Image source: The Motley Fool.

DATE

Friday, April 24, 2026 at 10 a.m. ET

CALL PARTICIPANTS

  • Chairman and Chief Executive Officer — Peter M. Carlino
  • President and Chief Operating Officer — Brandon John Moore
  • Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer — Desiree A. Burke
  • Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer — Steven L. Ladany
  • Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Investor Relations — Carlo Santarelli

Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email [email protected]

TAKEAWAYS

  • AFFO Growth -- Adjusted funds from operations (AFFO) and AFFO per share grew in the mid to high single digits.
  • Total Real Estate Income -- Income exceeded prior year by over $24 million, primarily from $33 million in cash rent gains due to acquisitions and escalations.
  • Bally's Lincoln Acquisition -- Added $7.5 million in annual cash rent; Chicago lease contributed $5.5 million; Baton Rouge development added $2.6 million.
  • Penn Transactions -- NM funding increased income by $5.4 million; Sun and Land Park Act contributed $3.8 million; Dry Creek, Ione, and Cordish Virginia loans together added $3.5 million; escalators and percentage rent adjustments on leases provided approximately $4.6 million.
  • Noncash Revenue -- Noncash revenue items, including straight-line rent and investment lease adjustments, decreased by a collective $8 million, partially offsetting cash rent increases.
  • Operating Expenses -- Declined by $49.8 million, primarily due to reduced noncash provision for credit losses.
  • 2026 AFFO Guidance -- Projected at $1.212 billion to $1.223 billion, or $4.08 to $4.12 per diluted share and OP unit; guidance excludes future transactions.
  • Development Funding Guidance -- Full-year anticipated spend is $750 million to $800 million, incorporating an incremental $590 million to $640 million funding over remaining quarters.
  • Capital Commitments -- Outstanding future capital commitments total roughly $1.8 billion, with deployment targeted by year-end 2027.
  • Penn's Aurora Facility -- $225 million acquisition included in 2026 guidance, expected to close late in the second quarter.
  • Forward Equity Settlement -- $363 million is scheduled for settlement on June 1.
  • Leverage Ratio -- Reported at 5x, the low end of their targeted range, with management expressing confidence in maintaining leverage within 5.0x to 5.5x even after further capital deployment.
  • Lease Rent Coverage -- The vast majority of leases hold coverage ratios at 1.8x or higher; Caesars master lease reported at 1.59x for the quarter.
  • Pinnacle Lease Escalation -- Only Pinnacle lease is not expected to escalate in 2026; management estimates a small decrease below $4 million for the year, with half recognized this year.
  • Cap Rate Environment -- Management stated, "From a cap rate perspective, the market is normalizing, and normalizing in an area that is accretive to us. I do not think the 7.5% cap rates that were printed in the not-so-distant past are indicative of what you will see going forward. The market has normalized some. Credit markets continue to be somewhat turbulent for gaming operators. Therefore, I think the realization of where cap rates probably play out for our benefit is more indicative of the 8% area that you saw at Lincoln and some of the other transactions we have announced more recently," with the expectation of regional asset sale-leasebacks clearing at cap rates in the 8% range.
  • Chicago Development Spend -- Raised 2026 development spend guidance by $150 million at the high end, driven mainly by accelerated Chicago project funding timing, not changes to project opening dates.
  • Baton Rouge and Live! Petersburg Openings -- Both recent development projects are "additive" with respective markets expanding, and Live! Petersburg generated over $15 million monthly in its first two months of operation.
  • Ione Tribal Investment -- First tribal project opened in February with indications of strong market growth as reported by management.
  • Cash Position -- $275 million of cash on hand is not included in the current 5x leverage calculation; annual free cash flow amounts to about $230 million.
  • Dividend and Accretive Commitment Outlook -- Management identifies multi-year visibility for AFFO and dividend growth supported by current projects and balance sheet capacity.

SUMMARY

Capital deployment is accelerating, with Gaming and Leisure Properties (GLPI +1.44%) management confirming a $1.8 billion commitment pipeline through 2027 and $750 million to $800 million in development spend expected in 2026 alone. The Aurora facility acquisition and $363 million forward equity settlement are both imminent and factored into guidance. Cap rates for new deals are now centering around 8%, which management considers accretive compared to prior periods. Tribal and regional development investments are generating notable cash flow, while the company maintains lease rent coverage ratios above key thresholds for the majority of its portfolio. Guidance reflects higher capital deployment cadence, balanced by stable leverage and liquidity positions, setting the stage for sustained multi-year AFFO and dividend growth.

