded unrealized losses on our interest rate swap portfolio of $2,100,000 during the second quarter due to the fair value impact of movements in market interest rates. Despite a decrease in the fair value of our interest rate derivatives, we expect this to have a minimal impact on our net cash flows as decreases in projected future swap settlement payments are expected to be offset by lower interest costs on our variable rate debt financing. Unrealized gains and losses are added back to net income to calculate CAD. Our book value per unit as of June 30 was on a diluted basis $11.83 which is a decrease of $0.76 from March 31.

The decrease is primarily a result of our reported GAAP net loss of $0.35 per unit and distributions declared of $0.30 per unit during the second quarter. I will note that our reported net book value includes our joint venture equity investments at carrying value and not fair value. They are not mark to market. As a result, reported net book value excludes any potential gains or additional income that may be realized upon transactional events such as debt refinancing or sales of the underlying properties above our carrying value. As of market close yesterday, August 6, our closing unit price on the New York Stock Exchange was $10.71 which is a 9.5% discount to our net book value per unit as of June 30.

Moving on to liquidity. 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 June 30, we reported unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $47,500,000 We also had approximately $86,000,000 of availability on our secured lines of credit. At our current liquidity levels, we believe that we are well positioned to fund our financing commitments. During the second quarter, we focused on amending our secured lines of credit to extend maturities and increase our available borrowing capacity.

In June 2025, we amended our existing general line of credit that made structural changes to increase our operational flexibility. In addition, we extended the maturity date to June 2027 with two one year extension options available. Also in June, we entered into a new credit agreement for our acquisition line of credit to extend the maturity date and increase our borrowing capacity from $50,000,000 to $80,000,000 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 100 of our Form 10 Q. 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 June 30, which includes market anticipated SOFR rate declines over the next twelve months.

The scenarios we present assume that there is an immediate shift in the yield curve and that we do nothing in response for twelve months. The analysis shows that an immediate 200 basis point increase in rates will result in a decrease in our net interest income and CAD of approximately $2,000,000 or $0.86 per unit. Alternatively, assuming a 100 basis point decrease in interest rates across the curve will result in an increase in our net interest income and CAD of $1,000,000 or approximately $0.43 per unit. We consider ourselves largely hedged against significant fluctuations in our net interest income for market interest rate movements in all scenarios, assuming no significant credit issues. Our debt investments portfolio consisting of mortgage revenue bonds, governmental issuer loans and property loans totaled $1,260,000,000 as of June 30 or 85% of our total assets.

We own 83 mortgage revenue bonds as of June 30 that provide permanent financing for affordable multifamily seniors and skilled nursing properties across 13 states with concentrations in California, Texas and South Carolina. We own four governmental issuer loans as of June 30 that finance the construction or rehabilitation of affordable multifamily properties in two states. Such loans often have companion property loans or taxable governmental issuer loans that share the first mortgage lien. During the second quarter, we funded approximately $41,000,000 of our mortgage revenue bond, governmental issuer loan and related commitments. And we experienced redemptions and pay downs of approximately $64,000,000 in the normal course.

We also sold one governmental issuer loan and one taxable governmental issuer loan to our construction lending joint venture with BlackRock during the quarter, which are the first investments within that joint venture. Our outstanding future funding commitments for our mortgage revenue bond, governmental issuer loan and related investments was $26,300,000 as of June 30, before related debt proceeds and excluding those investments that we expect to transfer to our construction lending joint venture with BlackRock. These commitments will be funded over approximately twelve months and will add to our income producing asset base. Our market rate joint venture equity investments portfolio consisted of 10 properties as of June 30 with a reported carrying value of approximately $154,000,000 exclusive of one investment Vantage at San Marcos that is reported on a consolidated basis. Our remaining funding commitments for JV equity investments totaled $19,500,000 as of June 30.

