Yes, thanks. I think when we reduced it from $0.35, it was, I would say, more relating to general risks, call it caused by the whole COVID-19 situation, where we saw, some assets, when we saw charter rates come down sharply, and in some segments. And we also had the car like, asset like the car carriers that came off charter, and where we put them in layoff. So instead of generating revenues, you could say, you have a negative call it cash flow, because you are paying for layoff costs, while they don’t do any money so that was really a factor more relating to that. And as we have seen, I would say, the offshore and the rig side, and this is, of course, linked also to the old price, but it’s been deteriorating, I would say over the last few months, we believe, and this is the Board’s decision, of course, but we believe that it would be appropriate to effectively eliminate all call it the cash flows, that has previously been in there from those from the drilling rigs from the distribution capacity and show that it’s with a good margin, to cash flow generating from the other assets and of course, depending on the outcome of the Seadrill, quality restructuring, when we when we are on the other side of that, of course, it’s easier for the board and to look at the distribution capacity and possibly reinstate, some of that reduction that has been taken up. So also, as we as we used some cash to buy back, the loan on the drilling rig, of course, you can argue that, if that hadn’t been bought back, you could have reinvested that in other assets, which could have generated some contribution. So, that is really, call it, the reasoning around this latest adjustment.