  • Steven L. Ladany directly stated, "There are a number of fronts with very active dialogue" in the acquisition pipeline, but nothing new was announced pending further progress.
  • Desiree A. Burke clarified that noncash revenue items had an $8 million year-over-year negative impact, tempering overall income gains.
  • The company underwrote the potential impact of video lottery terminals and sweepstakes gaming in Chicago into its recent $940 million commitment for Bally's, signaling a conservative risk approach.
  • Management explained that cash flow analysis, including market competition and drive times, remains central in property valuation and underwriting, not land or building value alone.
  • Operators are now seeking greater initial rent coverage in new deals, with Steven L. Ladany noting, "portfolios and pieces of portfolios that had extra cushion on the rent coverage side have retained value for the owners."
  • Desiree A. Burke projected visibility for portfolio-level AFFO growth through 2027, with escalators as the sole growth driver beyond that absent new transactions.
  • There is no fixed minimum or maximum size for capital deployment, as management stated willingness to execute "As long as it is accretive, we would do it." even for multibillion-dollar portfolio transactions.
  • Regarding the pending Caesars buyout scenario, Brandon John Moore explained, "You should think of the parent guarantee as one of the requirements that has to be in place for us to be forced to take a new tenant," though ultimate impact remains undetermined pending transaction details.
  • Growth in development funding guidance was attributed specifically to increased clarity and spend cadence for the Chicago project, not to changes in anticipated asset openings.
  • The company has no special focus on Las Vegas or destination assets, with Peter M. Carlino reiterating an intentional emphasis on regional markets as the core investment strategy.

INDUSTRY GLOSSARY

  • Cap Rate: Capitalization rate; a real estate metric expressing the ratio of net operating income to property value, used to gauge deal attractiveness and market pricing.
  • Rent Coverage: Ratio of tenant earnings (typically EBITDAR) to fixed lease payments, reflecting the cushion available for rent payments and landlord risk protection.
  • Triple-Net Lease: Lease structure where tenants are responsible for property taxes, insurance, and maintenance in addition to rent, common in REIT property portfolios.
  • AFFO: Adjusted funds from operations; a REIT cash flow metric adjusting FFO for recurring capital expenditures and straight-line rent adjustments to better reflect distributable earnings.
  • OP Unit: Operating Partnership Unit; equity interests in a REIT’s operating partnership, often used in per-share calculations and for executive compensation alignment.
  • Escalator: Contractual rent escalation provision that increases lease payments according to a predetermined formula or index.
  • VLT/VGT: Video Lottery Terminal/Video Gaming Terminal; electronic gambling machines regulated at the state or local level, critical to the earnings outlook for certain regional locations.

Full Conference Call Transcript

On this morning's call, we are joined by Peter Carlino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. Also on today's call are Brandon John Moore, President and Chief Operating Officer; Desiree A. Burke, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Steven L. Ladany, Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer; and Carlo Santarelli, Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Investor Relations. Thank you for your patience with that. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Peter Carlino. Peter, please go ahead.

Peter Carlino: Thank you, Joseph. Happy to be here this morning, and it is always a lot more fun to make these calls when things are looking good. We have had a terrific quarter. Our AFFO and AFFO per share both grew in the mid to high single digits through this first quarter. As we entered 2026, we sit in a very enviable position with a clear and well-documented line of sight toward very healthy multi-year AFFO growth, both in our acquisition and development pipelines.

With the acquisition of Bally's Lincoln in February as well as progress on several of our development projects, our future capital commitments stand at roughly $1.8 billion, nearly all of which we expect to deploy by year-end 2027. Despite what was a relatively challenging year in the regional gaming markets, 2026 is off to a very solid start as we have been seeing in the earnings reports. Our rent coverage remains strong, with the vast majority of our leases covered at 1.8x or higher. We feel good about the opportunity that exists in the market today. We remain active and feel good about our balance sheet and our ability to transact in an accretive manner.

As I have offered many times over the years, I would remind you that there is no transaction that we have to do; we are never pressured just to do something new. I used to say over at Penn National that our customers may be in the gambling business, but we are not. Our focus remains on thoughtful transaction underwriting, careful capital deployment, always looking at the health of our balance sheet, and continuing to position the company for multi-year AFFO and dividend growth. With that, I will turn it over to Desiree. Thanks, Desiree.

Desiree A. Burke: For 2026, our total income from real estate exceeded 2025 by over $24 million. This growth was driven by approximately $33 million in cash rent increases resulting from acquisitions and escalations. For Bally's, the acquisition of Bally's Lincoln real estate increased cash rent by $7.5 million; the Chicago lease increased cash income by $5.5 million; and the Bally's Baton Rouge development increased cash rent by $2.6 million. For Penn, the NM funding increased cash income by $5.4 million; the Sun and Land Park Act increased cash income by $3.8 million; the Dry Creek, Ione, and Cordish Virginia loans increased cash income by $3.5 million; and recognition of escalators and percentage rent adjustments on our leases added approximately $4.6 million.

In addition, the combination of our noncash revenue growth sets, investment lease adjustments, and straight-line rent adjustments partially offset these increases, resulting in a collective year-over-year decrease of $8 million for the noncash items. Our operating expenses decreased by $49.8 million, mainly due to noncash adjustments in the provision for credit losses. Included in today's release is our full-year 2026 AFFO guidance of between $1.212 billion and $1.223 billion, or $4.08 to $4.12 per diluted share and OP units. The guidance does not include the impact of future transactions.

However, we did include additional development funding of $590 million to $640 million, which will be funded relatively evenly by quarter throughout the remainder of 2026, bringing our total development spend to between $750 million and $800 million for full-year 2026. The acquisition of Penn's Aurora facility for $225 million is also included in our guidance, and we expect that late in the second quarter. The anticipated settlement of $363 million of our forward equity is still expected on June 1. From a balance sheet perspective, our leverage ratio was at 5x, at the low end of our target level.

We are still of the impression that given our balance sheet position, our several-year runway to fund our development projects, and our annual free cash flow over that timeframe, we have optionality to fund our accretive commitments. As a reminder, our significant development projects do pay us cash rent upon funding. With that, I will turn it back to Peter.

