Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. (GLPI) Q2 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Greetings, and welcome to the gaming and leisure properties. Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Joseph Jaffoni.

Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, Carrie, and good morning, everyone. And thank you for joining Gaming and Leisure Properties Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Call and Webcast. The press release distributed yesterday afternoon is available in the Investor Relations section on our website at www.glpropinc.com. In addition to the second quarter press release, GLPI also posted supplemental earnings presentation, which highlights the events of the quarter recent developments, and future considerations. That can also be accessed at www.glpropinc.com. On today's call, management's prepared remarks and answers to your questions may contain forward looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 2000. Forward-looking statements address matters that are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause results to differ materially from those discussed today. Forward looking statements may include those related to revenue, operating income, and financial guidance as well as non GAAP financial measures such as FFO and AFFO. As a reminder, forward-looking statements represent current estimates, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in the future. We encourage listeners to review the more detailed discussions related to risk factors and forward-looking statements contained in the company's filings with the SEC, including its 10 Q and in the earnings release, as well as the definitions and reconciliations of non GAAP financial measures contained in the company's earnings release. On this morning's call, we are joined by Peter Carlino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Gaming and Leisure Properties. Also joining today's call are Brandon John Moore, president and chief operating officer Desiree A. Burke, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Steve Ladney, senior vice president and chief development officer and Carlo Santarelli, senior vice president, corporate strategy and investor relations. With that, it is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Peter Carlino.

Well, thank you, Joseph, and good morning, everyone. And thank you for joining us this morning. So we are happy to announce another strong quarter that sees our AFFO expanding 10% year over year. And we anticipate healthy growth in the near and medium term as our pipeline, which you all can see pretty clearly provides a lot of visibility into the pace of our growth. Which continues to remain strong. So we believe the environment for continued transaction activity remains healthy. And we are optimistic that this trend will continue through the balance of this year and beyond. Of importance, and I think critical importance during the second quarter is that the regional gaming market remains strong. I hear a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth that suggests that somehow the gaming regional gaming business is weak. It is absolutely not. In fact, there is some lovely numbers being produced by some of our tenants. With properties existing and new and expanded. So the operating environment in the regional world is still very, very strong. Our tenants are benefiting from good same store growth and return on investment where they have opened new properties or expansion of properties. So it is very strong. I have said for many, many years, and I will stand by it today, despite all the GREXing in the marketplace, the gaming revenues are bulletproof. You can write that 1 down. They are bulletproof. Gaming companies just are as stable an investment as exists on the planet. So, I would also note that, by the way, this quarter, our dividend was increased by 5% to $0.82 per share. Bringing our 3-year dividend growth compounded to 4.4% So our balance sheet remains strong, providing flexibility for ongoing projects. We can finance everything that we have got announced with what we have available today. We have no need to go to the market if we do not feel like it. Given our progress today, we feel good, by the way, about the second half of 2026. First half has been very, very strong. So with that, we are happy and believe that the company remains well positioned to continue on the path that we have set. And, that gives me the great opportunity to turn microphone over to Desiree. who cannot wait to get to you.

Thanks, Peter, and good morning. In the second quarter of 2026, our total income from real estate exceeded the second quarter of 2025 by over $35 million The growth was driven by approximately $43 million in increases in cash income resulting from acquisitions and escalations. For Valley's, the acquisition of the Lincoln Real Estate increased our cash income by 14 million The Chicago lease increased cash income by 9 million and the Bell development project increased our cash income by 2.4 million. For Penn, the Joliet, Aurora, and M Resort funding increased cash income by a collective 5.8 million. The Sunland Park strategic acquisition increased cash income by 3.8 million and the Dry Creek, Ione, and Cordish, Virginia loans increased cash income by 4 million. The recognition of escalators and percentage rent adjustments on our leases added approximately $4 million of cash income. And then the combination of our noncash items from revenue gross ups, investment and lease adjusted adjustments, and straight line rent adjustments, resulted in a decrease of 7.2 million. Our operating expenses decreased by 54 million mainly due to the noncash adjustments and the provision for credit losses. We also included in today's release guidance of between $1.219 billion and $1.225 billion or $4.10 to $4.12 per diluted share and OP unit. The guidance does not include the impact of future transactions, However, it does include additional development funding of approximately 400 million to 450 million which will be funded relatively evenly over the next 2 quarters, bringing our total development spend to 750 million to 800 million the same as what we projected last quarter. From a balance sheet perspective, Peter met mentioned that our leverage ratio is at 4.8 times, slightly below our target level of 5x to 5.5x. We did settle our forward contract issuing 7.6 million shares and raised net proceeds of 351 million. I will end with a reminder that our significant development projects pay us cash income upon funding, and our rent coverage on our master leases range from 1.58x to 2.46x this quarter as of the prior quarter end, that is.

