UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
Commission file number
001-13545
AMB Property
Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Maryland
|
|
94-3281941
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer Identification
No.)
|
|
|
|
Pier 1, Bay 1,
San Francisco, California
(Address of Principal
Executive Offices)
|
|
94111
(Zip Code)
|
(415) 394-9000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
(Title of Each Class)
|
|
(Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered)
|
|
Common Stock, $.01 par value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
61/2%
Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
63/4%
Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
7% Series O Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
6.85% Series P Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and
will not be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer þ Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of common shares held by
non-affiliates of the registrant (based upon the closing sale
price on the New York Stock Exchange) on June 30, 2006 was
$4,256,316,319.
As of February 21, 2007, there were 90,903,378 shares
of the registrants common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE
Part III incorporates by reference portions of the
registrants Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of
Stockholders which the registrant anticipates will be filed no
later than 120 days after the end of its fiscal year
pursuant to Regulation 14A.
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
Some of the information included in this annual report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements, which are made pursuant to
the safe-harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Because these
forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and
uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause our
actual results to differ materially from those in the
forward-looking statements, and you should not rely on the
forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The
events or circumstances reflected in forward-looking statements
might not occur. You can identify forward-looking statements by
the use of forward-looking terminology such as
believes, expects, may,
will, should, seeks,
approximately, intends,
plans, pro forma, estimates
or anticipates, or the negative of these words and
phrases, or similar words or phrases. You can also identify
forward-looking statements by discussions of strategy, plans or
intentions. Forward-looking statements should not be read as
guarantees of future performance or results, and will not
necessarily be accurate indicators of whether, or the time at
which, such performance or results will be achieved. There is no
assurance that the events or circumstances reflected in
forward-looking statements will occur or be achieved.
Forward-looking statements are necessarily dependent on
assumptions, data or methods that may be incorrect or imprecise
and we may not be able to realize them.
The following factors, among others, could cause actual
results and future events to differ materially from those set
forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in general economic conditions or in the real estate
sector;
|
|
|
|
defaults on or non-renewal of leases by customers or renewal
at lower than expected rent;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in identifying properties to acquire and in
effecting acquisitions on advantageous terms and the failure of
acquisitions to perform as we expect;
|
|
|
|
risks and uncertainties affecting property development and
renovation (including construction delays, cost overruns, our
inability to obtain necessary permits and financing, public
opposition to these activities, as well as the risks associated
with our expansion of and increased investment in our
development business);
|
|
|
|
risks of doing business internationally, including
unfamiliarity with new markets and currency risks;
|
|
|
|
risks of opening offices globally (including increasing
headcount);
|
|
|
|
a downturn in the U.S., California or the global economy or
real estate conditions;
|
|
|
|
risks of changing personnel and roles;
|
|
|
|
losses in excess of our insurance coverage;
|
|
|
|
our failure to divest of properties on advantageous terms or
to timely reinvest proceeds from any such divestitures;
|
|
|
|
unknown liabilities acquired in connection with acquired
properties or otherwise;
|
|
|
|
risks associated with using debt to fund acquisitions and
development, including re-financing risks;
|
|
|
|
our failure to obtain necessary financing;
|
|
|
|
risks associated with equity and debt securities financings
and issuances (including the risk of dilution);
|
|
|
|
changes in local, state and federal regulatory
requirements;
|
|
|
|
increases in real property tax rates;
|
|
|
|
increases in interest rates and operating costs or greater
than expected capital expenditures;
|
|
|
|
environmental uncertainties; and
|
|
|
|
our failure to qualify and maintain our status as a real
estate investment trust under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended.
|
2
Our success also depends upon economic trends generally,
various market conditions and fluctuations and those other risk
factors discussed under the heading Risk Factors in
Item 1.A of this report. We caution you not to place undue
reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our
analysis only and speak as of the date of this report or as of
the dates indicated in the statements. All of our
forward-looking statements, including those in this report, are
qualified in their entirety by this statement. We assume no
obligation to update or supplement forward-looking
statements.
3
PART I
General
AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland corporation, acquires,
develops and operates industrial properties in key distribution
markets throughout North America, Europe and Asia. We use the
terms industrial properties or industrial
buildings to describe various types of industrial
properties in our portfolio and use these terms interchangeably
with the following: logistics facilities, centers or warehouses;
distribution facilities, centers or warehouses; High Throughput
Distribution®
(HTD®) facilities;
or any combination of these terms. We use the term owned
and managed to describe assets in which we have at least a
10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset
manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.
We commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate
company effective with the completion of our initial public
offering on November 26, 1997. Our strategy focuses on
providing properties for customers who value the efficient
movement of goods located mostly in the worlds busiest
distribution markets: large, supply-constrained locations with
proximity to airports, seaports and major highway systems. As of
December 31, 2006, we owned, or had investments in, on a
consolidated basis or through unconsolidated joint ventures,
properties and development projects expected to total
approximately 124.7 million square feet (11.6 million
square meters) and 1,088 buildings in 39 markets
within twelve countries. Additionally, as of December 31,
2006, we managed, but did not have a significant ownership
interest in, industrial and other properties totaling
approximately 1.5 million rentable square feet.
We operate our business primarily through our subsidiary, AMB
Property, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, which we refer
to as the operating partnership. As of
December 31, 2006, we owned an approximate 95.0% general
partnership interest in the operating partnership, excluding
preferred units. As the sole general partner of the operating
partnership, we have the full, exclusive and complete
responsibility for and discretion in its
day-to-day
management and control.
Our investment strategy generally targets customers whose
businesses are tied to global trade, which, according to the
World Trade Organization, has grown two to three times the world
gross domestic product growth rate during the last
20 years. To serve the facility needs of these customers,
we seek to invest globally in major distribution markets,
transportation hubs and gateways that generally are tied to
global trade.
Our strategy is to be a leading provider of industrial
properties in supply-constrained submarkets of our targets
markets. These submarkets are generally characterized by large
population densities and typically offer substantial consumer
concentrations, proximity to large clusters of
distribution-facility users and significant labor pools, and are
generally located near key international passenger and cargo
airports, seaports and major highway systems. When measured by
annualized base rent, on an owned and managed basis, 99.6% of
our portfolio of industrial properties is located in our target
markets, and much of this is in in-fill submarkets within our
target markets. In-fill locations are characterized by supply
constraints on the availability of land for competing projects
as well as physical, political or economic barriers to new
development.
Further, in many of our target markets, we focus on
HTD®
facilities, which are buildings designed to facilitate the rapid
distribution of our customers products rather than storage
of goods. Our investment focus on
HTD®
assets is based on what we believe to be a global trend toward
lower inventory levels and expedited supply chains.
HTD®
facilities generally have a variety of physical characteristics
that allow for the rapid transport of goods from
point-to-point.
These physical characteristics could include numerous dock
doors, shallower building depths, fewer columns, large truck
courts and more space for trailer parking. We believe that these
building characteristics represent an important success factor
for time-sensitive customers such as air express, logistics and
freight forwarding companies, and that these facilities function
best when located in convenient proximity to transportation
infrastructure, such as major airports and seaports.
4
Of the approximately 124.7 million rentable square feet as
of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
on an owned and managed basis, which include investments held on
a consolidated basis or through unconsolidated joint ventures,
we owned and managed 964 industrial buildings, principally
warehouse distribution facilities, encompassing approximately
100.7 million rentable square feet that were 96.1% leased;
|
|
|
|
on an owned and managed basis, which include investments held on
a consolidated basis or through unconsolidated joint ventures,
we had investments in 45 industrial development projects which
are expected to total approximately 13.7 million rentable
square feet upon completion;
|
|
|
|
on a consolidated basis, we owned nine development projects,
totaling approximately 2.7 million rentable square feet
that are available for sale or contribution; and
|
|
|
|
through other non-managed unconsolidated joint ventures, we had
investments in 46 industrial operating properties, totaling
approximately 7.4 million rentable square feet, and one
industrial operating property, totaling approximately
0.2 million square feet which is available for sale or
contribution.
|
During 2006, our property acquisitions, on an owned and managed
basis, totaled $834.2 million (including expected capital
expenditures, and acquisitions by AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund III, an unconsolidated joint venture, totaling
$540.0 million), primarily located in our target countries
that included France, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the
U.S. As of December 31, 2006, we had four industrial
projects held for divestiture. Dispositions during 2006 totaled
$335.1 million, including dispositions by two of our
unconsolidated joint ventures of $159.8 million. Assets
were divested in markets that no longer fit our investment
strategy, such as Charlotte, Cincinnati and Memphis, and we also
disposed of properties at valuation levels that we considered to
be premium. While we continue to sell assets, we believe that we
have achieved our near-term strategic disposition goals.
Additionally, we contributed $607.3 million of completed
development projects and a land parcel for $77.5 million to
our private capital joint ventures as part of our continuing
strategy to increase the proportion of our assets owned in
co-investment joint ventures.
We are self-administered and self-managed and expect that we
have qualified and will continue to qualify as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes beginning with
the year ended December 31, 1997. As a self-administered
and self-managed real estate investment trust, our own employees
perform our corporate administrative and management functions,
rather than our relying on an outside manager for these
services. We manage our portfolio of properties in a flexible
operating model which includes both direct property management
and a Strategic Alliance
Program®
in which we have established relationships with third-party real
estate management firms, brokers and developers that provide
property-level administrative and management services under our
direction.
Our global headquarters are located at Pier 1, Bay 1,
San Francisco, California 94111; our telephone number
is
(415) 394-9000.