Peter Carlino: Thank you. Operator, would you open the call to questions?

Operator: We will now open the call for questions.

Operator: We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question at this time, you may press star-one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star-two if you would like to withdraw your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment please for our first question. Our first question is from the line of Anthony Paolone with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your questions.

Anthony Paolone: Great, thanks. Good morning. Maybe can you start by talking a bit more about what your investment pipeline looks like? How does it feel in terms of what you are seeing out there, yield, all those various dynamics?

Peter Carlino: The pipeline that is outlined and has been disclosed, obviously I think you are not talking about that. So assuming you are talking about what we are seeing behind the scenes that we have not yet announced—

Steven L. Ladany: I would say we are having very active dialogue on a number of fronts. The marketplace continues to be very productive. I would say it ranges from large-scale divested portfolios coming out of strategic decisions or M&A-type processes, all the way through the tribal discussions we continue to have. There are a number of fronts with very active dialogue, but as far as where we are in the process, we are obviously not in a position to announce anything at this time. From a cap rate perspective, the market is normalizing, and normalizing in an area that is accretive to us.

I do not think the 7.5% cap rates that were printed in the not-so-distant past are indicative of what you will see going forward. The market has normalized some. Credit markets continue to be somewhat turbulent for gaming operators. Therefore, I think the realization of where cap rates probably play out for our benefit is more indicative of the 8% area that you saw at Lincoln and some of the other transactions we have announced more recently.

Peter Carlino: Okay.

Anthony Paolone: Thanks. And then as we look to 2026, is there a sense or can you give a sense as to which of the leases may not see bumps in 2026 because coverage falls below maybe the 1.8? I know maybe things are still rolling down before they turn the corner. Just trying to get a sense as to where we should not assume a bump this year.

Desiree A. Burke: The only lease that we currently do not— The only lease we currently do not expect escalation on would be the Pinnacle lease. We do have percentage rent adjustments that are coming in on the Pinnacle lease as well as a few other leases, and that should be a small decrease for 2026. I think we talked about that last quarter. It is below $4 million for a full year, but we would only see about half of that this year. That is baked into our guidance, and that is just an estimate at this point.

Anthony Paolone: Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your questions.

Ronald Kamdem: This is Jenny on for Ron. First, on development funding, you raised your 2026 guidance to $750 million to $800 million. Can you walk us through what drives that increase and what projects may be moving faster than expected? Thank you.

Operator: Sure.

Desiree A. Burke: From a project perspective, you are right that we raised the guidance by $150 million on the high end for the full year. That is mainly due to our Chicago project where we have greater visibility and a clearer spend cadence as the project has progressed, and the podium has topped off. It does not mean that we are changing timing of when we think these properties may open; it is just the timing of our spend is coming in quicker than what we had originally anticipated.

Ronald Kamdem: Perfect. I think the second one is—

Peter Carlino: Yes.

Operator: Yes.

Peter Carlino: The only thing I will add there is that in Chicago, they will be topping out both the podium and the tower next week. We are pleased with the progress there and still on track for a first half 2027 opening. We are always happy about putting money out that gets current interest. That is a very positive event for us.

Ronald Kamdem: That is exciting. A question maybe on Live! Virginia. I think you bought the land in the first quarter. Can you talk a little bit more on when to expect the remaining funding to start in 2026 and more details on the timing of funding, including the first construction draw?

Desiree A. Burke: That is included in our guidance, and included in the $590 million to $640 million for the remainder of the year. We have not provided specific guidance on month-by-month by project, so I am not exactly certain what else I can add to answer that question.

Steven L. Ladany: And just as a reminder, the structure that we have with the Cordish deal is a little bit different than what we had for the Chicago transaction and our other development projects, where Cordish equity dollars are all being spent first. I think we will get better visibility into this as the Cordish money goes in and the development gets underway.

Ronald Kamdem: Okay. Sounds good. Thanks for taking my question.

Operator: The next question is from the line of Analyst with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your questions.

Analyst: Good morning, and thank you for taking our questions. First, obviously there is a lot in the pipeline that you covered, but can you share your insights into some of the performance of the recent development openings?

Operator: Yeah. Sure.

Carlo Santarelli: It has been pretty productive over the last six to even twelve months. Going back to Hollywood Joliet, as you heard from Penn yesterday, I think they are very pleased with the early returns there; clearly, it has been incredibly additive relative to the prior facility. Live! Petersburg, the Cordish development in Virginia, opened on January 22. That has been incredibly strong, doing a little over $15 million a month in each of the two months that it has been open. From an indication standpoint, it is clearly shaping up to be a very good market for that permanent development. The other project that we opened from a development standpoint in December of 2025 was Bally's Baton Rouge.

I think the story there is very much the same. When you look at the progress relative to the old boat, the key is we are seeing the market expand fairly nicely in Baton Rouge, driven by that new supply and incremental investment. Those data points give us a lot of comfort for some of the things that we are doing on a go-forward basis here.

Analyst: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. And then—

Carlo Santarelli: Oh, yeah, and as Peter just mentioned, if you listened to Penn's call yesterday—and I know you did—the hotel expansion at M has been very well received. They are outperforming in that market and appear to be taking some share due to that expansion and capital investment.

