Yes, Todd, thanks for the question. So -- what I would say is, remember, there's a couple of different pieces of the FFO accretion that we communicated on regarding the Pro internalization. One of those was the savings on G&A and the tenant insurance benefits, right? And that one, I think, is the most immediate one that one, you can see in the financials and two that were most immediately recognizing. So the tenant insurance benefit, we started to realize on July 1, you can see that primarily in our management fees and other revenue line item on our P&L. You can see that improvement over prior quarter and prior year. The G&A benefit, I would point you to our supplemental schedule 9, it breaks out our G&A expense line item from the P&L. And it shows labeled supervisory and administrative fees, that's the management fees that we pay the PROs. That number for the first two quarters averaged $5 million per quarter. And as you know from our last couple of touch points, we have entered into new agreements to have the PROs continue to manage the stores and do the accounting and other back-office things for the properties until we do the transitions that Dave just described. So you see that number go down from the $5 million previous run rate to $3.4 million in the third quarter, and that will continue to taper down as you go through the fourth quarter and then into next year. So we're -- the point is we're starting to realize some of that benefit, but it's not all captured yet in the third quarter numbers. By early 2025, we should see the full benefits of both the tenant insurance and the G&A on a run rate basis. The last thing I would say, though Todd, on your question is, and it kind of ties into my response to Juan's question. We do lose the benefit of the SP unit sharing -- and as long as NOI is negative near term, that was one of the trade-offs that we and management had to accept when we endeavored to do this Pro internalization. And so the implied same-store growth numbers for fourth quarter that's in our guidance has a larger year-over-year same-store NOI growth in the third quarter and we don't have that SP unit sharing. And so that is also factored into the math that kind of walks you from Q3 to Q4 back to Juan's question. Those are the big things I would point you to, Todd. Maybe just since I have the floor as a reminder, the other pieces of the accretion was going to be just operational benefits, and Dave remarked on some of that. We really need kind of a full year and, frankly, a normal leasing cycle next spring and summer to really capture the full amount of those benefits. And then obviously, when fundamentals inflect and we have positive NOI growth, that will be a tailwind in terms of no longer having that economic sharing.