Sure. I will give you the short Reader's Digest version and we can go into as much details as you like, Doug. First, the way we value these companies, the public companies anyway, externally and anything we value internally, we look at more than one metric, as you might imagine. But in terms of your question, book value relative to the previous two deals, I would say the short answer is that this portfolio, frankly, reflects the least risk versus the other two. A large percentage of the assets are obviously agency and resi credit, of which not only is it fairly transparent in terms of those relative valuations but frankly, I think we are probably one of the best in the world at understanding not just the current valuations but frankly the potential valuation given where we are in the cycle. So the multiple reflects, really, a relatively pristine portfolio on the agency and resi credit side and then the ultimate call option here are the other assets predominantly made up and represented by the healthcare portfolio. So in CreXus, that was a different and a different cycle. That company was smaller and more of a liquidity trap with a different type of origination model, so that discount make sense, tied to the assets in the portfolio at the time. And with Hatteras, that company not only was predominantly made up of floating rate ARMs but it had an operating entity within it that was highly costly to run which not only impacted their valuation, it impacted their liquidity. So all these deals are relative and I think where we ended up striking the price here, I think is a very good balance of, we definitely have potential upside with the portfolio across the board and the transaction structure was structured accordingly for that for the shareholders. So you get the premium and you get the upside, but basically this valuation and where it came out was really tied to the transparency of the assets in the portfolio. The other thing, the additional day here is folding into our company and our operating platform, we are going to this run three times more efficient than it was as a standalone company, which is always our goal to plug-and-play and make it accretive not just on earnings, but make it accretive tied to additional cost savings.