Steven L. Ladany: I will also add, we opened in February our first tribal investment with Ione, which had a very strong opening and appears to have grown that market. We are very positively inclined with this first set of development projects that have come online and the general performance out of those facilities.

Analyst: Great. Very helpful. And then a bigger picture question, if I may. How do you value your protections and the long-term relevance of the site versus the potential free cash flow of an asset or the free cash flow conversion?

Carlo Santarelli: Sorry, I think you might have cut out for a little bit there. Could you just repeat that?

Analyst: Just asking how you value the location of the real estate compared to your protections and the long-term relevance of a site versus the potential free cash flow of an asset or the free cash flow conversion?

Desiree A. Burke: We value it on a free cash flow basis. We look at the competition in that location, drive times, and how we think that location will perform over the long run, and what risks there are in the future. Then we derive what we think the fair coverage would be on a property, and it is all cash flow-generated rather than value of land and building. I do not know if that exactly answers your question, but—

Analyst: I think the location helps you—

Peter Carlino: It helps us get better visibility into the cash flow. As Desiree said, we are valuing off of cash flow. The location can—

Carlo Santarelli: Because these things are licensed and fairly sticky—

Peter Carlino: The location is not like a CVS where you can move across the street. So we do focus on the location, but as Desiree said, we are really focused on valuing the cash flow.

Analyst: Okay. Great. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Analyst with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your questions.

Analyst: Hi. Good morning. Thank you very much. I would like to start—Peter, good to have you back. Hope your back is feeling better. My first question is on the Caesars Master Lease. It had a sizable move down in coverage this quarter. Can you give us any color on what is going on with those assets, and are you seeing any green shoots that might show a bottoming in coverage for the rest of the year?

Carlo Santarelli: Yes, thanks. I think you might have conflated two things—the Caesars master lease and Bally's master lease. If you are asking about Bally's, we pointed out at the time of the Twin River Lincoln acquisition that the pro forma coverage for that lease was going to be a very robust 2.2x after the addition of Lincoln. With respect to Caesars, yes, the master lease with Caesars coverage went to 1.59x in the quarter. It is still a very solid coverage in our view. We have long had a very strong relationship with Caesars management. There were items in the fourth quarter that negatively impacted results—some hold in Atlantic City and West Tower room renovations at a property there as well.

We feel good that we have our hands around that situation, and at almost 1.6x it is pretty solid coverage.

Analyst: Thanks, Carlo, and I appreciate you breaking those out for me. My second question is the City of Chicago is talking about moving ahead with video gambling, and Bally's mentioned an impact to the business. How may that impact Bally's Chicago around rent or coverage?

Desiree A. Burke: We underwrote the VLT possibility in Chicago. It definitely impacts rent coverage, but it was underwritten in determining the $940 million that we were willing to provide to Bally's for that project. I cannot give you exact numbers as to how it will impact, but certainly the VLT legislation should have an impact if it goes through. We are hearing different things about sweepstakes. Brandon, I do not know if you wanted to add anything on that.

Brandon John Moore: The sweepstakes activity definitely impacts some. There is a pretty robust sweepstakes market going on in Cook County today. The question of whether or not VGTs are going to have a significant impact on bricks-and-mortar gaming is somewhat open. We know there will be some impact, and as Desiree said, we underwrote this as if VGTs were in Cook County. We also, for that matter, underwrote as if Hawthorne had a full gaming facility. Our underwriting in Chicago is fairly conservative. While we would prefer VGTs not be in Cook County, we do not view that as being overly adverse to our underwriting with that project if it should come.

Analyst: Very helpful. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Greg Michael McGinniss with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your questions.

Greg Michael McGinniss: Good morning. Given some of the challenges we have seen across gaming this year, first, how do you see operators responding, and what are your thoughts on rent coverage in 2026? Second, does it change the nature of the conversations that you are having with casino owners in terms of the deals they are looking for?

Carlo Santarelli: Thanks for the question. We have been incredibly encouraged with what we have seen in the first four months across the regional gaming footprint this year. You saw very solid earnings from Penn and Boyd in their Midwest and South region, and Churchill earlier in the week was also solid. What we are seeing from a regional perspective has been encouraging after a malaise over 2025 as the industry digested very strong margin and top-line comparisons. We certainly saw that period curb rent coverages a little bit. Our rent coverages are still in an incredibly solid place, and we believe what we have seen early this year is encouraging in terms of the progress regional gaming is making.

I am sorry, I think there was a second part to your question.

Greg Michael McGinniss: Yes, curious if that has had any influence on the types of conversations you are having with casino owners, developers, folks looking to make investments.

Steven L. Ladany: I think— Look, the one thing that has been more apparent to us is that operators and developers who would be paying the rent are significantly more focused on ensuring they have a level of cushion and higher rent coverage starting out of the gate.

Where the market in the past may have been a little more nonchalant with respect to their starting point on a rent coverage basis, due to some of the struggles that have taken place in things like Maverick, we have seen that portfolios and pieces of portfolios that had extra cushion on the rent coverage side have retained value for the owners, whereas assets with significantly lower coverage have struggled to redeem the same type of credit recovery. Folks are focused on starting with higher rent coverage out of the box.

Carlo Santarelli: Thank you. That is it for me.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Bradley Barrett Heffern with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your questions.