With that, I will turn it back to Peter. Thanks, Desiree. Yeah. Look. I hope this highlights that we feel the company is in a terrific position scarcely ever been better. So we are very positive here as we sit around this table with what we have in front of us. So with that, let's get to your questions. Carrie, please go ahead.

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press 1 on your telephone keypad. You may press 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. And our first question will come from Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley.

Hey, great. Just 2 quick ones. You know, obviously, there is been a lot of news about some of the operators potentially going private. And so forth in the industry. We would just love to hear some thoughts just from your perspective, sort of how you are thinking about the impact to GLPI. How do you think about strength overall for the industry? Any color there would be helpful. Thanks.

Sure. Going to take that. Hey, Ronald. This is Carlo. So look. I mean, obviously, 2 larger operators have announced, you know, would be effectively take private transactions We have no relationship with MGM. Caesars, we do have a relatively small portfolio that is about 7% of our cash rent. I think the biggest thing that it shows is something we believed all along, which is that the gaming business and the operator business in the public market has been undervalued. So I think from our perspective, that is been pleasant to see that others kind of view similarly. I will turn it over to Steven to kind of talk about what he thinks it could mean for us from an opportunistic standpoint.

Yeah. that is fine. I do not think that there is a I do not think there is any reasonable there is a reason to believe that there will be definitive M&A that will fall out of those transactions. In other words, I do not think they are are set divestitures that will be required to occur or meaningful divestitures that either of the buyer potential buyers will require to occur. So I think from our perspective, we are we have a phone. We are happy to answer it whenever someone calls. We have dialogue with our tenant there, and we would we would be receptive to any discussions if there were certain avenues they were pursuing or things they were interested in discussing. But I think as a base case, we are not assuming that there is derivative M&A that comes out of this.

Greg. Helpful. And then if I can ask, just the second 1, just 1 more specific on the guidance, the $400 million to $450 million. Is that obviously, it sounds like a big piece of that is going to be Bally's, but is some of that the Live Virginia project as well? Just any color there. And if I could take a step back and just ask a broader question on your pipeline, and how that is changed given what we have seen with the, the 10-year movement. Thanks so much.

I will start with the beginning of your question.

Yes. The $400 million to $450 million includes Chicago, Ione Dry Creek, and Virginia projects. So all 4 are included in our guidance. And they are all moving forward and expect to have we expect to put money out during 2026. As for the second part of your project, I will turn it over to Steven.

With respect to the 10-year treasury, that is what you were asking about? Yeah. And how that is potentially impacting sort of the pipeline and conversation Thanks so much.

Yeah. No problem. So with respect to the existing pipeline, obviously, there is no real impact. We are we are committed to provide that capital and we will provide it. With respect to future potential transactions and things we are we are talking to folks about, I think it is a it is a double edged sword in that, obviously, it impacts our cost of debt and our borrowing cost. So that is a factor that weighs into where we could price potential transactions. I think the opposite end of that pendulum is that it does because borrowing costs are going up, not only for us, but also for operators, I think it does create another level of discussion and a little more interest as far as people seeking out alternative financing routes as they move forward with their capitalization. Greg.

that is it for me. Thank you.

And our next question will come from Greg McGinniss with Scotiabank.

I was hoping you could just touch on the Rock ford loan extension and what the option for the building improvements would look like in terms of, you know, how you would execute on that option, what the amount might be. Thank you.

Yes, Greg. I do not think we are gonna get too much into the details on that piece. But look. I mean, that was a $150 million loan. it is good yield for us. The property is ramping nicely. You could see the GGR results. Obviously, that property has been very well received. The city of Rockford has announced plans to put a hotel around the site, which should only further kind of help that So I think just in talking with the partner, and Steven could perhaps opine more on this, it just felt like a good move for us kind of let that money roll forward, while also kind of cementing that option on the building down the road.

Yeah. I think look. The obviously, the partner is would prefer to not sell the building improvements to us down the line. So, obviously, that is an item that we will see where we where we land as we get further into this into the loan term. But I think the reality is they are excited about the property. The GGR continues to perform. We are comfortable with the loan, and therefore, made sense for us to roll it at that rate.

Okay. Thanks. And then on the financing side, potential acquisitions, leverage is low relative to range you guys typically target. Cost equity is a little expensive. Versus where I am sure you would like it to be. Should we expect that any potential acquisitions or investments will be just be funded with leverage at this point?

