Yes. Chris, thanks, appreciate the question. So look, I mean, we've always said we want our core earnings to cover the dividend, right, and that's included fees. We're sort of at a level now where our core earnings excluding our structuring fees are covering the regular dividend. So, especially as we look towards what I tried to mention too was a back-ended Q4, and we think about forecasting '19. You know, we've got a lot of confidence in that $0.40 and we don't expect the fee waiver to be an issue in regards to that. We do kind of model forward about six quarters here that gives us a company operating model that allows us to think about dividends on a go forward basis, but we do think we got a fair amount of margin and of course makes assumptions around having originations in Q2, Q3, and Q4 from a modeling perspective, but we don't, as you'd probably expect, put particularly aggressive modeling assumptions out there that we don't think are achievable. And the good news too is we typically, especially now, don't really count on our structuring fees at this point to be an important component of the income to deliver the dividend. So that's our thought on the regular dividend. Historically, in terms of the fees we've averaged around $0.07 per share just based on the natural activity of the portfolio that we feel that there's a run rate new investment, new fees piece of the model. And even in times that have been a lot leaner, a lot stranger, maybe back to '08, '09, you know, our originations never go away or our repayments never completely go away. So we feel great about that $0.40 dividend today or we wouldn't have increased it. We feel it's safe, sustainable, all of that and you know, when we increased dividends, we do it with the thought that they're not going back down.
. :