Bradley Barrett Heffern: Good morning, everyone. There has been a lot of investor concern about the rise of prediction markets and the impact on gaming. How do you view that, and is that something that you think about when you are underwriting new projects?

Brandon John Moore: I think we lump prediction markets in underwriting with iGaming. We view it similarly. iGaming has a more specific path and traction through state regulation than the prediction markets, which at the federal level and on the state level are completely unregulated, and at the federal level I will say lightly regulated at best. There are a lot of challenges to the prediction markets right now. While I will not say we are not concerned, we are not overly concerned at the moment given the challenges.

There was iGaming legislation in nine different states—maybe a couple more—that we were actively monitoring this session, and it does not look like any of them are going to pass, including Illinois and New York. They are still alive, but they do not look promising; Colorado may be the one that is a little more open. The point being, I do not think the proliferation of iGaming is going to accelerate this session, which is good for us overall. We will keep a close eye on prediction markets, but I would not say we are overly concerned at the moment.

Bradley Barrett Heffern: Got it. Thank you. And then on Rockford, that loan is coming up for the initial maturity date soon. Do you expect that to be extended, and what do you think happens ultimately at expiration—paid off or maybe converted into ownership of the improvements?

Desiree A. Burke: With Rockford, we have begun discussions, but we have not made a final determination as to what we are going to do with that loan at this point.

Bradley Barrett Heffern: Okay. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Smedes Rose with Citi. Please proceed with your questions.

Smedes Rose: There has been a lot of discussion in the media about Caesars potentially going private, and that has led to various discussions around changes that might happen at the corporate level. In terms of your leases, could you talk about how durable they are—do they attach going forward, or could they be gotten out of, if you will, if someone wanted to do that?

Brandon John Moore: Good morning, Smedes. It depends on the structure of the transaction. Overall, generally speaking, our leases do have a concept in them of a discretionary or qualified transferee—if you looked at our leases that we have publicly available, most of our leases have the same concept. In that case, it is possible that a transaction could be structured where Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. would not have a consent right to it. That said, there are a number of different things that have to be true for that to be the case, and we do not have enough visibility into the potential structure of that transaction to determine whether a consent will be required from Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.

Clearly, if it is, we will do what is in the best interest of our shareholders in evaluating that. At the moment, we do not have enough information. Our conversations with Caesars on this topic have been relatively few. We have a close relationship with that management team. If that transaction does go through and that management team survives, overall we view that as a neutral transaction to us—could be positive if there are things that fall out of it—but we are not overly concerned about it. The impact on our lease is TBD at the moment.

Smedes Rose: Okay. Fair enough. Bigger picture: you mentioned you are in active dialogue across a number of different opportunities. Do owners you are speaking with have other sources of capital readily available, or has that become more scarce over the last several quarters, either from direct competitors to you or traditional regional bank lending?

Steven L. Ladany: There are haves and have-nots. Certain parties would probably struggle to find inexpensive capital that would be easily accessible based on their circumstances—whether it be leverage, operating profile, or being very small with one or two assets, which makes it harder to get larger banks to finance those endeavors. For larger operators, even private family-owned ones that are larger, they have plenty of access to capital. It really comes down to broader decision-making and whether it is a strategic fit to do a sale-leaseback versus a traditional bank loan or bond. The dialogue depends on the counterparty; some have access to capital and others do not.

Smedes Rose: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Operator: Our next questions are from the line of Barry Jonas with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your questions.

Barry Jonas: Hey, good morning. Peter, great to have you back—hope that back is better.

Peter Carlino: We are back. I do not recommend back surgery to anybody, by the way.

Barry Jonas: I want to start with Bally's. They appear to be looking to do a bit more M&A, including a large deal internationally. More as it relates to the corporate guarantee, does that influence how you think about future deals and underwriting with them?

Brandon John Moore: I think our answer is unchanged. We have always underwritten deals with the level that if Bally's had a great transaction for a property-level asset that we thought was accretive to us and our shareholders, we would not let Bally's international work sway us from that. That said, clearly that is another capital allocation decision they have made alongside various projects. Our focus is more on what, if any, impact that has on the projects we have with Bally's and their ability to execute on those. At the moment, we are not concerned with Bally's ability to fund and complete Chicago, for example.

It is more impactful in that way than on overall risk as we look at more property-level performance.

Barry Jonas: Understood. For a follow-up, any updated thoughts in terms of international or nongaming opportunities and where that ranks in terms of the opportunity set?

Steven L. Ladany: On international, we have had conversations around international properties as recently as this last quarter. As we have said many times, there is a tax implication aspect, a repatriation implication aspect, and the legal and customs aspect we have to get comfortable with depending on the jurisdiction. We continue to look. I would love to tell you we could get comfortable and get something done internationally beyond Canada, but I am not going to say that is coming anytime soon. We will keep doing diligence and look for opportunities that would equate to an accretive transaction for us here in the United States, where we bring all the money back and pay all the taxes.

Peter Carlino: By the way, that answer is a perfect response to nongaming as well. We look at a lot of stuff. As I like to say, we kiss a lot of frogs, but we are still looking for a princess in that category.

Barry Jonas: Great. Thanks, guys.

Operator: Our next questions are from the line of Todd Michael Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your questions.