We maintain other office locations in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Baltimore, Beijing, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Menlo
Park, New Jersey, New York, Nagoya, Narita, Osaka, Shanghai,
Singapore, Tokyo, and Vancouver. As of December 31, 2006,
we employed 416 individuals: 173 in our San Francisco
headquarters, 62 in our Boston office, 43 in our Tokyo office,
and the remainder in our other regional offices. Our website
address is www.amb.com. Our annual reports on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K
and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant
to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 are available on our website free of charge as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish it to, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. The public may read and copy these
materials at the SECs Public Reference Room at
100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
public may obtain information on the operation of the Public
Reference Room by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC maintains a Web site that contains such reports, proxy
and information statements and other information whose Internet
address is http://www.sec.gov. Our Corporate Governance
Principles and Code of Business Conduct are also posted on our
website. Information contained on our website is not and should
not be deemed a part of this annual report or any other report
or filing filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
5
NEW YORK
STOCK EXCHANGE CERTIFICATION
We submitted our 2006 annual Section 12(a) Chief Executive
Officer certification with the New York Stock Exchange. The
certification was not qualified in any respect. Additionally, we
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as
exhibits to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006, the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer certifications required
under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
furnished as exhibits to this Annual Report the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer certifications required
under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms
AMB, the Company, we,
us and our refer to AMB Property
Corporation, AMB Property, L.P. and their other controlled
subsidiaries, and the references to AMB Property Corporation
include AMB Property, L.P. and their controlled subsidiaries. We
refer to AMB Property, L.P. as the operating
partnership. The following marks are our registered
trademarks:
AMB®;
High Throughput
Distribution®
(HTD®);
and Strategic Alliance
Programs®.
Operating
Strategy
We base our operating strategy on a variety of operational and
service offerings, including in-house acquisitions, development,
redevelopment, asset management, property management, leasing,
finance, accounting and market research. Our strategy is to
leverage our expertise across a large customer base, and
complement our internal management resources with long-standing
relationships with entrepreneurial real estate management and
development firms in certain of our target markets.
We believe that real estate is fundamentally a local business
and best operated by local teams in each market comprised of AMB
employees, local alliance partners or both. We intend to
continue to increase utilization of internal management
resources in target markets to achieve both operating
efficiencies and to expose our customers to the broadening array
of AMB service offerings, including access to multiple locations
worldwide and
build-to-suit
developments. We actively manage our portfolio, whether directly
or with an alliance partner, by establishing leasing strategies,
negotiating lease terms, pricing, and level and timing of
property improvements.
Growth
Strategies
Growth
through Operations
We seek to generate long-term internal growth through rent
increases on existing space and renewals on rollover space by
working to maintain a high occupancy rate at our properties and
to control expenses by capitalizing on the economies of scale
inherent in owning, operating and growing a large, global
portfolio. During 2006, our average industrial property base
rental rates decreased by 0.1% from the rent in place at
expiration for that space on leases entered into or renewed
during the period. This amount excludes expense reimbursements,
rental abatements, percentage rents and straight-line rents.
During 2006, cash basis same store net operating income (rental
revenues less property operating expenses and real estate taxes
for properties included in the same store pool, which is set
annually and excludes properties purchased or developments
stabilized after December 31, 2004) increased by 2.6%
on our industrial properties. Since our initial public offering
in November 1997, on a consolidated basis, we have experienced
average annual increases in industrial property base rental
rates of 4.4% and maintained an average quarter-end occupancy
rate of 95.0% in our industrial property operating portfolio.
While we believe that it is important to view real estate as a
long-term investment, past results are not necessarily an
indication of future performance. See Part II, Item 7:
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Supplemental
Earnings Measures for a discussion of same store net
operating income and a reconciliation of same store net
operating income and net income and Part IV,
Item 15: Note 16 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for detailed segment
information, including revenue attributable to each segment,
gross investment in each segment and total assets.
Growth
through Development and Value-Added Conversions
We believe that development, redevelopment and expansion of
well-located, high-quality industrial properties should continue
to provide us with attractive investment opportunities at a
higher rate of return than we may obtain
6
from the purchase of existing properties. We believe we have the
in-house expertise to create value both through new construction
and acquisition and management of value-added properties.
Value-added conversion projects represent the development of
land or a building site for a more valuable use and may include
such activities as rezoning, redesigning, reconstructing and
retenanting. Both new development and value-added conversions
require significant management attention and capital investment
to maximize their return. Completed development properties are
generally contributed to our co-investment joint ventures and
held in our owned and managed portfolio or sold to third
parties. We believe our global market presence and expertise
will enable us to continue to generate and capitalize on a
diverse range of development opportunities.
We believe that the multidisciplinary backgrounds of our
employees should provide us with the skills and experience to
capitalize on strategic renovation, expansion and development
opportunities. Many of our officers have specific experience in
real estate development, both with us and with national
development firms, and over the past four years, we have
significantly expanded our development staff. We pursue
development projects directly and in joint ventures, providing
us with the flexibility to pursue development projects
independently or in partnerships, depending on market
conditions, submarkets or building sites.
Growth
through Acquisitions and Capital Redeployment
We believe that our acquisition experience and our network of
property management, leasing and acquisition resources will
continue to provide opportunities for growth. In addition to our
internal resources, we have long-term relationships with
third-party local property management firms, which we believe
may give us access to additional acquisition opportunities, as
such managers frequently market properties on behalf of sellers.
We believe also that our UPREIT structure, which enables us to
acquire land and industrial properties in exchange for limited
partnership units in the operating partnership or AMB
Property II, L.P., another of our operating partnerships,
enhances our attractiveness to owners and developers seeking to
transfer properties on a tax-deferred basis. In addition, we
seek to redeploy capital from non-strategic assets into
properties that better fit our current investment focus.
We are generally engaged in various stages of negotiations for a
number of acquisitions and dispositions that may include
acquisitions and dispositions of individual properties, large
multi-property portfolios or other real estate companies. We
cannot assure you that we will consummate any of these
transactions. Such transactions, if we consummate them, may be
material individually or in the aggregate. Sources of capital
for acquisitions may include retained cash flow from operations,
borrowings under our unsecured credit facilities, other forms of
secured or unsecured debt financing, issuances of debt or
preferred or common equity securities by us or the operating
partnership (including issuances of units in the operating
partnership or its subsidiaries), proceeds from divestitures of
properties, assumption of debt related to the acquired
properties and private capital from our co-investment partners.
See Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Summary of Key Transactions in 2006.
Growth
through Global Expansion
By the end of 2010, we expect to have approximately 50% of our
owned and managed operating portfolio invested in
non-U.S. markets
(based on annualized base rent). As of December 31, 2006,
our
non-U.S. operating
properties comprised 14.1% of our owned and managed operating
portfolio (based on annualized base rent) and 7.4% of our
consolidated operating portfolio (based on annualized base
rent). Our North American target countries outside of the United
States currently comprise Canada and Mexico. Our European target
countries currently comprise Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Our Asian target
countries currently comprise China, India, Japan, Singapore and
South Korea. We expect to add additional target countries
outside the United States in the future.
We believe that expansion into target markets outside the
U.S. represents a natural extension of our strategy to
invest in industrial property markets with high population
densities, close proximity to large customer clusters and
available labor pools, and major distribution centers serving
global trade. Our international expansion strategy mirrors our
focus in the United States on supply-constrained submarkets with
political, economic or physical constraints to new development.
Our international investments extend our offering of
HTD®
facilities for customers
7
who value
speed-to-market
over storage. Specifically, we are focused on customers whose
business is derived from global trade. In addition, our
investments target major consumer distribution markets and
customers. We believe that our established customer
relationships, our contacts in the air cargo and logistics
industries, our underwriting of markets and investments and our
strategic alliances with knowledgeable developers and managers
will assist us in competing internationally.
There are many factors that could cause our entry into target
markets and future capital allocation to differ from our current
expectations, which are discussed in this report under the
heading Business Risks Risks Associated with
Our International Business. Further, it is possible that
our target markets will change over time to reflect experience,
market opportunities, customer needs and changes in global
distribution patterns. For a discussion of the amount of our
revenues attributable to the United States and international
markets, please see Part IV,
Item 15: Note 16 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Growth
through Co-Investments
We co-invest in properties with private-capital investors
through partnerships, limited liability companies or joint
ventures. Our co-investment joint ventures are managed by our
private capital group and typically operate under the same
investment strategy that we apply to our other operations.
Typically, we will own a 15%-50% interest in our co-investment
joint ventures. We believe that our co-investment program will
continue to serve as a source of capital for acquisitions and
developments; however, we cannot assure you that it will
continue to do so. In addition, our co-investment joint ventures
typically allow us to earn acquisition and development fees,
asset management fees or priority distributions, as well as
promoted interests or incentive distributions based on the
performance of the co-investment joint ventures. As of
December 31, 2006, we owned approximately 64.3 million
square feet of our properties (51.6% of the total operating and
development portfolio) through our consolidated and
unconsolidated joint ventures.
BUSINESS
RISKS
Our operations involve various risks that could have adverse
consequences to us. These risks include, among others:
General
Real Estate Industry Risks
Our
performance and value are subject to general economic conditions
and risks associated with our real estate assets.
The investment returns available from equity investments in real
estate depend on the amount of income earned and capital
appreciation generated by the properties, as well as the
expenses incurred in connection with the properties. If our
properties do not generate income sufficient to meet operating
expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, then
our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders could be
adversely affected. In addition, there are significant
expenditures associated with an investment in real estate (such
as mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs)
that generally do not decline when circumstances reduce the
income from the property. Income from, and the value of, our
properties may be adversely affected by:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the general economic climate;
|
|
|
|
local conditions, such as oversupply of or a reduction in demand
for industrial space;
|
|
|
|
the attractiveness of our properties to potential customers;
|
|
|
|
competition from other properties;
|
|
|
|
our ability to provide adequate maintenance and insurance;
|
|
|
|
increased operating costs;
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
increased cost of compliance with regulations;
|
|
|
|
the potential for liability under applicable laws (including
changes in tax laws); and
|
|
|
|
disruptions in the global supply chain caused by political,
regulatory or other factors, including terrorism.
|
In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession in the
United States and in other countries, rising interest rates or
declining demand for real estate, or public perception that any
of these events may occur, would result in a general decrease in
rents or an increased occurrence of defaults under existing
leases, which would adversely affect our financial condition and
results of operations. Future terrorist attacks may result in
declining economic activity, which could reduce the demand for
and the value of our properties. To the extent that future
attacks impact our customers, their businesses similarly could
be adversely affected, including their ability to continue to
honor their existing leases.