I really think it depends on what the opportunity is. Obviously, we will be pricing in our cost of capital to any opportunity that we decide to anything we decide to acquire I would not just assume we are always going to use debt for now. I think we would have to price in our cost of equity if it was a larger transaction.

Yeah. Look, our business, of course, is a spread to our cost. And some of the yields that we are able to attain because of the skills and capabilities that we bring to the table. The development ability and understanding construction, willingness to do some things, maybe some others are less well equipped to do. Know, we can we can we can command a price that gives us the margin that we need. So it is deal by deal. I think Desiree answered it perfectly well. We are not gonna do it. And I underscore again, we will not be seeing this or anything crazy. Okay.

Thank you.

We will go next to Brad Heffern with RBC.

Yes. Hi, everybody. Thanks. Obviously been this fight over VGTs in Chicago. Can you talk about if you expect that to have a meaningful impact on the Valley Chicago project 1 way or another? And if it would have affected your underwriting.

Yeah. Thanks, Brad. So the VGTs, quite frankly, were in our underwriting. it is Chicago, it is Illinois, it is been, you know, it is a very long obviously, relationship that we will have. You know, with that asset. So you can imagine everything and anything would have been in our underwriting. The thing I will point out is I read something recently. I believe there is about 7 thousand sweepstakes machines already in that market. So believe that, you know, this type of gaming was not already taking place, I think, would be naive. Clearly, you know, Bally's is going through some things right now with the city as it relates to, you know, how this impacts some of the agreements that they have previously come to. But in our view, you know, this VGT concept was included in our underwriting. And another thing was included in our underwriting also was Hawthorne, which seems to not be coming to fruition. So I would say that the puts and takes there are pretty benign overall.

Okay. Thanks for that, Carlo. And then on the Las Vegas Stadium site, can you give an update there if and when you expect your remaining committed capital to be used, and then if you have any more thoughts about participating in a larger project there sometime down the line.

Yeah. I can take that 1. I think the time of the $125 million is somewhat uncertain still. The stadium has proceeding quite nicely. I think I think you would hear from the A's that the stadium's ahead of schedule. And we have had the opportunity to visit that stadium, at least Peter and I, this year And I and I think it will be a spectacular event venue, and that will drive a lot of value to the site. So we are keeping an eye on it. See Ali's is coming close, I think, to a more concrete plan for some of the critical infrastructure that needs to support the stadium. By that, I mean, access ways, the podium, utility conduit, things like that. And there may be an opportunity for us to invest more in that property and some of that key critical infrastructure. And we will we will take a look at that when that time comes. But I do not think we are prepared at the present time to commit to anything over the 125, and we will continue to work with Bally's and see if that makes sense.

Okay. Thank you.

And we will go next to Barry Jonas with Truist Securities.

Hey, guys. Churchill Downs formally announced they are exploring the sale of most of their gaming assets, and I believe they said they are looking to execute in the coming months. Just curious if that is something you are looking at in conjunction with or without specific tenants at this time.

Yes. it is something that we are aware of. I think any process broader process that is run will definitely be involved, and we will definitely take a look. I would assume that most of the processes you are not supposed to be working with anyone in particular per your NDA. So I cannot speak to any discussion. That may or may not be happening on those fronts, but I can tell you that we are we are definitely aware of the assets. We have spoken we have spoken with various folks that are involved in that process, and we will we will see how it proceeds. There are there are some assets there that are that are that are quality assets. There are other assets that are maybe a little more challenging, but at the same time, depending on whether it is an existing tenant that we have a relationship with that finds value in certain assets, or more importantly or equally as important, potential new tenant relationships that might find interest in certain assets, whether it is because of ability to cross manage and garner synergies or the like. We are willing to have discussions with anybody and see if there is paths forward, on various levels.

Oh, that is really helpful. And then just as a follow-up, you know, I think this week, a large casino operator, that voiced increasing optimism for iGaming legislation to pass this year. They stated Virginia, Maryland, and Indiana. You guys have been certainly vocal with your views on iGaming, but just curious if you share that view on those states or just in general iGaming legalization in the near term. Thank you.