Todd Michael Thomas: Hi, thanks. Good morning. Brandon, can you talk a little bit more about the normalizing cap rates you discussed? What is driving that specifically? From your comments, it sounded like about 50 basis points—is that the right range to quantify the change you are seeing in cap rate expansion?

Brandon John Moore: I will let Steve answer, as he addressed it the first time. I will say what led to the normalizing of cap rates—what Steve is referencing—is that we have a lot of data points behind the scenes on things that are coming to fruition. This happens where things bubble up to the surface as people are interested in understanding valuation. Those cap rates we are seeing are beginning to tighten in a range, and we think we have a good feel of where the right cap rate is for transactions—at least the cap rate we would be willing to execute.

Steven L. Ladany: I was not trying to peg a 50 basis point number. I do not think it is as precise as that. Each transaction is a negotiation across from a counterparty. My point was, if you ask what I think the average market-clearing regional gaming asset sale-leaseback on a regular-way, down-the-middle-of-the-fairway transaction will go for right now, I think it is going to have an 8 in front of it, not a 7. I am not trying to be more specific than that. The market can pivot on a dime in six months. We would anticipate and hope that our implied cap rate would grind tighter as well if the market tightens.

From a cost-of-capital spread where we are at today, we are comfortable that the market is yielding in the 8s.

Todd Michael Thomas: Helpful clarification. Thank you. Desiree, on the guidance adjustment: nominal AFFO was increased about $30 million at the midpoint, mostly at the low end, but it looked a little more than just due to higher capital deployment on its own. You talked about Chicago, but were there other changes around earlier cadence of funding or something else? Can you talk about the changes around guidance specifically?

Desiree A. Burke: It is mainly due to the funding changes because that will increase income. That will have an offsetting impact in our interest income. On the high end, we did see some increase in SOFR rates this quarter, so some of the benefit gets eaten up by the SOFR rate assumptions in the high end of our guidance. We already had some additional interest expense in the low end of guidance, so that is why you are not seeing an even change. There is also some rounding involved because, the stronger the run-rate coming into the guidance, the less AFFO it takes to increase that per-share amount.

Todd Michael Thomas: Okay, helpful. Did anything change in terms of G&A or the stock-based comp component—any change in the mix regarding the reconciliation?

Desiree A. Burke: No.

Todd Michael Thomas: Alright. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho Securities. Please proceed with your questions.

Haendel St. Juste: Thanks for taking my questions. Desiree, can you talk a bit more about positioning of the balance sheet in the current macro? Lots of volatility; you have $1.8 billion of capital deployment outlined over the next 18 months. Leverage today is at the low end of your target range; looks like it would be at the high end on a pro forma basis. Are you willing to let leverage tick up, how are you thinking about balance sheet management over the next 18 months, and perhaps the need for new equity? Thank you.

Desiree A. Burke: We sit today with $275 million of cash that has not been deployed—that is not included in that run-rate of 5x. As that becomes income-earning, the leverage ratio will not increase for that portion or for the $363 million of forward equity we have outstanding. We also have free cash flow on the order of $230 million per year; we have the majority of that still coming for this year. The rest, as we said, we can do either debt or equity depending on what we expect to do.

I still expect that at the end of this—when all of our transactions are completed, the remaining $1.8 billion is funded, and we get full credit for the AFFO those transactions drive—we will still be at the low end of our 5.0x to 5.5x leverage guidance.

Haendel St. Juste: Got it, appreciate that. More broadly, growth for this year is mid-single digit; I think next year is kind of the same. Is this something you think is sustainable beyond the next 18 months? How are you thinking about the sustainability of the long-term cash flow growth from the portfolio—is the next two years more of an aberration or something you feel you can sustain?

Desiree A. Burke: We can clearly see through 2027 and see the growth there, just as you can. For 2028 and beyond, it depends on which transactions we come up with over the next year or two. We certainly will have growth related to escalations on our transactions, but outside of that, until we do an accretive transaction, I cannot predict 2028 and beyond.

Operator: The next questions are from the line of Rich Hightower with Barclays. Please proceed with your questions.

Rich Hightower: Good morning, thanks for taking the questions. Going back to Smedes' question on the potential Caesars deal and how it might affect Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.—there is a parent guarantee in place on your master lease, and I appreciate that four-wall coverage is the primary focus in any scenario. What is your legal understanding of the ability of a parent guarantee to travel with the lease under a variety of potential deal structures, and how should we think about that from the outside?

Brandon John Moore: You should think of the parent guarantee as one of the requirements that has to be in place for us to be forced to take a new tenant. In order to meet the definition of a qualified or discretionary transferee, certain things have to be true with respect to the transaction, including pro forma leverage and the existence of a replacement parent guarantee. We do not know enough about the anticipated structure of that transaction to determine whether, for example, the parent guarantee is at an entity level that would meet our lease requirements and be acceptable to us. We just do not know yet, but you should assume that it does, in fact, travel with the next tenant.

Rich Hightower: That is really helpful, thanks. More broadly, and maybe it relates to the cap rate comment as well, are you seeing previously competitive capital providers—really thinking of the private credit universe, which appears to be having its own issues—pull back from the market? Does that imply anything about Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.'s ability to step in as a capital provider to a project like that or any other development? And does that affect market pricing for the capital as well?