Our properties are concentrated predominantly in the industrial
real estate sector. As a result of this concentration, we would
feel the impact of an economic downturn in this sector more
acutely than if our portfolio included other property types.
We may
be unable to renew leases or relet space as leases
expire.
As of December 31, 2006, leases on a total of 14.3% of our
industrial properties (based on annualized base rent) will
expire on or prior to December 31, 2007. We derive most of
our income from rent received from our customers. Accordingly,
our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and
our ability to pay dividends on, and the market price of, our
stock could be adversely affected if we are unable to promptly
relet or renew these expiring leases or if the rental rates upon
renewal or reletting are significantly lower than expected. If a
customer experiences a downturn in its business or other type of
financial distress, then it may be unable to make timely rental
payments or renew its lease. Further, our ability to rent space
and the rents that we can charge are impacted, not only by
customer demand, but by the number of other properties we have
to compete with to appeal to customers.
Actions
by our competitors may decrease or prevent increases of the
occupancy and rental rates of our properties.
We compete with other developers, owners and operators of real
estate, some of which own properties similar to ours in the same
submarkets in which our properties are located. If our
competitors offer space at rental rates below current market
rates or below the rental rates we currently charge our
customers, we may lose potential customers, and we may be
pressured to reduce our rental rates below those we currently
charge in order to retain customers when our customers
leases expire. As a result, our financial condition, cash flow,
cash available for distribution, trading price of our common
stock and ability to satisfy our debt service obligations could
be materially adversely affected.
Real
estate investments are relatively illiquid, making it difficult
for us to respond promptly to changing conditions.
Real estate assets are not as liquid as certain other types of
assets. Further, the Internal Revenue Code regulates the number
of properties that we as a real estate investment trust, can
dispose of in a year, their tax bases and the cost of
improvements that we make to the properties. In addition, a
portion of the properties held directly or indirectly by certain
of our subsidiary partnerships were acquired in exchange for
limited partnership units in the applicable partnership. The
contribution agreements for such properties may contain
restrictions on certain sales, exchanges or other dispositions
of these properties, or a portion thereof, that result in a
taxable transaction for specified periods, following the
contribution of these properties to the applicable partnership.
These limitations may affect our ability to sell properties.
This lack of liquidity and the Internal Revenue Code
restrictions may limit our ability to vary our portfolio
promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions
and, as a result, could adversely affect our financial
condition, results of operations, cash flow and our ability to
pay dividends on, and the market price of, our stock.
9
We
could be adversely affected if a significant number of our
customers are unable to meet their lease
obligations.
Our results of operations, distributable cash flow and the value
of our stock would be adversely affected if a significant number
of our customers were unable to meet their lease obligations to
us. In the event of a significant number of lease defaults, our
cash flow may not be sufficient to pay dividends to our
stockholders and repay maturing debt. As of December 31,
2006, we did not have any single customer account for annualized
base rent revenues greater than 3.1%. However, in the event of
lease defaults by a significant number of our customers, we may
incur substantial costs in enforcing our rights as landlord.
We may
be unable to consummate acquisitions on advantageous terms or
acquisitions may not perform as we expect.
We acquire and intend to continue to acquire primarily
industrial properties. The acquisition of properties entails
various risks, including the risks that our investments may not
perform as we expect, that we may be unable to quickly and
efficiently integrate our new acquisitions into our existing
operations and that our cost estimates for bringing an acquired
property up to market standards may prove inaccurate. Further,
we face significant competition for attractive investment
opportunities from other well-capitalized real estate investors,
including both publicly-traded real estate investment trusts and
private institutional investment funds. This competition
increases as investments in real estate become increasingly
attractive relative to other forms of investment. As a result of
competition, we may be unable to acquire additional properties
as we desire or the purchase price may be significantly
elevated. In addition, we expect to finance future acquisitions
through a combination of borrowings under our unsecured credit
facilities, proceeds from equity or debt offerings by us or the
operating partnership or its subsidiaries and proceeds from
property divestitures, which may not be available and which
could adversely affect our cash flow. Any of the above risks
could adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the
market price of, our stock.
We may
be unable to complete renovation and development projects on
advantageous terms.
As part of our business, we develop new and renovate existing
properties, and we intend to continue to expand and increase our
investment in our development and renovation business. The real
estate development and renovation business involves significant
risks that could adversely affect our financial condition,
results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends
on, and the market price of, our stock, which include the
following risks:
|
|
|
|
|
we may not be able to obtain financing for development projects
on favorable terms and complete construction on schedule or
within budget, resulting in increased debt service expense and
construction costs and delays in leasing the properties and
generating cash flow;
|
|
|
|
we may not be able to obtain, or may experience delays in
obtaining, all necessary zoning, land-use, building, occupancy
and other governmental permits and authorizations;
|
|
|
|
the properties may perform below anticipated levels, producing
cash flow below budgeted amounts;
|
|
|
|
substantial renovation and new development activities,
regardless of their ultimate success, typically require a
significant amount of managements time and attention,
diverting their attention from our
day-to-day
operations; and
|
|
|
|
upon completion of construction, we may not be able to obtain,
or obtain on advantageous terms, permanent financing for
activities that we have financed through construction loans.
|
Risks
Associated With Our International Business
Our
international growth is subject to special risks and we may not
be able to effectively manage our international
growth.
We have acquired and developed, and expect to continue to
acquire and develop, properties outside the United States.
Because local markets affect our operations, our international
investments are subject to economic
10
fluctuations in the international locations in which we invest.
In addition, our international operations are subject to the
usual risks of doing business abroad such as revisions in tax
treaties or other laws and regulations, including those
governing the taxation of our international revenues,
restrictions on the transfer of funds, and, in certain parts of
the world, uncertainty over property rights and political
instability. We cannot predict the likelihood that any of these
developments may occur. Further, we have entered, and may in the
future enter, into agreements with
non-U.S. entities
that are governed by the laws of, and are subject to dispute
resolution in the courts of, another country or region. We
cannot accurately predict whether such a forum would provide us
with an effective and efficient means of resolving disputes that
may arise. And even if we are able to obtain a satisfactory
decision through arbitration or a court proceeding, we could
have difficulty enforcing any award or judgment on a timely
basis or at all.
We also have offices in many countries outside the United States
and, as a result, our operations may be subject to risks that
may limit our ability to effectively establish, staff and manage
our offices outside the United States, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Differing employment practices and labor issues;
|
|
|
|
Local business and cultural factors that differ from our usual
standards and practices;
|
|
|
|
Regulatory requirements and prohibitions that differ between
jurisdictions; and
|
|
|
|
Health concerns.
|
Our global growth (including growth in new regions in the U.S.)
subjects us to certain risks, including risks associated with
funding increasing headcount, integrating new offices, and
establishing effective controls and procedures to regulate the
operations of new offices. In addition, payroll expenses are
paid in local currencies and, therefore, we are exposed to risks
associated with fluctuations in the rate of exchange between the
U.S. dollar and these currencies.
Further, our business has grown rapidly and continues to grow
through international property acquisitions and developments. If
we fail to effectively manage our international growth, then our
financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and
ability to pay dividends on, and the market price of, our stock
could be adversely affected.
Acquired
properties may be located in new markets, where we may face
risks associated with investing in an unfamiliar
market.
We have acquired and may continue to acquire properties in
international markets that are new to us. When we acquire
properties located in these markets, we may face risks
associated with a lack of market knowledge or understanding of
the local economy, forging new business relationships in the
area and unfamiliarity with local government and permitting
procedures. We work to mitigate such risks through extensive
diligence and research and associations with experienced
partners; however, there can be no guarantee that all such risks
will be eliminated.
We are
subject to risks from potential fluctuations in exchange rates
between the U.S. dollar and the
currencies of the other countries in which we
invest.
We are pursuing, and intend to continue to pursue, growth
opportunities in international markets. As we invest in
countries where the U.S. dollar is not the national
currency, we are subject to international currency risks from
the potential fluctuations in exchange rates between the
U.S. dollar and the currencies of those other countries. A
significant depreciation in the value of the currency of one or
more countries where we have a significant investment may
materially affect our results of operations. We attempt to
mitigate any such effects by borrowing under our multi-currency
credit facility in the currency of the country we are investing
in and, under certain circumstances, by putting in place
international currency put option contracts to hedge exchange
rate fluctuations. For leases denominated in international
currencies, we may use derivative financial instruments to
manage the international currency exchange risk. We cannot,
however, assure you that our efforts will successfully
neutralize all international currency risks. If we do engage in
international currency exchange rate hedging activities, any
income recognized with respect to these hedges (as well as any
international currency gain recognized with respect to changes
in
11
exchange rates) may not qualify under the 75% gross income test
or the 95% gross income test that we must satisfy annually in
order to qualify and maintain our status as a real estate
investment trust.
General
Business Risks
Our
performance and value are impacted by the local economic
conditions of and the risks associated with doing business in
California.
As of December 31, 2006, our industrial properties located
in California represented 25.3% of the aggregate square footage
of our industrial operating properties and 25.4% of our
industrial annualized base rent, on an owned and managed basis.
Our revenue from, and the value of, our properties located in
California may be affected by local real estate conditions (such
as an oversupply of or reduced demand for industrial properties)
and the local economic climate. Business layoffs, downsizing,
industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors may
adversely impact Californias economic climate. Because of
the number of properties we have located in California, a
downturn in Californias economy or real estate conditions
could adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the
market price of, our stock.
We may
experience losses that our insurance does not
cover.
We carry commercial liability, property and rental loss
insurance covering all the properties that we own and manage in
types and amounts that we believe are adequate and appropriate
given the relative risks applicable to the property, the cost of
coverage and industry practice. Certain losses, such as those
due to terrorism, windstorms, floods or seismic activity, may be
insured subject to certain limitations, including large
deductibles or co-payments and policy limits. Although we have
obtained coverage for certain acts of terrorism, with policy
specifications and insured limits that we consider commercially
reasonable given the cost and availability of such coverage, we
cannot be certain that we will be able to renew coverage on
comparable terms or collect under such policies. In addition,
there are other types of losses, such as those from riots,
bio-terrorism or acts of war, that are not generally insured in
our industry because it is not economically feasible to do so.
