Thanks, Mickey. It's a really good question. Let me just state that, when we underwrite new deals, today, we're assuming a soft economy out of the gate. That's our going-in assumption. That's how we need to underwrite. And usually, when you're – in our business when you're doing a 5-year to 7-year loan, you need to put a downside or a recession case in the model. At some point anyway, these odds are over a 5-year to 7-year period. You're going to hit a period of economic weakness. When we're underwriting our new deals, we're assuming that there's a weak economy out of the gate. That said, it's not – you're right. It's not as clear given the data that we're all seeing that there really is that much of a soft economy, at least at this point. Certainly, the consumer area is one of most focus and how the consumer is doing. Walker Edison, our one new non-accrual is evidence of that. We've done extra scanning of our consumer portfolio recently in light of that. Consumer, we always upfront put less leverage on out-of-the-gates than we did the rest of our portfolio. So, even though the rest of our portfolio at inception may have been underwritten at debt-to-EBITDA of 4.5x, our consumer names, we would typically underwrite even before this, kind of with a 3 handle on the 3x, 3.5x zone debt-to-EBITDA. So, we were always upfront, kind of extra cautious on that. We've done an extra scan of the consumer companies. We've had external scrubbing, and we feel actually pretty good that the companies we've selected in that space have a real reason to be. People care about them. Their customers care about them. Their margins are sustainable. They've got real brands that have value. So, there's never any guarantee, but we feel fairly decent about that piece of the portfolio. The rest of the portfolio, which is in our key industry is health care, government services, business services, technology, and software. Those names to date are performing pretty well, and we feel pretty good about that. Again, the comfort you get or we get is, we're conservative going in. We underwrite [below multiples] [ph]. That was the – that's been the key of PFLT from the get-go. We've specifically wanted a lower risk portfolio, knowing we would get lower yield as part of that. And now for 11 years, that seems to be working out.