So with respect to the 3 states you mentioned, I agree that there is legislation moving in those states and there does seem to be some momentum, but whether or not that will cross the finish line is unclear. I think from a broader level, predictive markets, sports betting, it is all coming under some level of attack in a lot of states, both when it comes to predictive markets, certainly the federal level, and even sports betting on the state level where people have started to take a close look at some of the social ills that are occurring in certain demographics online gaming, and sports betting. And I think that is that is garnering a lot of attention in a lot of states. And I think in the 3 states you mentioned, that is still a hot topic of conversation as to what impact allowing mobile and social type gaming what impact that is having on certain segments of the population. And so I know depending on who you talk to, people are either overly optimistic that they can expand iGaming or overly optimistic that they can put an end to iGaming. I think in both arguments, have some momentum in different areas. And the 3 states you mentioned I would agree. Some momentum toward iGaming, but on balance, I think you will see most states are proceeding very, very cautiously with increased online. Gaming.

Perfect. Thank you for that.

Our next question will come from Smedes Rose with Citi.

Hi, thank you. You provided an update on the Las Vegas opportunity, and I was just wondering if there are any updates you can provide on the New York opportunity with the Bally's at this juncture?

From our perspective, not much has changed on Bally's New York. We remain optimistic that is going to be a positive and accretive project for the Valley's team. I do not think it makes a lot of sense for us to be involved with our cost of capital in the front end of that project, and I think that is something Valley's knows and we know. We remain close to them, and there could be opportunities, Smedes, for us as that continues. We do have a rover in New York on certain aspects, but I think it is way too early in that process in their pulling together their financing and construction financing cost of capital and those things. For us to really know what kind of role we will play. But we will stay close to it. Think we remain interested in being a part of New York if it is the right part. And it is something we can do at an accretive level.

Okay. Okay. Okay. And then I just wanted to ask you, last quarter, you had mentioned a few challenges at the Tropicana in Atlantic City, and it looks like the coverage there ticked down just a tiny bit. I mean, it still realized it is still strong. But any sort of issues or challenge or updates you can provide on that property?

No. I mean, I think you did have that 1 challenging quarter, which would have been the calendar Q4 2025 coming in at that point. What I saw when you look at it sequentially is stability as you move through the first quarter. You know, looking at the results from the likes of Caesars and Boyd and even Churchill, from the regional properties in the second quarter. And remember, we are reporting those coverages 1 quarter in arrears. So we will not see that until we report Q3. But, again, Q2 trends in the performance of each of those of those tenants that I just mentioned, I think there should be a nice tailwind. You know, in their operations, and, certainly, things have strengthened. For those operators in the regional market. So I think broadly speaking, that is a pretty good leading indicator for us as we look ahead.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

We will go next to David Katz with Jefferies.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. So to that you know, very same comment you just made Carlo, you know, we are we are we are seeing some real strength out of regional gaming. And I am curious to get your collective perspective on you know, whether that is economically driven, macroeconomically driven, whether that is, you know, a function of some of the smarter operators having put forth some capital into their properties and improve their value proposition. You know, which we have seen pretty broadly, the 1 company, Peter, you founded? What is the driver of that? And, what gives you that confidence that, a year from now, we are still going to be having that same conversation.

You know, my sense is the consumer market generally is still pretty strong despite all the negativity you see sometimes in the press. The economy is strong. Some there are areas, of course, of weakness. But by and large, I think people are in the marketplace You know, you have heard me say many times, David, that people do not give up their entertainment. You know, food, shelter, and gambling are the priorities in people's lives. So the across the board, we are sensing because we get numbers when you get them. That demand is extremely strong, extremely strong. And I have talked broadly with some of the folks at Penn Their new projects and their investment of capital in hotels and so forth has been apparently off the charts. I mean, we will all wait and get the final result quarter to quarter, but just a terrific result So, I mean, we viscerally feel just a lot of enthusiasm out in the marketplace right now. And I think it is just a broad look at the economy generally.

Yeah, David. And I will just add to that. I think going all the way back to kind of void spend at treasure chest, what you have seen is really healthy returns on incremental capital dollars put in place, including, as Peter just mentioned, Joliet, You know, the early results out of the temporary at Live Virginia have been incredibly positive. Yep. You know, for a temporary facility. So I think dollars being put to work, you are seeing very healthy returns on them.

I think that bodes well. But besides the new project, you got a new hotel in Columbus. You have got, which I understand is going well. You have got, the hotel in NM. The expansion there that has also been apparently very strong. So this is still good stuff for us.

Understood. Thank you.

Moving on to Daniel Guglielmo with Capital 1 Securities.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Questions. This is shaping up to be an interesting year across gaming with mergers, asset sales and development. With so much happening, can you just remind us what you all look for in deals to make sure that they align with the long term sustainable growth focus?