We may incur material losses in excess of insurance proceeds and
we may not be able to continue to obtain insurance at
commercially reasonable rates. If we experience a loss that is
uninsured or that exceeds our insured limits with respect to one
or more of our properties, then we could lose the capital
invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated
future revenue from those properties and, if there is recourse
debt, then we would remain obligated for any mortgage debt or
other financial obligations related to the properties. Moreover,
as the general partner of the operating partnership, we
generally will be liable for all of the operating
partnerships unsatisfied recourse obligations, including
any obligations incurred by the operating partnership as the
general partner of co-investment joint ventures. Any such losses
could adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the
market price of, our stock.
A number of our properties are located in areas that are known
to be subject to earthquake activity. U.S. properties
located in active seismic areas include properties in the
San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Our
largest concentration of such properties is in California where,
on an owned and managed basis, as of December 31, 2006, we
had 267 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately
25.5 million square feet and representing 25.3% of our
industrial operating properties based on aggregate square
footage and 25.4% based on industrial annualized base rent, on
an owned and managed basis. International properties located in
active seismic areas include Tokyo and Osaka, Japan and Mexico
City, Mexico. We carry earthquake insurance on all of our
properties located in areas historically subject to seismic
activity, subject to coverage limitations and deductibles that
we believe are commercially reasonable. We evaluate our
earthquake insurance coverage annually in light of current
industry practice through an analysis prepared by outside
consultants.
A number of our properties are located in areas that are known
to be subject to hurricane
and/or flood
risk. We carry hurricane and flood hazard insurance on all of
our properties located in areas historically subject to such
activity, subject to coverage limitations and deductibles that
we believe are commercially reasonable. We evaluate our
insurance coverage annually in light of current industry
practice through an analysis prepared by outside consultants. In
2005, various properties that we own or lease in New Orleans,
Louisiana and South Florida suffered damage as a result of
Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. Although we expect that our
insurance will cover losses
12
arising from this damage in excess of the deductibles paid by us
and do not believe that such losses would have a material
adverse effect on our business, assets or results from
operations, we cannot assure you that we will be reimbursed for
all losses incurred.
We are
subject to risks and liabilities in connection with properties
owned through joint ventures, limited liability companies and
partnerships.
As of December 31, 2006, we owned approximately
64.3 million square feet of our properties through several
joint ventures, limited liability companies or partnerships with
third parties. Our organizational documents do not limit the
amount of available funds that we may invest in partnerships,
limited liability companies or joint ventures and we intend to
continue to develop and acquire properties through joint
ventures, limited liability companies and partnerships with
other persons or entities when warranted by the circumstances.
Such partners may share certain approval rights over major
decisions. Partnership, limited liability company or joint
venture investments involve certain risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
if our partners, co-members or joint venturers go bankrupt, then
we and any other remaining general partners, members or joint
venturers would generally remain liable for the
partnerships, limited liability companys or joint
ventures liabilities;
|
|
|
|
if our partners fail to fund their share of any required capital
contributions, then we may be required to contribute such
capital;
|
|
|
|
our partners, co-members or joint venturers might have economic
or other business interests or goals that are inconsistent with
our business interests or goals that would affect our ability to
operate the property;
|
|
|
|
our partners, co-members or joint venturers may have the power
to act contrary to our instructions, requests, policies or
objectives, including our current policy with respect to
maintaining our qualification as a real estate investment trust;
|
|
|
|
the joint venture, limited liability and partnership agreements
often restrict the transfer of a joint ventures,
members or partners interest or may otherwise
restrict our ability to sell the interest when we desire or on
advantageous terms;
|
|
|
|
our relationships with our partners, co-members or joint
ventures are contractual in nature and may be terminated or
dissolved under the terms of the agreements, and in such event,
we may not continue to own or operate the interests or assets
underlying such relationship or may need to purchase such
interests or assets at an above-market price to continue
ownership;
|
|
|
|
disputes between us and our partners, co-members or joint
venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would
increase our expenses and prevent our officers and directors
from focusing their time and effort on our business and result
in subjecting the properties owned by the applicable
partnership, limited liability company, or joint venture to
additional risk; and
|
|
|
|
we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our
partners, co-members or joint venturers.
|
We generally seek to maintain sufficient control of our
partnerships, limited liability companies and joint ventures to
permit us to achieve our business objectives, however, we may
not be able to do so, and the occurrence of one or more of the
events described above could adversely affect our financial
condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay
dividends on, and the market price of, our stock.
We may
be unable to complete divestitures on advantageous terms or
contribute properties.
We intend to continue to divest ourselves of properties that do
not meet our strategic objectives, provided that we can
negotiate acceptable terms and conditions. Our ability to
dispose of properties on advantageous terms depends on factors
beyond our control, including competition from other sellers and
the availability of attractive financing for potential buyers of
our properties. If we are unable to dispose of properties on
favorable terms or redeploy the proceeds of property
divestitures in accordance with our investment strategy, then
our financial
13
condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay
dividends on, and the market price of, our stock could be
adversely affected.
We also anticipate contributing or selling properties to funds
and joint ventures. If the funds are unable to raise additional
capital on favorable terms after currently available capital is
depleted or if the value of such properties are appraised at
less than the cost of such properties, then such contributions
or sales could be delayed or prevented, adversely affecting our
financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and
ability to pay dividends on, and the market price of, our stock.
For example, although we have acquired land for development and
made capital commitments in Japan and Mexico, we cannot be
assured that we ultimately will be able to contribute such
properties to funds or joint ventures as we have planned.
Contingent
or unknown liabilities could adversely affect our financial
condition.
We have acquired and may in the future acquire properties
subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only
limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities. As a
result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon
ownership of any of these entities or properties, then we might
have to pay substantial sums to settle it, which could adversely
affect our cash flow. Contingent or unknown liabilities with
respect to entities or properties acquired might include:
|
|
|
|
|
liabilities for environmental conditions;
|
|
|
|
accrued but unpaid liabilities incurred in the ordinary course
of business;
|
|
|
|
tax liabilities; and
|
|
|
|
claims for indemnification by the general partners, officers and
directors and others indemnified by the former owners of the
properties.
|
We are
dependent on external sources of capital.
In order to qualify as a real estate investment trust, we are
required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least
90% of our real estate investment trust taxable income
(determined without regard to the dividends-paid deduction and
by excluding any net capital gain) and are taxed on our income
to the extent it is not fully distributed. Consequently, we may
not be able to fund all future capital needs, including
acquisition and development activities, from cash retained from
operations and must rely on third-party sources of capital.
Further, in order to maintain our real estate investment trust
status and avoid the payment of income and excise taxes, we may
need to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the real
estate investment trust distribution requirements even if the
then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these
borrowings. These short-term borrowing needs could result from
differences in timing between the actual receipt of cash and
inclusion of income for federal income tax purposes, or the
effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of
reserves or required debt or amortization payments. Our ability
to access private debt and equity capital on favorable terms or
at all is dependent upon a number of factors, including general
market conditions, the markets perception of our growth
potential, our current and potential future earnings and cash
distributions and the market price of our capital stock.
Debt
Financing Risks
We
could incur more debt, increasing our debt
service.
It is our policy to incur debt, either directly or through our
subsidiaries, only if it will not cause our share of total
debt-to-our
share of total market capitalization ratio to exceed
approximately 45%. Our definition of our share of total
market capitalization is our share of total debt plus
preferred equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. See
footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained in
Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation Liquidity and Capital Resources for
our definitions of market equity and our share
of total debt. The aggregate amount of indebtedness that
we may incur under our policy increases directly with an
increase in the market price per share of our capital stock.
Further, our management could alter or eliminate this policy
without stockholder approval. If we change this policy, then we
14
could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in
debt service that could adversely affect the cash available for
distribution to our stockholders.
We
face risks associated with the use of debt to fund acquisitions
and developments, including refinancing risk.
As of December 31, 2006, we had total debt outstanding of
$3.4 billion. We guarantee the operating partnerships
obligations with respect to the senior debt securities
referenced in our financial statements. We are subject to risks
normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that
our cash flow will be insufficient to meet required payments of
principal and interest. We anticipate that we will repay only a
small portion of the principal of our debt prior to maturity.
Accordingly, we will likely need to refinance at least a portion
of our outstanding debt as it matures. There is a risk that we
may not be able to refinance existing debt or that the terms of
any refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of our
existing debt. If we are unable to refinance or extend principal
payments due at maturity or pay them with proceeds of other
capital transactions, then we expect that our cash flow will not
be sufficient in all years to pay dividends to our stockholders
and to repay all such maturing debt. Furthermore, if prevailing
interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing (such
as the reluctance of lenders to make commercial real estate
loans) result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, then
the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness
would increase.
In addition, if we mortgage one or more of our properties to
secure payment of indebtedness and we are unable to meet
mortgage payments, then the property could be foreclosed upon or
transferred to the mortgagee with a consequent loss of income
and asset value. A foreclosure on one or more of our properties
could adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the
market price of, our stock.
Covenants
in our debt agreements could adversely affect our financial
condition.
The terms of our credit agreements and other indebtedness
require that we comply with a number of financial and other
covenants, such as maintaining debt service coverage and
leverage ratios and maintaining insurance coverage. These
covenants may limit flexibility in our operations, and our
failure to comply with these covenants could cause a default
under the applicable debt agreement even if we have satisfied
our payment obligations. As of December 31, 2006, we had
certain non-recourse, secured loans, which are
cross-collateralized by multiple properties. If we default on
any of these loans, we may then be required to repay such
indebtedness, together with applicable prepayment charges, to
avoid foreclosure on all the cross-collateralized properties
within the applicable pool. Foreclosure on our properties, or
our inability to refinance our loans on favorable terms, could
adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations,
cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the market price
of, our stock. In addition, our credit facilities and senior
debt securities contain certain cross-default provisions, which
are triggered in the event that our other material indebtedness
is in default. These cross-default provisions may require us to
repay or restructure the credit facilities and the senior debt
securities in addition to any mortgage or other debt that is in
default, which could adversely affect our financial condition,
results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends
on, and the market price of, our stock.
