Sure, thanks. And, you know, maybe I'll start with the numerator and work my way to the denominator with all the rents and you kind of file [ph] that in way, at least in the back of your head, but we don't change it. We will underwrite rents. And this is what I like, especially if you're delivering two more buildings in an existing park. It is where the rents, and the TI came in on our most recent leasing. So we'll look at our peers, and we don't factor in rent growth. That may be, I guess, you could say, in hindsight, that's been too conservative the last few years, but we won't factor in rent growth. And then typically, by the time it gets to the investment committee will have the land dialed down, and we'll bid it out to three different GCs for the construction. So we'll have firm construction numbers, and then you're really - you're trying to manage your risk if anything. So where that risk remains, is how fast can we lease it off and on, obviously, the tenant improvements. And typically, if tenant improvements start to get a little above normal, then we'll adjust rents with that pending that the term and the tenants credit and things like that. So for now, it feels like we're still in that kind of higher sixes to seven, thankfully, and what's helped us is cap rates where we used to - you know, we typically would target 150 basis points for development risk has been our norm, we're getting closer to 300, as cap rates get into the low enough 50. If I round and use a seven and a cap rate of four, you're getting to 250 to 300 basis points. And hopefully we're delivering it a little bit higher rents than we underwrote. The project in LA that we bought, and we thought that we use current rents, and we thought we were coming in, in the mid fours and finished 90 days later and we were able to come in at the high fours, for example. And it was – that wasn't construction, it was simply able to get better rents, and we had underwritten in that market and proved.