All remaining commitments relate to sites being considered for future development and we are not required to fund these commitments until a construction contract is signed and construction commences. In May 2025, the Vantage At Helotes property was sold to a local housing authority and a non profit entity and we received proceeds of $17,100,000 inclusive of our $12,500,000 of original cash equity investment in the project. We reported $1,800,000 of investment income and a $163,000 gain on sale for this transaction in the second quarter, resulting in approximately $08 of net income per unit and CAD per unit. Moving to our debt, our debt financing facilities used to leverage our investments had an outstanding principal balance totaling approximately $1,300,000,000 as of June 30. This is down approximately $26,000,000 from March 31.

We manage and report our debt financing in four main categories on Page 94 of our Form 10 Q. 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 $828,000,000 or 80% 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 $2.00 $7,000,000 or 20% of our total debt financing.

Of this amount, 149,000,000 is associated with mortgage revenue bond and governmental issuer loan investments that mature in the 2025, which will repay the outstanding debt financing. As such, we expect the unhedged period to be relatively short. I’ll now turn the call back to Ken for his update on market conditions and our investment opportunities.

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Thanks, Jesse. The 2025 saw the continued underperformance of The U. S. Municipal bond market. According to Bloomberg data, both investment grade and high yield tax exempt bonds were by far the worst performing U.

S. Fixed income asset class during the 2025, lagging all other major fixed income asset classes by a wide margin. At the time of last quarter’s call in May, ten year MMD was at three point three three percent and thirty year MMD was at 4.4%. At the June, those levels were at 3.264.54%, which were seven basis points lower and 14 basis points higher respectively following the recent yield curve steepening trend. As of yesterday’s close, ten year MMD was at three point three two percent and thirty year MMD was at 4.67%.

The ten year muni to treasury ratio was currently at 76% and the thirty year muni to treasury ratio was currently at 95%. Those levels are up from 6684% respectively in late February, underscoring the recent underperformance of munis versus treasuries. As those current ratio levels indicate, July was another challenging month for the muni bond market with negative monthly returns for both the investment grade and the high grade muni indices. As this past week showed, both the market and the Fed are still trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on the broader economy. The muni bond market emerged relatively unscathed from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with no significant changes enacted as part of that legislation.

There were some technical changes to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program that may have a marginally positive impact on our lending business as part of that bill. The initial round of the House and Senate appropriation bills for the Department of Housing and Urban Development have shown Congress’ willingness to continue to fully fund HUD’s core programs, notwithstanding the Trump administration’s desire to implement large scale changes there. From a market technicals perspective, the trend of heavy issuance that began last year continued into the 2025. The Barclays research team believes that munis have shifted to a new paradigm of heavy supply due to a number of factors. Cumulative costs of CapEx have increased dramatically, COVID money having been largely spent and issuer capitulation that lower rates do not seem imminent.

Barclays has increased their 2025 muni bond issuance forecast by 10% to a total of $530,000,000,000 to $540,000,000,000 with net issuance expected to be in the range of $175,000,000,000 to $200,000,000,000 Year to date issuance through the July was approximately $337,000,000,000 with each of the last four months having averaged over 50,000,000,000 of new issuance. Year to date fund flows through the July were a positive $17,300,000,000 with $4,200,000,000 going to traditional mutual funds and $13,100,000,000 going to ETFs. The average weekly secondary market trading volume for the past twelve months is up to $43,000,000,000 The market ended the 2025 with both the muni investment grade index and the muni high yield index generating a total return of negative 0.5%. We continue to be excited about the new construction lending joint venture with BlackRock impact opportunities. And we have mentioned on our past quarterly calls, we have seen a pullback in affordable construction lending by commercial banks as a result of the broader pressures on their commercial real estate loan portfolios.

That has created a window of opportunity for us to deepen our relationships with existing sponsors and to establish new sponsor relationships as we step in to help fill that void. In July, we received an additional capital commitment to the joint venture of approximately $60,000,000 from a second institutional investor. Having a dedicated pool of available capital for new low income housing tax credit projects allows us to effectively manage that potential pipeline and to offer our clients timely transaction execution to meet their needs. With that, Jesse and I are happy to take your questions.

Conference Operator: Thank you. At this time, we’ll be conducting a question and answer session. Session. Our first question comes from Matthew Erdner with Jones Trading. Please proceed with your question.