Failure
to hedge effectively against interest rates may adversely affect
results of operations.
We seek to manage our exposure to interest rate volatility by
using interest rate hedging arrangements, such as interest rate
cap agreements and interest rate swap agreements. These
agreements involve risks, such as the risk that the
counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these
arrangements, that these arrangements may not be effective in
reducing our exposure to interest rate changes and that a court
could rule that such agreements are not legally enforceable.
Hedging may reduce overall returns on our investments. Failure
to hedge effectively against interest rate changes may
materially adversely affect our results of operations.
15
Conflicts
of Interest Risks
Some
of our directors and executive officers are involved in other
real estate activities and investments and, therefore, may have
conflicts of interest with us.
From time to time, certain of our executive officers and
directors may own interests in other real-estate related
businesses and investments, including de minimis holdings of the
equity securities of public and private real estate companies.
Our executive officers involvement in other real
estate-related activities could divert their attention from our
day-to-day
operations. Our executive officers have entered into
non-competition agreements with us pursuant to which they have
agreed not to engage in any activities, directly or indirectly,
in respect of commercial real estate, and not to make any
investment in respect of any industrial or retail real estate,
other than through ownership of not more than 5% of the
outstanding shares of a public company engaged in such
activities or through certain specified investments. State law
may limit our ability to enforce these agreements. We will not
acquire any properties from our executive officers, directors or
their affiliates unless the transaction is approved by a
majority of the disinterested and independent (as defined by the
rules of the New York Stock Exchange) members of our board of
directors with respect to that transaction.
Our
role as general partner of the operating partnership may
conflict with the interests of our stockholders.
As the general partner of the operating partnership, we have
fiduciary obligations to the operating partnerships
limited partners, the discharge of which may conflict with the
interests of our stockholders. In addition, those persons
holding limited partnership units will have the right to vote as
a class on certain amendments to the operating
partnerships partnership agreement and individually to
approve certain amendments that would adversely affect their
rights. The limited partners may exercise these voting rights in
a manner that conflicts with the interests of our stockholders.
In addition, under the terms of the operating partnerships
partnership agreement, holders of limited partnership units will
have certain approval rights with respect to certain
transactions that affect all stockholders but which they may not
exercise in a manner that reflects the interests of all
stockholders.
Risks
Associated with Government Regulations
The
costs of compliance with environmental laws and regulations and
any related potential liability could exceed our budgets for
these items.
Under various environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a
current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be
liable for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of
certain hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at,
on, under or in its property. The costs of removal or
remediation of such substances could be substantial. These laws
typically impose liability and
clean-up
responsibility without regard to whether the owner or operator
knew of or caused the presence of the contaminants. Even if more
than one person may have been responsible for the contamination,
each person covered by the environmental laws may be held
responsible for all of the
clean-up
costs incurred. In addition, third parties may sue the owner or
operator of a site for damages based on personal injury,
property damage or other costs, including investigation and
clean-up
costs, resulting from the environmental contamination.
Environmental laws in some countries, including the U.S., also
require that owners or operators of buildings containing
asbestos properly manage and maintain the asbestos, adequately
inform or train those who may come into contact with asbestos
and undertake special precautions, including removal or other
abatement, in the event that asbestos is disturbed during
building renovation or demolition. These laws may impose fines
and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply
with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek
recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated
with exposure to asbestos. Some of our properties may contain
asbestos-containing building materials.
In addition, some of our properties are leased or have been
leased, in part, to owners and operators of businesses that use,
store or otherwise handle petroleum products or other hazardous
or toxic substances, creating a potential for the release of
such hazardous or toxic substances. Further, certain of our
properties are on, adjacent to or near other properties that
have contained or currently contain petroleum products or other
hazardous or toxic
16
substances, or upon which others have engaged, are engaged or
may engage in activities that may release such hazardous or
toxic substances. From time to time, we may acquire properties,
or interests in properties, with known adverse environmental
conditions where we believe that the environmental liabilities
associated with these conditions are quantifiable and that the
acquisition will yield a superior risk-adjusted return. In such
an instance, we underwrite the costs of environmental
investigation,
clean-up and
monitoring into the acquisition cost and obtain appropriate
environmental insurance for the property. Further, in connection
with certain divested properties, we have agreed to remain
responsible for, and to bear the cost of, remediating or
monitoring certain environmental conditions on the properties.
At the time of acquisition, we subject all of our properties to
a Phase I or similar environmental assessments by
independent environmental consultants and we may have additional
Phase II testing performed upon the consultants
recommendation. These environmental assessments have not
revealed, and we are not aware of, any environmental liability
that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.
Nonetheless, it is possible that the assessments did not reveal
all environmental liabilities and that there are material
environmental liabilities unknown to us, or that known
environmental conditions may give rise to liabilities that are
greater than we anticipated. Further, our properties
current environmental condition may be affected by customers,
the condition of land, operations in the vicinity of the
properties (such as releases from underground storage tanks) or
by unrelated third parties. If the costs of compliance with
existing or future environmental laws and regulations exceed our
budgets for these items, then our financial condition, results
of operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and
the market price of, our stock could be adversely affected.
Compliance
or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
and other similar regulations could result in substantial
costs.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, places of public
accommodation must meet certain federal requirements related to
access and use by disabled persons. Noncompliance could result
in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the
award of damages to private litigants. If we are required to
make unanticipated expenditures to comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, including removing access barriers, then
our cash flow and the amounts available for dividends to our
stockholders may be adversely affected. Our properties are also
subject to various federal, state and local regulatory
requirements, such as state and local fire and life-safety
requirements. We could incur fines or private damage awards if
we fail to comply with these requirements. While we believe that
our properties are currently in material compliance with these
regulatory requirements, the requirements may change or new
requirements may be imposed that could require significant
unanticipated expenditures by us that will affect our cash flow
and results of operations.
Federal
Income Tax Risks
Our
failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust would have
serious adverse consequences to our stockholders.
We elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust under
Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the Internal Revenue Code)
commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 1997.
We currently intend to operate so as to qualify as a real estate
investment trust under the Internal Revenue Code and believe
that our current organization and method of operation comply
with the rules and regulations promulgated under the Internal
Revenue Code to enable us to continue to qualify as a real
estate investment trust. However, it is possible that we have
been organized or have operated in a manner that would not allow
us to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or that our
future operations could cause us to fail to qualify.
Qualification as a real estate investment trust requires us to
satisfy numerous requirements (some on an annual and others on a
quarterly basis) established under highly technical and complex
Internal Revenue Code provisions for which there are only
limited judicial and administrative interpretations, and
involves the determination of various factual matters and
circumstances not entirely within our control. For example, in
order to qualify as a real estate investment trust, we must
derive at least 95% of our gross income in any year from
qualifying sources. In addition, we must pay dividends to
stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our real
estate investment trust taxable income (determined without
regard to the dividends paid deduction and by excluding capital
gains) and must satisfy
17
specified asset tests on a quarterly basis. These provisions and
the applicable Treasury regulations are more complicated in our
case because we hold our assets through the operating
partnership. Legislation, new regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions could significantly change
the tax laws with respect to qualification as a real estate
investment trust or the federal income tax consequences of such
qualification. However, we are not aware of any pending tax
legislation that would adversely affect our ability to qualify
as a real estate investment trust.
If we fail to qualify as a real estate investment trust in any
taxable year, then we will be required to pay federal income tax
(including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our
taxable income at regular corporate rates. Unless we are
entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we would
be disqualified from treatment as a real estate investment trust
for the four taxable years following the year in which we lost
qualification. If we lose our real estate investment trust
status, then our net earnings available for investment or
distribution to stockholders would be significantly reduced for
each of the years involved. In addition, we would no longer be
required to make distributions to our stockholders.
Certain
property transfers may generate prohibited transaction income,
resulting in a penalty tax on gain attributable to the
transaction.
From time to time, we may transfer or otherwise dispose of some
of our properties, including the contribution of properties to
our joint venture funds. Under the Internal Revenue Code, any
gain resulting from transfers of properties that we hold as
inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary
course of business would be treated as income from a prohibited
transaction subject to a 100% penalty tax. Since we acquire
properties for investment purposes, we do not believe that our
occasional transfers or disposals of property or our
contributions of properties into our joint venture funds are
properly treated as prohibited transactions. However, whether
property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact
that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
particular transaction. The Internal Revenue Service may contend
that certain transfers or disposals of properties by us or
contributions of properties into our joint venture funds are
prohibited transactions. While we believe that the Internal
Revenue Service would not prevail in any such dispute, if the
Internal Revenue Service were to argue successfully that a
transfer or disposition or contribution of property constituted
a prohibited transaction, then we would be required to pay a
100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to us from the prohibited
transaction. In addition, income from a prohibited transaction
might adversely affect our ability to satisfy the income tests
for qualification as a real estate investment trust for federal
income tax purposes.
Risks
Associated With Our Dependence on Key Personnel
We depend on the efforts of our executive officers and other key
employees. From time to time, our personnel and their roles may
change. While we believe that we could find suitable employees
to meet our personnel needs, the loss of key personnel, any
change in their roles, or the limitation of their availability
could adversely affect our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends on, and the
market price of, our stock. We do not have employment agreements
with any of our executive officers.
Because our compensation packages include equity-based
incentives, pressure on our stock price or limitations on our
ability to award such incentives could affect our ability to
offer competitive compensation packages to our executives and
key employees. If we are unable to continue to attract and
retain our executive officers, or if compensation costs required
to attract and retain key employees become more expensive, our
performance and competitive position could be materially
adversely affected.
Risks
Associated with Our Disclosure Controls and Procedures and
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our
business could be adversely impacted if we have deficiencies in
our disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over
financial reporting.