Yeah. I think look. I when we go through our underwriting process and anybody can add on at the end here. But I think we go through our underwriting process on really any transaction regardless of how big or small it may be. We are gonna look for the things you would expect. So stability, long term performance, the competitive threats or opportunities, the credit quality of the tenant, do we have master lease, is there a way to diversify not only geographically, but just based across the portfolio and the asset base. So we are gonna take a lot of factors into account I think we would do that whether it was this year or last year or 10 years ago. So I do not think our underwriting process has changed. there is obviously with the expansion of gaming into new jurisdictions, over the last few years, think that definitely changes the way we look at things. And I think it continues to mold the way we think about potential new jurisdictions and whether they were to come to fruition and where would the asset that we are looking at be located on a geographic map as it relates to potential future competition. So those are all things we think about.

I do not know if anybody else has any Well, I mean, I think it is important to double back on something Carlo said in the beginning, which is some of the some of the M&A activity in the regional markets, whether it be Bally's, MGM, or Caesars, it is probably being driven by a dislocation the perceived value of these operations and assets in the actual value of these operations and assets. And I think what you are finding is people get the stock prices get to the point where people say this has gotten to the point where just gonna act on this and then take it private and realize the value that the market's not seeing. And, unfortunately, for GLPI, I think the same dislocation feeds into our stock. We have very strong tenants. That operate in markets that are doing quite well. And despite what some of the some of the reports I have written, we see a lot of strength in our tenants' operation in the regions. And I think you are seeing that drive M&A. And I think you are seeing that I think you are seeing that in some of the M&A activity out there. So as long as those dislocations persist, I think you will continue to see activity there.

Look. The gaming, broad based gaming world has been around for more than 30 years. And all I commend anyone to go back and just take a look at the track record of properties and performance over the long, long term. This is an incredibly stable industry. Incredibly stable. We would love these assets. Getting the market to appreciate the value of what we have got has been really a challenge.

Yeah. And I think whether our coverage is 2.5 or 2.3 or 1.8 or 1.6, these assets are all performing quite well. These are all portfolios and leases that our operators will want to continue to own and pay rent on. So while we remain frustrated at times with the equity cost of capital here, we are still very happy with the performance of our overall portfolio.

that is great. I really appreciate all that color and info. A quick follow-up, 1 of your tenant partners did decide to forgo funding on a smaller project this year. So thinking farther out, what do you all think of as GLPI's main value proposition for current and future operator tenants where it makes it worth it for them to fund development through you all versus raising capital themselves.

I think I will I will jump in and then Desiree maybe can add something. I think the reality is there is some benefits that the operator gets with respect to depreciation, and the initial onset decision is going to be somewhat dictated by their cost of capital. I think as we move forward, the only other aspect I think they consider is the ramp they can get from the capital, whether they are return on the EBITDA side is great enough that they could then sell the improvements to us later for a value that is larger than the cost to build. So I think those are the 3 things that the operator is probably considering when they make that decision, and I do not think it is a matter of will they sell the improvements to us ever. I think it is a matter of when will they sell them to us because at the end of the day, when the improvement's constructed, adjacent to a building we own on land we own, it is probably a foregone conclusion that we will end up owning it at some point in time.

No. I agree with all that. And I also think you have to look at it I think, as a cross between debt and equity. So we are giving 35 year funding, which is more akin to equity than it is to debt. And most of the gaming operators typically barely get to a 10 year bond, much less 35 years. So our cost of funding vis a vis their cost of equity is definitely a plus.

Makes sense. Thank you.

And our next question will come from Chad Beynon with Macquarie.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to go back to the funding guide, the 400 million to $450 million in your slide deck, you display what is left to fund. Think Chicago is still expected to open. In the first quarter of 27. Obviously, Live! in Petersburg is deeper into 2027. So I would assume most of that 4 to $4.50 between these 2 larger loans is gonna come from Chicago. But can you maybe just put a little bit of finer point on that 400 to $450 million where the range is coming from? Is that really just kind of a timing thing? Probably more on Chicago, kinda when they are finishing up. Given that Virginia would probably be pretty you know, straightforward at least at this point in their construction. Cycle. Thank you.

I mean, it is really just our best estimate of the timing of their funding. I mean, look. Somebody could pull money in January instead of December, and that is why we have 400 to 450. And we are funding all 4 of those projects during 2026 and will continue they will continue into 2027. So the range is just simply it is just timing as to when they are pulling the funding.

Okay. Thanks, Desiree. And then moving on to Boyd announced that they are going to be doing another barge to land project Carlo, I think you talked about the success in Treasure Chest. You think there is more opportunities or any other markets where there could be, some of these generation 1 riverboats, kind of moving to land or are there any other you know, proposals or availability either in Louisiana or in other markets. That you could see in the future? Thanks.