Matthew Erdner, Analyst, Jones Trading: Hey, good afternoon guys and thanks for taking the question. Ken and Jesse, I appreciate the comments as always. So shifting the topic to muni bonds and just kind of the underperformance there. I’d love to pick your brain about kind of as to why you think that is and if there’s something underlying from a fundamental perspective that’s kind of driving the underperformance relative to other asset classes? Any expansion that you could give there would be great.

Thank you.

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Sure, Matt. I think a couple of things there. The first is I made reference just a short while ago in my comments to the elevated level of new supply that’s been coming into the marketplace. If you sort of think about the Barclays forecast of 175,000,000,000 to $200,000,000,000 of net new issuance this year and then look at the flows into the traditional muni mutual fund and ETF vehicles, you can see that there’s a pretty decent gap between those two levels. And that investment demand needs to come from someplace.

And in a lot of circumstances with new issue deals getting done, the underwriting firms have had to be more aggressive in terms of potentially making adjustments to interest rates on deals in order to get them done. So I think that’s something that we’re going to continue to see in the more traditional investment grade part of the curve. Shifting to the high yield market, I think there have been a couple of overhangs on that market that are still waiting to play out. There are two sort of benchmark high yield bond deals outstanding that are experiencing issues. One of them is the I believe it’s a $1,200,000,000 deal for the BrightLine train system down in Florida that is currently looking at a deferral of interest and some side of potential workout there as well.

And then the other is the American Dream Mall transaction in Northern New Jersey by the Meadowlands. It was recently announced that the valuation of that mall had been cut basically in half for property tax purposes. And so given the size of those transactions and the broad investment by the muni high yield funds in those names, seeing that negative news on both of them, I think has caused some concern in the muni high yield investor community and people are really sort of buckling down and focusing on the credits in their portfolio. So I think at a high level, that’s the best color that I can give you as of right now. But I think we’ll have to see how things play out for the balance of the year, both in terms of new investment activity as well as issuance.

Matthew Erdner, Analyst, Jones Trading: Thanks for that. I really appreciate the color there. That’s very helpful. And then second one for me, kind of turning to the BlackRock JV. Congrats on getting the first investment in there.

Is there any, I guess, guidance that you could kind of give as to the pace of, I guess, placements into that JV that you guys are looking to achieve and just the kind of opportunities that are going to go into that fund if it varies from your kind of traditional line of business?

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: So in terms of the strategy for the joint venture, it’s really very similar to what we’ve historically done with our mortgage revenue bond and our governmental issuer loan investments, where we’re providing construction financing on a either new ground up new construction or acquisition rehab, 4% low income housing tax credit transaction where the perm financing is being provided via a Freddie Mac tax exempt loan forward commitment. So that’s the strategy. I think in terms of guidance on pace of deployment, that’s not something that we’ve historically done. But what I will say is just from a sort of a calendar year perspective, since all of these projects need to receive allocations of private activity volume cap from their local state or local authorities, We typically see that pace pick up in the second half of the year as states have a better handle on their available amount of private activity volume cap and the projects that are ready to go there from that front. So I think if you look historically at issuance trends, it’s really sort of been back end loaded in the second half of the year.

And we’d expect that to continue here into 2025.

Matthew Erdner, Analyst, Jones Trading: Great. Thanks for that. Appreciate the questions today.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Chris Muller with Citizens JMP Securities. Please proceed with your question.

Chris Muller, Analyst, Citizens JMP Securities: So following up on the construction JV, is there anything you can share on how the new investor got involved? Was that something that you guys were looking to expand or did they approach you to get involved there?

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: It was a, I think a two way conversation that we had. They were evaluating investment alternatives in the muni bond sector. We continued our outreach after the BlackRock success to be able to try to expand the scope of the joint venture. And we kind of mutually found each other, started dialogue and went as you would expect through a relatively lengthy diligence and negotiation process and then we’re ultimately successful in obtaining the second investment.