The design and effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent all errors, misstatements or misrepresentations. While
management will continue to review the effectiveness of our
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting,
18
there can be no guarantee that our internal control over
financial reporting will be effective in accomplishing all
control objectives all of the time. Deficiencies, including any
material weakness, in our internal control over financial
reporting which may occur in the future could result in
misstatements of our results of operations, restatements of our
financial statements, a decline in our stock price, or otherwise
materially adversely affect our business, reputation, results of
operations, financial condition or liquidity.
Risks
Associated with Ownership of Our Stock
Limitations
in our charter and bylaws could prevent a change in
control.
Certain provisions of our charter and bylaws may delay, defer or
prevent a change in control or other transaction that could
provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to
realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price for the
common stock. To maintain our qualification as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes, not more than
50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, actually or
constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the
Internal Revenue Code to include certain entities) during the
last half of a taxable year after the first taxable year for
which a real estate investment trust election is made.
Furthermore, our common stock must be held by a minimum of
100 persons for at least 335 days of a
12-month
taxable year (or a proportionate part of a short tax year). In
addition, if we, or an owner of 10% or more of our stock,
actually or constructively owns 10% or more of one of our
customers (or a customer of any partnership in which we are a
partner), then the rent received by us (either directly or
through any such partnership) from that customer will not be
qualifying income for purposes of the real estate investment
trust gross income tests of the Internal Revenue Code. To help
us maintain our qualification as a real estate investment trust
for federal income tax purposes, we prohibit the ownership,
actually or by virtue of the constructive ownership provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code, by any single person, of more than
9.8% (by value or number of shares, whichever is more
restrictive) of the issued and outstanding shares of each of our
common stock, series L preferred stock, series M
preferred stock, series O preferred stock, and
series P preferred stock. We also prohibit the ownership,
actually or constructively, of any shares of our
series D, I, J and K preferred stock by any single
person so that no such person, taking into account all of our
stock so owned by such person, including any common stock or
other series of preferred stock, may own in excess of 9.8% of
our issued and outstanding capital stock. We refer to this
limitation as the ownership limit. Shares acquired
or held in violation of the ownership limit will be transferred
to a trust for the benefit of a designated charitable
beneficiary. Any person who acquires shares in violation of the
ownership limit will not be entitled to any dividends on the
shares or be entitled to vote the shares or receive any proceeds
from the subsequent sale of the shares in excess of the lesser
of the price paid for the shares or the amount realized from the
sale. A transfer of shares in violation of the above limits may
be void under certain circumstances. The ownership limit may
have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in
control and, therefore, could adversely affect our
stockholders ability to realize a premium over the
then-prevailing market price for the shares of our common stock
in connection with such transaction.
Our charter authorizes us to issue additional shares of common
and preferred stock and to establish the preferences, rights and
other terms of any series or class of preferred stock that we
issue. Although our board of directors has no intention to do so
at the present time, it could establish a series or class of
preferred stock that could have the effect of delaying,
deferring or preventing a transaction, including a change in
control, that might involve a premium price for the common stock
or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.
Our charter and bylaws and Maryland law also contain other
provisions that may impede various actions by stockholders
without approval of our board of directors, which in turn may
delay, defer or prevent a transaction, including a change in
control. Those provisions in our charter and bylaws include:
|
|
|
|
|
directors may be removed only for cause and only upon a
two-thirds vote of stockholders;
|
|
|
|
our board can fix the number of directors within set limits
(which limits are subject to change by our board), and fill
vacant directorships upon the vote of a majority of the
remaining directors, even though less than a quorum, or in the
case of a vacancy resulting from an increase in the size of the
board, a majority of the entire board;
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
stockholders must give advance notice to nominate directors or
propose business for consideration at a stockholders
meeting; and
|
|
|
|
the request of the holders of 50% or more of our common stock is
necessary for stockholders to call a special meeting.
|
Those provisions provided for under Maryland law include:
|
|
|
|
|
a two-thirds vote of stockholders is required to amend our
charter; and
|
|
|
|
stockholders may only act by written consent with the unanimous
approval of all stockholders entitled to vote on the matter in
question.
|
In addition, our board could elect to adopt, without stockholder
approval, certain other provisions under Maryland law that may
impede a change in control.
The
market value of our stock could be substantially affected by
various factors.
As with other publicly traded securities, the trading price of
our stock will depend on many factors that are not within our
control and may change from time to time, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the extent of investor interest in us;
|
|
|
|
the market for similar securities issued by real estate
investment trusts;
|
|
|
|
the general reputation of real estate investment trusts and the
attractiveness of their equity securities in comparison to other
equity securities (including securities issued by other real
estate-based companies);
|
|
|
|
general stock and bond market conditions, including changes in
interest rates on fixed income securities, that may lead
prospective purchasers of our stock to demand a higher annual
yield from future dividends;
|
|
|
|
terrorist activity may adversely affect the markets in which our
securities trade, possibly increasing market volatility and
causing the further erosion of business and consumer confidence
and spending;
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions; and
|
|
|
|
our financial condition, performance and prospects.
|
Other factors such as governmental regulatory action and changes
in tax laws could also have a significant impact on the future
trading price of our stock.
If we
issue additional securities, then the investment of existing
stockholders will be diluted.
As a real estate investment trust, we are dependent on external
sources of capital and may issue common or preferred stock or
debt securities to fund our future capital needs. We have
authority to issue shares of common stock or other equity or
debt securities, and to cause the operating partnership or AMB
Property II, L.P., to issue limited partnership units, in
exchange for property or otherwise. Existing stockholders have
no preemptive right to acquire any additional securities issued
by the operating partnership, AMB Property II, L.P., or us
and any issuance of additional equity securities may adversely
effect the market price of our stock and could result in
dilution of an existing stockholders investment.
Earnings,
cash dividends, asset value and market interest rates affect the
price of our stock.
As a real estate investment trust, the market value of our
equity securities, in general, is based primarily upon the
markets perception of our growth potential and our current
and potential future earnings and cash dividends. Our equity
securities market value is based secondarily upon the
market value of our underlying real estate assets. For this
reason, shares of our stock may trade at prices that are higher
or lower than our net asset value per share. To the extent that
we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working
capital reserves, or other purposes, these retained funds, while
increasing the value of our underlying assets, may not
correspondingly increase the market price of our stock. Our
failure to meet the markets expectations with regard to
future earnings and cash dividends likely would adversely affect
the market price of our stock. Further, the distribution yield
on the stock (as
20
a percentage of the price of the stock) relative to market
interest rates may also influence the price of our stock. An
increase in market interest rates might lead prospective
purchasers of our stock to expect a higher distribution yield,
which would adversely affect our stocks market price.
Additionally, if the market price of our stock declines
significantly, then we might breach certain covenants with
respect to our debt obligations, which could adversely affect
our liquidity and ability to make future acquisitions and our
ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
We
could change our investment and financing policies without a
vote of stockholders.
Subject to our current investment policy to maintain our
qualification as a real estate investment trust (unless a change
is approved by our board of directors under certain
circumstances), our board of directors determines our investment
and financing policies, our growth strategy and our debt,
capitalization, distribution and operating policies. Our board
of directors may revise or amend these strategies and policies
at any time without a vote of stockholders. Any such changes may
not serve the interests of all stockholders and could adversely
affect our financial condition or results of operations,
including our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Shares
available for future sale could adversely affect the market
price of our common stock.
The operating partnership and AMB Property II, L.P. had
4,709,056 common limited partnership units issued and
outstanding as of December 31, 2006, which may be exchanged
generally one year after their issuance on a
one-for-one
basis into shares of our common stock. In the future, the
operating partnership or AMB Property II, L.P. may issue
additional limited partnership units, and we may issue shares of
common stock, in connection with the acquisition of properties
or in private placements. These shares of common stock and the
shares of common stock issuable upon exchange of limited
partnership units may be sold in the public securities markets
over time, pursuant to registration rights that we have granted,
or may grant in connection with future issuances, or pursuant to
Rule 144. In addition, common stock issued under our stock
option and incentive plans may also be sold in the market
pursuant to registration statements that we have filed or
pursuant to Rule 144. As of December 31, 2006, under
our stock option and incentive plans, we had
3,230,106 shares of common stock reserved and available for
future issuance, had outstanding options to purchase
6,843,025 shares of common stock (of which 5,404,361 are
vested and exercisable) and had 611,549 unvested restricted
shares of common stock outstanding. Future sales of a
substantial number of shares of our common stock in the market
or the perception that such sales might occur could adversely
affect the market price of our common stock. Further, the
existence of the operating partnerships limited
partnership units and the shares of our common stock reserved
for issuance upon exchange of limited partnership units and the
exercise of options, and registration rights referred to above,
may adversely affect the terms upon which we are able to obtain
additional capital through the sale of equity securities.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTIES
As of December 31, 2006, we owned and managed 964
industrial buildings aggregating approximately
100.7 million rentable square feet (on a consolidated
basis, we had 820 industrial buildings aggregating approximately
80.3 million rentable square feet), excluding development
and renovation projects and recently completed development
projects available for sale or contribution, located in 34
markets throughout the United States and in China, France,
Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. Our industrial
properties were 96.1% leased to 2,633 customers, the
largest of which accounted for no more than 3.1% of our
annualized base rent from our industrial properties. See
Part IV, Item 15: Note 16 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for segment information
related to our operations.
Property Characteristics. Our industrial
properties, which consist primarily of warehouse distribution
facilities suitable for single or multiple customers, are
typically comprised of multiple buildings.