Chad, I could tell you that we have a list of those boats. What I would also say is I think that the success that we have seen with these transitions over the last several years, bodes very well for others, you know, willing a willingness to make that leap and go forward. You know, the extent I could identify anything specific at this point that operators have talked about, no. Perhaps maybe Steven could, but I tend to think we have an eye on it. I think the history here has lent itself to promoting more such activity as we look out in the future.

Yeah. I do not know if any there are things that we have had private discussions on. I do not think there are many things public at this point. But, look, I think if you if you think about Penn's capital improvements, Bally's has made capital improvements and Landside moves. And then Boyd the proof's in the pudding. Like, they have each put the capital forward They have each seen the returns, and you could safely assume that they will continue to look for other ways to deploy that type of capital and achieve those types of returns. So I think that they have proved it for themselves, and I think they will continue to look for opportunities. And we have had discussions, and we will we will continue to be open to having more discussions.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Results have been as you have seen, results have been stunning. Nothing short of stunning. So it is it is really transformed the opportunity market.

Agree. Thank you.

And moving on to John DeCree with CBRE.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. I know we have talked about the 2 big take privates out in the market, but big picture, Peter, everyone, you have worked with both public and private companies. In terms of getting transactions done, development, M&A, sale-leaseback. But curious if you could speak to any differences in working with public private companies on transactions, any advantages or disadvantages? That would be worth talking about.

I do not see any material difference. It just well, it is the quality of the people and the nature of the deal. I mean, we like visibility. Public company visibility is nice to be able to see what is going on. As do you. Have a little less, obviously, with a private group. But, no, I do not see anything materially different. Steven?

I agree. And the public company, nice to have disclosure can go away the next day when they decide to go private. So we have all seen that happen a couple of times. Our leases do require them to report to us on a monthly basis, balance sheets, income statements, information that we request. So we will have we do have information on our private tenants just like we do on the public tenants. So from an information perspective, I am not concerned. At all and quite frankly, kind of understand why the operators are doing what they are doing.

They are not being rewarded in the market today. And, you know, if they can find a cheaper cost of capital, they should do that. Yeah.

I think I think our bigger problem is not the information we get. The bigger problem is we are unable to convey it to you folks. that is the bigger problem. That we have. So we will have continued transparency into what is going on at these properties. Unfortunately, it puts us in a tighter box to be able to discuss those things publicly.

Got it. And maybe a quick follow-up on that. If you touched on it a little bit earlier, but in the same topic, know, the valuation that the public markets have been ascribing to your tenants and casino companies. With private companies, do you see going forward a better opportunity to transact with those companies as they are not maybe beholden to kind of public market valuations? Do they, at the moment, have more flexibility? So I guess looking ahead, would you expect to see more activity as more companies are private, more operators are private? And we have certainly seen even some of your tenants, the growth, M&A development coming from private companies. So are they less encumbered, better cost of capital? Or what have you expect them to be more active than public companies going forward?

Yeah. that is a little difficult, John, just because I think there is there is a wide swath of what it means to be a private gaming operator. There are some family owned businesses that are that are kinda small and their access to capital is probably somewhat limited, and then we are talking about some of the largest gaming companies in the in the country becoming private. So as if I kind of think about this on the smaller side of the spectrum, I would say most of those folks I would say their ability to be active in the market is somewhat predicated on their access to capital. I think you have obviously the Illich family just completed the transaction. They have a plenty of access to capital, but as far as the size of their corporate structure, and their team, I think they are it is going to take some time for them to digest that. And to then be able to look for the next thing to hunt. So I think there are different nuanced realities that come with each of these private companies. That you have to be thoughtful about when you are trying to transact with them. But I think, look, at the end of the day, things like greenfield are significantly easier for the private companies to do. They are not out there publicly reporting their cash flow metrics and their EBITDA impacts when they none coming from the projects in which they are building. And I think that is why we have seen in some states companies like Rush Street be able to do so many greenfield development projects and be so aggressive in expansion because they have not had the same analysis and scrutiny from the public markets. So I think it will be a trend that will continue, and we will see it probably more widely spread if we see some other jurisdictions legalize gaming.

Awesome. Thanks, Steven. I really appreciate that color. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

And our next question will come from Mitch Germain with Citizens Bank.

Thank you. You guys were previously pretty optimistic about some additional tribal financing transactions. Curious about your enthusiasm about getting some more over the finish line.