Chris Muller, Analyst, Citizens JMP Securities: Got it. Well, I mean, speaks volumes to you guys and the reputation you have. So congrats on that. And then I guess the other question I have. So it looks like you guys advanced $3,100,000 of funds above the initial commitment amounts for four of the Vantage properties.

So what drove that additional capital needs there? And does that additional investment change your guys’ economic interest in those projects at all?

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: So in terms of what drove that, it’s a combination of factors. As we’ve been talking about over the past couple of quarterly calls, we’ve seen an extension in the time period of us exiting those investments. And so in a number of situations, I think the biggest driver there is that we’re actually having to pay property taxes at the property level for longer than we had originally pro form a. So a fair amount of those additional capital contributions have been to make annual property tax payments that were due before a sale could be consummated where that was normally handled as a proration on the closing settlement statement with the buyer. In terms of percentage ownership interest, it doesn’t change the respective interest or the waterfall at all.

It is just counted as an additional capital contribution by us into the project owning entity and is treated on a par with our original capital contributions. So no change of ownership interest or anything else. It’s added to that basis in terms of the application of the waterfall under the individual property operating agreement at the time of sale.

Chris Muller, Analyst, Citizens JMP Securities: Got it. And did the Vantage partners have to contribute additional capital too?

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: It’s been on a case by case basis in terms of additional capital contributions by them. We’ve had discussions with them about a larger participation by them since the a number of the older vintage transactions were done with 100% GHI capital. And they have been responsive to our request to participate when we’ve had that discussion with them.

Chris Muller, Analyst, Citizens JMP Securities: Got it. It’s all very helpful. Thanks for taking the questions.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from John Zaum, a private investor. Please proceed with your question.

John Zaum, Private Investor: Hi guys, investors since 2010. Just wondering, with interest rates that migrated upwards and you’ve learned to hedge on those. Is there any idea as interest rates go down to maybe let your hedges go off? Because it looks like as we go forward here, interest rates are going to be moderating and does that enter into the thought process? And that’s the first question.

Second would be, when do you see demand for like multifamily housing pickup in this current environment? Thank you.

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: John, I think to answer your first question, I think we as a management team have tried to really keep the partnership away from taking a particular view on rates one way or another. If you look at the sort of the chart that Jesse mentioned about in his comments that buckets the four different categories of assets and how we have those assets funded, we’ve been very mindful about trying to run as much of a matched book as we can from that perspective. So I don’t see that strategy changing even as we see short term rates going lower. I think that the expectation from our perspective is that we’ll see lower funding costs, but we’ll also be receiving lower payments from our counterparties on our interest rate swaps so that we’re basically net neutral in a declining rate environment. And that was the goal of our hedging program.

And I really don’t see that changing for us going forward. In terms of your second question about demand for multifamily, it depends on what you’re talking about from a demand perspective. If you’re talking about demand from institutional capital for investment in multifamily properties or if you’re talking about individual potential tenant demand in specific markets to lease units at our properties. If it’s the former, I think we continue to see, albeit muted, but continued activity in the multifamily investment space from institutional investors. There are asset sales, both existing assets as well as new construction assets being undertaken by sponsors across the country.

And so from that perspective, while it’s been a more challenging environment versus what we saw in the twenty twenty one to twenty twenty three timeframe, I think it’s for a lot of investors, it’s always a good core asset class and that there is always some level of activity there. With regard to tenant leasing, as I mentioned during the introduction comments that I made, in the deals that we still have in lease up, we’re seeing good demand and good velocity there. And we’re also seeing good lease terms on the projects that have reached stabilization. So from that perspective, at least in the markets that we’re in from a JV equity perspective, we’re not seeing significant issues from that perspective.

John Zaum, Private Investor: Fair enough. Thank you.

Conference Operator: We have reached the end of the question and answer session. I’d now like to turn the call back over to Ken Robozinski for closing comments.

Ken Rogozinski, Chief Executive Officer, Greystone Housing Impact Investors L.P.: Thank you very much for joining us today. We look forward to chatting with everyone again next quarter.

Conference Operator: This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and we thank you for your participation.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.