21
The following table identifies types and characteristics of our
industrial buildings and each types percentage, based on
square footage, of our total owned and managed operating
portfolio, which we define as properties in which we have at
least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property or
asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Building Type
|
|
Description
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
Warehouse
|
|
Customers typically
15,000-75,000 square feet, single or multi-customer
|
|
|
48.4
|
%
|
|
|
44.2
|
%
|
Bulk Warehouse
|
|
Customers typically over
75,000 square feet, single or multi-customer
|
|
|
38.3
|
%
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
Flex Industrial
|
|
Includes assembly or
research & development, single or multi-customer
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
Light Industrial
|
|
Smaller customers,
15,000 square feet or less, higher office finish
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
Trans-Shipment
|
|
Unique configurations for truck
terminals and cross-docking
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Air Cargo
|
|
On-tarmac or airport land for
transfer of air cargo goods
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Office
|
|
Single or multi-customer, used
strictly for office
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The information for 2005 is presented on a consolidated basis
while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned and
managed basis. Management believes that the difference in
comparability between 2006 and 2005 is not significant. |
Lease Terms. Our industrial properties are
typically subject to lease on a triple net basis, in
which customers pay their proportionate share of real estate
taxes, insurance and operating costs, or are subject to leases
on a modified gross basis, in which customers pay
expenses over certain threshold levels. In addition, most of our
leases include fixed rental increases or Consumer Price
Index-based rental increases. Lease terms typically range from
three to ten years, with a weighted average of six years,
excluding renewal options. However, the majority of our
industrial leases do not include renewal options.
Overview of Major Target Markets. Our
industrial properties are typically located near major airports,
key interstate highways and seaports in major
U.S. metropolitan areas, which currently comprise Atlanta,
Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Northern New Jersey/New
York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle. Our
other U.S. target markets include Austin,
Baltimore/Washington D.C., Boston, Houston, Minneapolis and
Orlando. Our
non-U.S. industrial
properties are located in major distribution markets, including
Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Guadalajara, Hamburg, Lyon, Mexico City,
Osaka, Paris, Queretaro, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo and Toronto.
Within these metropolitan areas, our industrial properties are
generally concentrated in locations with limited new
construction opportunities within established, relatively large
submarkets, which we believe should provide a higher rate of
occupancy and rent growth than properties located elsewhere.
These in-fill locations are typically near major airports,
seaports or convenient to major highways and rail lines, and are
proximate to large and diverse labor pools. There is typically
broad demand for industrial space in these centrally located
submarkets due to a diverse mix of industries and types of
industrial uses, including warehouse distribution, light
assembly and manufacturing. We generally avoid locations at the
periphery of metropolitan areas where there are fewer
constraints to the supply of additional industrial properties.
22
Owned and
Managed Market Operating Statistics(1)
As of December 31, 2006, we held investments in operating
properties in 34 markets in our owned and managed operating
portfolio throughout the United States and in China, France,
Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands. The following table
represents properties in which we have at least a 10% ownership
interest, for which we are the property or asset manager, and
which we intend to hold for the long-term:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. New
|
|
|
San
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Hub and
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Total/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Los
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey/
|
|
|
Francisco
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Gateway
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Atlanta
|
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Dallas
|
|
|
Angeles(2)
|
|
|
Miami
|
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Bay Area
|
|
|
Seattle
|
|
|
On-Tarmac(3)
|
|
|
Markets
|
|
|
Markets
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Number of buildings(8)
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
133
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
755
|
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
964
|
|
Rentable square feet(8)
|
|
|
4,622,651
|
|
|
|
11,321,419
|
|
|
|
4,843,064
|
|
|
|
14,858,376
|
|
|
|
5,678,594
|
|
|
|
10,538,097
|
|
|
|
10,499,059
|
|
|
|
7,430,006
|
|
|
|
2,681,328
|
|
|
|
72,472,594
|
|
|
|
28,230,321
|
|
|
|
100,702,915
|
|
% of total rentable square feet
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
|
|
11.2
|
%
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Occupancy percentage
|
|
|
92.7
|
%
|
|
|
95.1
|
%
|
|
|
97.8
|
%
|
|
|
95.8
|
%
|
|
|
97.9
|
%
|
|
|
98.7
|
%
|
|
|
97.4
|
%
|
|
|
96.0
|
%
|
|
|
96.3
|
%
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
|
95.0
|
%
|
|
|
96.1
|
%
|
Annualized base rent (000s)
|
|
$
|
19,016
|
|
|
$
|
56,603
|
|
|
$
|
22,387
|
|
|
$
|
92,562
|
|
|
$
|
42,148
|
|
|
$
|
75,719
|
|
|
$
|
70,466
|
|
|
$
|
34,913
|
|
|
$
|
46,402
|
|
|
$
|
460,216
|
|
|
$
|
186,948
|
|
|
$
|
647,164
|
|
% of total annualized base rent
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
8.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
14.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
71.1
|
%
|
|
|
28.9
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Number of leases
|
|
|
163
|
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
394
|
|
|
|
259
|
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
344
|
|
|
|
230
|
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
2,491
|
|
|
|
785
|
|
|
|
3,276
|
|
Annualized base rent per square foot
|
|
$
|
4.44
|
|
|
$
|
5.26
|
|
|
$
|
4.73
|
|
|
$
|
6.50
|
|
|
$
|
7.58
|
|
|
$
|
7.28
|
|
|
$
|
6.89
|
|
|
$
|
4.89
|
|
|
$
|
17.96
|
|
|
$
|
6.59
|
|
|
$
|
6.97
|
|
|
$
|
6.69
|
|
Lease expirations as a % of ABR:(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
15.8
|
%
|
|
|
26.3
|
%
|
|
|
17.1
|
%
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
22.5
|
%
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
18.9
|
%
|
|
|
16.0
|
%
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
14.3
|
%
|
2008
|
|
|
21.4
|
%
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
19.1
|
%
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
16.7
|
%
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
13.8
|
%
|
|
|
15.5
|
%
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
|
|
13.8
|
%
|
2009
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
|
|
17.2
|
%
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
16.3
|
%
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
21.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
16.2
|
%
|
|
|
11.8
|
%
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
Weighted average lease terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
5.2 years
|
|
|
|
4.8 years
|
|
|
|
5.6 years
|
|
|
|
5.9 years
|
|
|
|
5.6 years
|
|
|
|
6.9 years
|
|
|
|
5.6 years
|
|
|
|
6.0 years
|
|
|
|
8.6 years
|
|
|
|
5.8 years
|
|
|
|
6.6 years
|
|
|
|
6.1 years
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
2.5 years
|
|
|
|
2.6 years
|
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
|
|
3.4 years
|
|
|
|
3.8 years
|
|
|
|
2.4 years
|
|
|
|
2.8 years
|
|
|
|
4.6 years
|
|
|
|
3.1 years
|
|
|
|
4.0 years
|
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
Tenant retention:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
57.1
|
%
|
|
|
84.7
|
%
|
|
|
37.1
|
%
|
|
|
83.6
|
%
|
|
|
83.7
|
%
|
|
|
66.6
|
%
|
|
|
54.2
|
%
|
|
|
45.5
|
%
|
|
|
84.5
|
%
|
|
|
71.9
|
%
|
|
|
55.4
|
%
|
|
|
68.9
|
%
|
Year-to-date
|
|
|
66.9
|
%
|
|
|
69.7
|
%
|
|
|
47.6
|
%
|
|
|
78.5
|
%
|
|
|
77.0
|
%
|
|
|
75.6
|
%
|
|
|
71.2
|
%
|
|
|
76.2
|
%
|
|
|
90.8
|
%
|
|
|
73.4
|
%
|
|
|
61.3
|
%
|
|
|
70.9
|
%
|
Rent increases on renewals and
rollovers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)%
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
|
(3.6
|
)%
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
11.2
|
%
|
|
|
(21.0
|
)%
|
|
|
13.5
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Same space square feet leased
|
|
|
233,627
|
|
|
|
557,402
|
|
|
|
200,241
|
|
|
|
990,934
|
|
|
|
155,519
|
|
|
|
305,275
|
|
|
|
317,314
|
|
|
|
155,385
|
|
|
|
85,242
|
|
|
|
3,000,939
|
|
|
|
580,710
|
|
|
|
3,581,649
|
|
Year-to-date
|
|
|
(8.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(5.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)%
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
(13.2
|
)%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
Same space square feet leased
|
|
|
862,757
|
|
|
|
2,270,278
|
|
|
|
777,789
|
|
|
|
2,842,876
|
|
|
|
1,083,300
|
|
|
|
2,175,615
|
|
|
|
1,505,411
|
|
|
|
1,080,155
|
|
|
|
418,545
|
|
|
|
13,016,726
|
|
|
|
3,186,854
|
|
|
|
16,203,580
|
|
Same store cash basis NOI %
change:(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)%
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
(7.5
|
)%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Year-to-date
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
16.8
|
%
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)%
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
Square feet owned in same store
pool(6)
|
|
|
3,611,600
|
|
|
|
8,479,166
|
|
|
|
3,515,471
|
|
|
|
12,162,203
|
|
|
|
4,681,107
|
|
|
|
8,817,823
|
|
|
|
9,835,672
|
|
|
|
6,119,008
|
|
|
|
2,564,083
|
|
|
|
59,786,133
|
|
|
|
17,505,733
|
|
|
|
77,291,866
|
|
Our pro rata share of square feet(7)
|
|
|
2,355,377
|
|
|
|
9,032,175
|
|
|
|
2,856,821
|
|
|
|
11,289,385
|
|
|
|
4,480,180
|
|
|
|
5,571,416
|
|
|
|
7,849,682
|
|
|
|
3,880,944
|
|
|
|
1,494,569
|
|
|
|
48,810,549
|
|
|
|
19,677,264
|
|
|
|
68,487,813
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our owned and managed portfolio excludes development and
renovation projects and recently completed development projects
available for sale or contribution. |
|
(2) |
|
We also own a 19.9 acre land parcel, which is leased to a
parking lot operator in the Los Angeles market immediately
adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes domestic on-tarmac air cargo facilities at 14 airports. |
|
(4) |
|
Annualized base rent, or ABR, is calculated as monthly base rent
(cash basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31,
2006, multiplied by 12. |
|
(5) |
|
See Part II Item 7: Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Supplemental Earnings Measures for
a discussion of why management believes same store cash basis
NOI is a useful supplemental measure for our management and
investors, of ways to use this measure when assessing the
Companys financial performance, and the limitations of the
measure as a measurement tool. |
|
(6) |
|
Same store pool excludes properties purchased and developments
stabilized after December 31, 2004. Stabilized properties
are generally defined as properties that are 90% leased or
properties for which we have held a certificate of occupancy or
where building has been substantially complete for at least
12 months. |
|
(7) |
|
Calculated as our pro rata share of square feet on owned and
managed operating properties as well as non-managed operating
properties. |
|
(8) |
|
On a consolidated basis, we have 820 industrial buildings,
totaling approximately 80.3 million square feet. |
23
Owned and
Managed Operating Portfolio Overview(1)
As of December 31, 2006, our 964 industrial buildings were
diversified across 34 markets throughout the United States and
in China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands.