Steven L. Ladany: To date, we have not seen private credit folks pulling away. I cannot speak to their ability to show up at the finish line, but at the early onset they seem just as engaged as anybody else. I do not think there is a seismic shift in the competitive landscape. There are not new folks pouring in; it is the same handful of people looking at transactions. It all goes back to relationships and underwriting. We aim to be everyone’s first call if there is something they are looking to do, and then we overlay our underwriting discipline.

So far it has worked well; we expect to continue to have a seat at every table, whether it plays out the way we want it to or not.

Brandon John Moore: In New York, you picked out a unique animal. That is a unique market with a lot of interest from people who want a piece of it. Bally's is in an enviable position in New York with a lot of different capital sources to discuss. Whether we have an opportunity for a piece of that will be relationship-driven more than economically driven, I suspect, but I do not think we are doing it at a cap rate lower than what Steve indicated because that would not be accretive to us or a smart use of our capital. We will see how New York plays out; it is somewhat unique.

Peter Carlino: There may be several layers of opportunity there, to say the least. We expect to be at the table, as Steven and Brandon outlined.

Brandon John Moore: Agreed. In New York, some of it should fall our way, we hope.

Rich Hightower: Got it. I also appreciate the hat trick in terms of management’s responses. Thanks.

Operator: Next questions are from the line of Chris Darling with Green Street. Please proceed with your questions.

Chris Darling: With Acorn Ridge now open, have you had any discussion around the conversion of the loan into a formal lease structure? Separately, for Acorn Ridge or any other tribal transactions, can you talk about your level of visibility into the underlying financial performance of those properties and the regular cadence of any updates you might get?

Desiree A. Burke: The Acorn Ridge loan has a five-year term with two six-month extensions. We are not in discussions about converting it to a lease at this point. As far as performance goes, we receive quarterly certifications which include coverage ratios—how it covers the rent or, in this case, interest—so we will be looking at AFFO vis-à-vis interest payments. We will get information on a quarterly basis.

Steven L. Ladany: With respect to Acorn Ridge, we have dialogue with the chairwoman there. She is very level-headed and said, “Let’s get six months of operations under our belt, and then as a tribe, we will reevaluate what we want to do as far as future capital spend or financing markets.” We are cheering them on and awaiting future dialogue.

Chris Darling: That is helpful. Taking a step back more broadly, as you underwrite new investments in the tribal space, are there any jurisdictions that are more or less attractive?

Brandon John Moore: Different jurisdictions lead to different opportunities. In California, you have a large number of tribes and opportunity for expansion. Despite many tribal casinos, new openings appear to be growing their markets. There is a lot of opportunity in California given its size. California’s compacts do not have a very stringent taxing regime, so even when tribes enter into compacts, they are not paying a lot of tax. In other states, they pay more tax and have different compacts. New York has some tribes, the Midwest has several, Oklahoma as well. It is more relationship-driven at this point. We are looking at tribal needs and trying to figure out which transactions best suit our underwriting.

We are getting a lot of inbound and questions around what we can offer. We will figure out how much capital we want to allocate to this form of financing and where. It is not necessarily driven by state lines per se; it is more the number of tribes in different areas—California versus, for example, Alabama, which has one tribe.

Operator: The next questions are from the line of Analyst with Capital One Securities. Please proceed with your questions.

Analyst: Just one from me. Do you have a minimum dollar size for redevelopment projects that you would be willing to fund? It feels like operator CapEx budgets are down for 2026 versus 2025, but improving properties has been working. Are smaller, less invasive projects at more properties coming?

Steven L. Ladany: To clarify, do you mean capital improvement projects at an asset we already own?

Analyst: Yes.

Steven L. Ladany: We do not have a minimum number. We would fund down to whatever the tenant needs, assuming it is a project they believe will be accretive and will generate pro forma business for them that surpasses the cost of our capital. We would look to be supportive of the tenant in these opportunities.

Analyst: Great. Thank you.

Operator: The next question is from the line of Chad C. Beynon with Macquarie. Please proceed with your question.

Chad C. Beynon: Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. You have clearly differentiated yourselves with more of a drive-to-regional focus versus destination. The regional market has been strong year-to-date; some operators are actually improving margins. Does this validation of your thesis dissuade you from leaning back into Las Vegas beyond the Trop site and really just doubling down on your current thesis in regionals?

Peter Carlino: I do not think we were ever leaning into Las Vegas. We look at projects one at a time—location is not critical. We have no special focus on Las Vegas. I have been an enthusiast for the regional market for twenty years, trying to make the case that it is the better place to be—the safest place to put capital by far. We have demonstrated that, and recent events in Las Vegas highlight that where we put our capital makes a lot more sense.

Carlo Santarelli: As always, it is the strength of the cash flows. It is not the building or necessarily the geography; it is the strength and safety of the cash flows. Over time, acknowledging we do not share in upside any more than escalators for a well-covered lease, the regional business has provided a lot of stability. If you look back over the last few years, you have come off very solid peaks, and as you mentioned, first quarter has been a nice indicator that things are strengthening again.

Desiree A. Burke: We have been saying this for a long time—even back at Penn in 2008 during the financial crisis, our regional properties held up much better than Las Vegas. Coming out of COVID, regional properties did much better than those in Vegas. That trend is continuing. I agree with the thesis; I think everybody should see it on their own at this point.