I will start, and then Steven can probably jump in. Look. I think, Mitch, we remain enthusiastic about the opportunity and the opportunities that are out there in the tribal gaming and financing world. As we indicated early on in this process, things move very, very slowly. In tribal gaming and in tribal financing. And we are having we have had and continue to have a lot of very productive conversations both on developments, refinancings, and other potential uses of capital on tribal land held in trust. But whether or not to handicap whether or not some of those things will come to fruition in 2026 is hard to do. It would be speculative for us to do it, but it is certainly possible. We have a number of things we are discussing at the moment with various tribes. And I think whether it is 2026 or 2027, I do think you will see some future activity out of us with respect to those tribes if we can get over a few humps. it is been a continual education process, and I think there is been growing receptivity, which we are now trying to cultivate and convert into growing adoption. And as we do that, I think we are also looking to try to try to prove out that there are additional use cases beyond just tribal greenfield. So we are working on all those fronts. I agree with everything Brandon said.

I do not think timing is known. But efforts are real.

I think, Mitch, just to give you a little more comfort in how we look at this, we continue to look at high levels of coverage and a margin of safety around these tribal transactions And in everything we are looking at currently, we are side by side with some other traditional banking and financing sources. So we are not a full solution for anybody at the moment, but trying to fill gaps and create a long term piece of capital or a long term piece of debt to complement what these tribes otherwise have with their traditional financing sources.

Thank you.

And we will go next to Robin Farley with UBS.

Great. Thanks. Just wanted to ask a little bit about what the competitive landscape looks like not for the operators in regional markets, but for you. In terms of, you know, other sources of financing, whether it is private equity or, you know, and Churchill Downs, that competitive environment may be different than some of the interest in Vegas assets in the past. But just would love to get your take on that. Thanks.

Yeah. I think with respect to the Churchill Downs, I guess, competitive process, I would expect obviously, our main publicly traded competitor to be involved in that process, and they said that yesterday on their call. I also think that there are some different firms that have been, I would think you would call them more private credit like Blue Owl, I would expect that they would be active participants in this process, But beyond the 3 of us, I am not sure that it goes much further or much deeper. As you pointed out, for strip assets, premier strip assets, I think that has brought others to the table, like Blackstone in the past. I think if a premier strip asset were to come to market, I think the same thing would happen yet again. But for a regional portfolio of you know, a number of assets across a number of states, I think it is probably a pretty limited scope most likely those 3 parties.

And I do not think it changes a lot, Robin. The way we look at this is where we have a cost of capital. We have an underwriting of these facilities, what we think they will do, what we think they can do. Competitive threats that they might be under. And we come up with a number that we think we are comfortable paying. And a construct we are willing to do in a lease. And if we are outbidding that, fine. that is okay. Like, I do not think you will see us chase any transactions just because there is competition. We will we will have the same underwriting price that process and an auction process that we do privately. So it may reduce the likelihood of success on our part, but it will not change the way we approach. The underwriting.

Yeah. You have heard me say for many years, there is no deal we have to do. I mean, it is just not what drives us here. So, you know, we are perfectly willing to walk away.

Greg. Thank you. Thank you.

And moving on to Todd Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Yeah. Hi. Thanks. I just wanted to ask, you know, Peter, talked about a couple of important things on this call. You talked about the dividend that is yielding over 7%. You seem very encouraged by the regional gaming landscape. The stock's trading at north of a 9% AFFO yield at the midpoint of your guidance and nearly 8% implied cap rate on current NOI. I am just curious where stock buybacks fit into the equation I know there are some potential investment opportunities on the horizon, and you have other commitments and uses of capital, but you know, you have you have been opportunistic and it seems like you are a little frustrated with where the stock's trading. I am just curious if you could talk about how you are thinking about buybacks and how that might fit into the equation.

Well, look, I mean, that is always the last choice. I mean, that is where you throw in the towel and admit it is the game is kind of over. At some level, sure. I think you would have to responsibly look at that possibility, but we are we are not there yet by any means. We honestly think there is opportunity to be had as we as I said earlier, And we have capabilities that maybe others do not. I would not sell short the development capability that we have already demonstrated. And we will step up and take a project from ground up. That is most unusual, but we have the skill to do it. And that is where we can add value and get returns that are a little bit different. You know, I have I have said many, many times that I am not sure I ever wanna be the winner in an auction. I mean, it is just yeah. I have sometimes said the winner loses. So and we there is certainly some examples of that where there have been auctions that have, let's say, not quite worked out the way the winner had hoped. So we like to find opportunity where we can add value and that is unique and different so that we have not really competing with others. that is kind of our goal, and that is what we have been doing largely.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

We will go next to Michael Herring with Green Street Capital.

