But looking at the different alternatives to how to best structure the separation, we came up with the plan that’s most efficient given all of the diverse holdings we have, that most efficiently accomplishes that separation and so that structure that under Hawaii law require shareholder approval. So there is a 50% approval requirement for that. We don’t expect any problems there, but off chance that it’s not approve there are alternatives we will use to effect our separation.So the question that asked let me address it upfront, we did fully evaluated the possibility of splitting out our real estate as a REIT, there are all those tax advantages to doing that, but there are number of important limitations on the REIT, obviously, including, the type of activity you can conduct, the income that qualifies for retreatment and given our future focus on development and creating value from our development activities, given our agricultural businesses, which don’t qualify for REIT income, and few other factors which we can get into later, at the end it was actually very clear decision for us to becoming a REIT at this point was not the right move for us. So we will not be adopting a restructure for the real estate. As far as planned capital structure is, excuse me, is concerned, at the time of separation our book assets for real estate and ag should be about $1.4 billion of total gross book assets value. We will have term debt of about $245 million. That based upon an assumption that at the time of separation we have about $600 million of term debt to consolidated level and upon separation about 60% will be allocated to Matson, soon by Matson and 40% by the real estate business. We also plan to have in place at the time of separation a revolver -- revolving line of credit for about $250 million, an undrawn facility that we will use to fund our operating and investment activities for the foreseeable future. So that’s separation.