Chad C. Beynon: Great, thanks. Maybe just to hit on one market to keep it fun: Peter, about twenty years ago you were looking at Atlantic City. We just returned from the East Coast Gaming Congress, and operators down there are pretty scared in terms of what could happen with New York. Is that a market that could recover with capital, and would you be interested in helping out operators there on the development side or pivoting strategies?

Peter Carlino: It is probably pretty risky given what is on the horizon. New York is going to have a big impact, and I have long said that sooner or later New Jersey is going to have to put something up in North Jersey unless they want to lose all that business to New York properties. It is not a happy time to be in Atlantic City today. There will always be some winners there, but it is not a market looking for more investment.

Brandon John Moore: Yep.

Peter Carlino: Thank you all. Appreciate it.

Operator: Next question is from the line of David Brian Katz with Jefferies. Please proceed with your questions.

David Brian Katz: Good morning. Covered a lot of details already. When we look at the market for regional properties today, if we can be upfront, there is yourselves and one other who is closest like you, and then other capital sources. Are you seeing a change in that competitive landscape specifically for regional properties? We expect there are things coming to market—what does competitiveness look like today versus six to twelve months ago?

Peter Carlino: It is a very interesting question. To be honest, I think there are fewer competitors right now.

Steven L. Ladany: There have been a couple of gyrations in the market. Some people dipped their toes in and either decided it was not for them or got burned. Some funds bought properties and later divested those pieces or are currently going through the Maverick bankruptcy and figuring that out. As the market evolves, there is always going to be someone that takes a look. We love this business. We think we are undervalued, so it makes sense others will see that light and decide they want to get involved. The complexity in regional markets is the diversity—you have to understand operators and assets; portfolios involve multiple assets with different competitive landscapes and dynamics.

It is not as simple as rolling it up at a certain percent. Because of that, there will constantly be people that come in and out of the space. Right now, there are three to five people looking at any larger portfolio that comes to market, and at the end of the day it is probably the same three who will put in some indication.

David Brian Katz: Okay. Thank you. Nothing worse than back pain, Peter—feel better.

Peter Carlino: Thanks very much, David.

Operator: Next question is from the line of Robin Margaret Farley with UBS. Please proceed with your question.

Robin Margaret Farley: Thank you. Speaking of not leaning into Las Vegas, can you update us on potential timing or your latest thoughts on opportunity for you at that site? Thanks.

Brandon John Moore: I would love to tell you our answer has changed. As we sit here today, the stadium is progressing quite nicely. If you look at the cameras on top of MGM Grand, the stadium concourse level is up, and they are probably going to be putting on the first roof truss in the next six to eight weeks. The integrated resort was always behind—not in a bad way, but it was going to follow the concourse construction. We are getting to the point where Bally's will have decisions to make about how much they want to do and how they are going to do it. We have a $125 million commitment remaining.

Whether we expand that commitment is to be determined as we see the leasing of the site in the RED space start to fill out and we get a better picture of the revenue generated on that site. We and Bally's will be discussing what level of investment above and beyond the $125 million, if any, will be appropriate from Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. Unfortunately, we do not have a much different answer right now. I do think in the next six months that will change—the integrated resort should come into clarity in that timeframe.

Robin Margaret Farley: Okay. Great. Thank you. Peter, good to have you back.

Peter Carlino: Thank you, Robin.

Operator: Our final question is from the line of John DeCree with CBRE. Please proceed with your questions.

John DeCree: I think we covered mostly everything, so apologies if this is redundant. You already answered investment sizing questions for development, but with the Caesars buyout talk we have questions about portfolio transactions. From your perspective, on investment sizing for a large portfolio of assets, is there a market there for real estate today? Much of what we have seen so far is single asset. From Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc., is there an investment size that would be too large, or would you consider anything that might come to market, even if it is chunky?

Brandon John Moore: It might depend on whether it is going into another master lease with another tenant or how it is being done. Are there assets that are too small for us to look at? There may be, but if they are accretive and generating good capital and we can put them into a lease with an existing tenant, I do not think there is anything we would not look at. If you are talking about the Caesars portfolio specifically, it is not clear to us which, if any, assets may fall out of that portfolio as a result of the proposed transaction. We will have to take a look when the time comes.

John DeCree: More broadly, if there was a multibillion-dollar transaction unrelated to Caesars—if there was a seller of a package of assets—is that in your wheelhouse, or is there a dollar amount where you would not want to deploy that much capital or the market might not be there?

Brandon John Moore: As long as it is accretive, we would do it. We did the Pinnacle transaction a few years out of the gate, which was roughly $4 billion. I do not think there is any number that is necessarily too high. Of all the portfolio assets we see right now, we just have to underwrite it. If it is accretive on our cost of capital at the time, we would look at it and do it. There is nothing too big or too small at the moment that we would not look at.

Peter Carlino: I have always felt there is never a shortage of funding for a good deal. As Brandon said, we will hit some singles and, every now and then, take a bunt if the spread is worth it. There is nothing we will not look at.

John DeCree: Thanks all.

Operator: Thank you. I will now turn the floor back to Peter Carlino for closing comments.

Peter Carlino: I think the morning has been productive from our point of view, and we thank you for tuning in today. See you next quarter. Thanks very much.

Operator: This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you for your participation. Have a wonderful day.