Hi. Thanks. You guys offered some thoughts on online gaming and the likelihood there would be legalization in various states. Just wondering, how does that impact the how you underwrite incremental capital deployment or new casino sale leasebacks relative to states without any sight line to iGaming?

Look. I think overall, not much. Because the reality is in states where iGaming has been prevalent for 5 or 6 years, it has not had an impact on the viability of our rent. In other words, in a state like Pennsylvania, what we have seen is slower growth in bricks and mortar. Not a deterioration in that business and certainly not something that has gone to the level of impacting our tenants ability and desire to pay rent. So we keep a close eye on iGaming and the proliferation of iGaming and what it might mean. But I do not think it plays a significant role in how we would underwrite the acquisition of an asset. Now that being said, if iGaming came in into these states in a way that would be detrimental to the bricks and mortar. In other words, tax rates and things like that could that could effectively cause an operator to or disincentivize an operator to invest in their bricks and mortar property. We have to take that into consideration and certainly would.

So I do not think we see it as the end game. To gaming. I think as Peter said many times, we feel like people do enjoy the entertainment They enjoy going out to do it. It has resulted in a supplemental source of revenue for some of our tenants and states that had it, which has been a benefit to us. When we have things like parent guarantees because it is just created additional revenue to pay our rent. But I would say we are cautious about it, but I do not think it has a tremendous impact on anything at the moment. Yeah. Let me let me note that Pennsylvania is the poster state for excess. Yeah. A state that at 1 time had been circumspect about expansive gaming, has limited nothing. And yet, in spite of that, the bricks and mortar facilities continue to do let me say, acceptably well. They have been impacted, but not disastrously.

Michael, I will I will just add to that. I mean, when you think about our underwriting and you look at our coverages and you look at the longevity of how healthy these coverages have been over a decade plus, When we underwrite things, you know, we are underwriting 30, 40, 50 year leases Anything and everything is kind of included in the what could go wrong category, and that is how you kinda keep rent coverages where they are and healthy. You know? So when we do think about stuff like that, obviously, you know, iGaming is certainly a consideration in those fair and base cases.

Thanks. I appreciate all those thoughts. And maybe just going back to the encouraging, you know, regional gaming trends that have been discussed. How does has that impacted how you have been, looking at structuring rent coverage? And then on a similar note, is that do you have any sight line to your operators underwriting you know, new redevelopments or, CapEx into those properties?

I think on the rent coverage piece, it is more validated our model for rent coverage. We have always been somewhat around 2 times rent coverage from the time we spun out in 2013. I think because you have seen those rent coverages bounce around a little bit, they are still very healthy. Here we are, you know, 13 years later. I think what you are seeing in these gaming markets is they ebb and flow, and there are different economic factors that impact gaming just as it impacts other things. But gaming has been very resilient in the regional markets as it as it has been on the strip. Quite frankly. It may have more volatility, but it is still there and people are still investing. So I think I think from my perspective, it sort of validates where we were in our rent coverage thought process initially. And that is why it continues to be healthy today. As for the other pieces. What was the other question again? I am sorry. It was just, you know, considering the strong trends and, you know, the success that you have seen from some of the properties that have received, additional CapEx? Do you have much sight line to new investments? Yes. Barry. On the CapEx front, if in fact 1 of our tenants was going to pursue a larger capital improvement there is a notification process. They would come to us, and if they are interested in discussing with us potentially us funding the capital, they would obviously provide us with additional information. So at the times in which they are pursuing those things, yes, we are receiving information, but just generally more generally speaking, nothing we can share with you.

And I thought you have seen increased CapEx. I mean, Penn, in particular, in the last 2 years is had a renewed emphasis on putting capital back into the bricks and mortar. and you have seen that in some other tenants as well. I think you will continue to see that as the as the regional performance supports that CapEx spend. Yeah. Look. Bally's is a great illustration in Baton Rouge. Taking those 2 dare I say, nondescript almost and in 1 case, pretty dreadful properties and converting it into a real asset has been just phenomenal. And in a very, very stable and established market, has actually grown the market. Which we would have thought would be a long shot, but it is actually created more demand. Amazing.

Okay. Appreciate the thought. Thank you.

And this now concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to Peter Carlino for closing comments.

Well, not much to add that we have not shared already We appreciate your dialing in today. Look forward to seeing you again down the road next quarter. So see you then. Thank you. Operator, thank you very much. Joseph, thanks. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines, have a wonderful day.