The average age of our industrial properties is approximately
23 years (since the property was built or substantially
renovated). The following table represents our owned and managed
properties which we define as properties in which we have at
least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the asset
or property manager, and which we intend to hold for the
long-term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentable
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Rentable
|
|
|
Occupancy
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Base Rent per
|
|
|
|
Buildings(5)
|
|
|
Feet(5)
|
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
(000s)(3)
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
of Leases
|
|
|
Square Foot
|
|
|
U.S. Hub and Gateway
Markets
|
|
|
755
|
|
|
|
72,472,594
|
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
460,216
|
|
|
|
71.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,491
|
|
|
$
|
6.59
|
|
U.S. Other Target
Markets(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Austin
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
1,758,369
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
|
|
9,964
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
5.91
|
|
Baltimore/Washington DC
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
3,046,324
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
99.6
|
|
|
|
20,580
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
6.78
|
|
Boston
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
5,188,593
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
92.5
|
|
|
|
31,452
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
6.55
|
|
Houston
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1,236,401
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
83.5
|
|
|
|
7,145
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
6.92
|
|
Minneapolis
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
3,886,858
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
96.2
|
|
|
|
17,216
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
4.61
|
|
Orlando
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
1,424,748
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
99.8
|
|
|
|
6,719
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
4.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal/Weighted
Average
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
16,541,293
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
%
|
|
|
95.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
93,076
|
|
|
|
14.4
|
%
|
|
|
556
|
|
|
|
5.92
|
|
U.S. Non-Target
Markets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbus
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
240,000
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2.30
|
|
New Orleans
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
410,849
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
2,107
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
5.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal/Weighted
Average
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
650,849
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,659
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
4.09
|
|
Non U.S. Target
Markets(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guadalajara, Mexico
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
933,542
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
5,061
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
5.42
|
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
1,803,973
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
95.1
|
|
|
|
10,481
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
6.11
|
|
Queretaro, Mexico
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
95,949
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
482
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
5.02
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
964,039
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
8,377
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
8.69
|
|
Frankfurt, Germany
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
166,917
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
2,669
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
15.99
|
|
Hamburg, Germany
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
959,214
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
7,931
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
8.36
|
|
Lyon, France
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
262,491
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
1,758
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
6.70
|
|
Paris, France
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
1,885,532
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
96.2
|
|
|
|
15,179
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
8.37
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osaka, Japan
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
965,155
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
90.3
|
|
|
|
7,546
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
8.66
|
|
Shanghai, China
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
151,749
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3.62
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
2,849,618
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
88.8
|
|
|
|
31,179
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
12.32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal/Weighted
Average
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
11,038,179
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
94.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
91,213
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
$
|
8.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Markets
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
28,230,321
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
|
95.0
|
|
|
|
186,948
|
|
|
|
28.9
|
|
|
|
785
|
|
|
|
6.97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total/Weighted Average
|
|
|
964
|
|
|
|
100,702,915
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
96.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
647,164
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
3,276
|
|
|
|
6.69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our owned and managed operating portfolio excludes development
and renovation projects and recently completed development
projects available for sale or contribution. |
|
(2) |
|
Effective as of December 31, 2006, Houston and Orlando have
been added to our U.S. target markets. |
|
(3) |
|
Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash
basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2006,
multiplied by 12. |
|
(4) |
|
Annualized base rent for leases denominated in foreign
currencies is translated using the currency exchange rate at
December 31, 2006. |
|
(5) |
|
On a consolidated basis, we have 820 industrial buildings,
totaling approximately 80.3 million rentable square feet. |
24
Lease
Expirations(1)
The following table summarizes the lease expirations for our
owned and managed operating properties for leases in place as of
December 31, 2006, without giving effect to the exercise of
renewal options or termination rights, if any, at or prior to
the scheduled expirations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
Feet
|
|
|
Rent (000s)(2)
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
15,946,335
|
|
|
$
|
96,962
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
%
|
2008
|
|
|
14,987,948
|
|
|
|
93,720
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
%
|
2009
|
|
|
15,580,437
|
|
|
|
101,672
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
2010
|
|
|
13,056,478
|
|
|
|
96,569
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
%
|
2011
|
|
|
13,193,485
|
|
|
|
97,473
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
%
|
2012
|
|
|
7,813,704
|
|
|
|
66,080
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
2013
|
|
|
3,379,973
|
|
|
|
26,803
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
2014
|
|
|
5,326,305
|
|
|
|
41,105
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
2015
|
|
|
2,706,554
|
|
|
|
20,209
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
2016 and beyond
|
|
|
4,925,182
|
|
|
|
39,118
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
96,916,401
|
|
|
$
|
679,711
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Schedule includes leases that expire on or after
December 31, 2006. Schedule includes owned and managed
operating properties which we define as properties in which we
have at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the
property or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the
long-term. |
|
(2) |
|
Calculated as monthly base rent at expiration multiplied by 12.
Non-U.S. dollar
projects are converted to U.S. dollars based on the forward
exchange rate at expiration. Amounts represent 100% of the
annualized base rent of the owned and managed operating
properties. |
25
Customer
Information(1)
Largest Property Customers. As of
December 31, 2006, our 25 largest property customers by
annualized base rent, on an owned and managed basis, are set
forth in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Rentable
|
|
|
Leased Square
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
Customer Name(2)
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
|
Feet(3)
|
|
|
Rent (000s)(4)
|
|
|
Base Rent(5)
|
|
|
United States Government(6)(7)
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
1,407,748
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
20,295
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Deutsche Post World Net (DHL)(6)
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
1,977,650
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
17,791
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
FedEx Corporation(6)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
1,361,619
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
14,455
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
Nippon Express
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
967,039
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
9,636
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Sagawa Express
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
726,235
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
9,008
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
Harmonic Inc.
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
285,480
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
8,907
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
BAX Global Inc/Schenker/Deutsche
Bahn(6)
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
711,117
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
7,067
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
La Poste
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
854,427
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
6,332
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
City and County of
San Francisco
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
559,605
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
5,714
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Panalpina, Inc.
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
870,156
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
5,585
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Expeditors International
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
1,003,939
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
4,836
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
Worldwide Flight Services(6)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
327,622
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
4,694
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
Eagle Global Logistics, L.P.
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
758,121
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
4,424
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
Forward Air Corporation
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
547,544
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
4,290
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
FMI International
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
764,343
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
4,240
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
UPS
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
559,994
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
3,911
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
United Air Lines Inc.(6)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
191,085
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
3,408
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
World Logi K.K
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
343,883
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
3,178
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Ahold NV
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
693,280
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
2,970
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Elmhult Limited Partnership
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
760,253
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
2,686
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Virco Manufacturing Corporation
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
559,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
2,566
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
UTi United States Inc.
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
314,029
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
2,494
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Menzies Aviation(6)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
183,867
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,323
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Integrated Airline Services(6)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
198,262
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,284
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Kintetsu World Express
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
180,027
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,278
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,106,325
|
|
|
|
17.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
155,372
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which
we define as properties in which we have at least a 10%
ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset
manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. |
|
(2) |
|
Customer(s) may be a subsidiary of or an entity affiliated with
the named customer. We also own a 19.9 acre land parcel,
adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport which is
leased to a parking lot operator with an annualized base rent of
$7.5 million, which is not included. |
|
(3) |
|
Computed as aggregate leased square feet divided by the
aggregate leased square feet of operating properties. |
|
(4) |
|
Annualized base rent is calculated as monthly base rent (cash
basis) per the terms of the lease, as of December 31, 2006,
multiplied by 12. |
|
(5) |
|
Computed as aggregate annualized base rent divided by the
aggregate annualized base rent of operating properties. |
|
(6) |
|
Airport apron rental amounts (but not square footage) are
included. |
26
|
|
|
(7) |
|
United States Government includes the United States Postal
Service, United States Customs, United States Department of
Agriculture and various other U.S. governmental agencies. |
OWNED AND
MANAGED OPERATING AND LEASING STATISTICS
Owned and
Managed Operating and Leasing Statistics(1)
The following table summarizes key operating and leasing
statistics for all of our owned and managed operating properties
as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Portfolio
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(2)
|
|
|
2004(2)
|
|
|
Square feet owned(3)(6)
|
|
|
100,702,915
|
|
|
|
87,772,104
|
|
|
|
90,278,803
|
|
Occupancy percentage(6)
|
|
|
96.1
|
%
|
|
|
95.8
|
%
|
|
|
94.8
|
%
|
Weighted average lease terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
6.1 years
|
|
|
|
6.1 years
|
|
|
|
6.1 years
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
|
|
3.3 years
|
|
Tenant retention
|
|
|
70.9
|
%
|
|
|
64.2
|
%
|
|
|
66.8
|
%
|
Same Space Leasing Activity(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent increases (decreases) on
renewals and rollovers
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)%
|
|
|
(13.2
|
)%
|
Same space square footage
commencing (millions)
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
Second Generation Leasing
Activity(5):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tenant improvements and leasing
commissions per sq. ft.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
|
$
|
1.60
|
|
|
$
|
1.73
|
|
Re-tenanted
|
|
|
3.19
|
|
|
|
3.03
|
|
|
|
2.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
|
$
|
2.34
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Square footage commencing
(millions)
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
18.5
|
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which
we define as properties in which we have at least a 10%
ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset
manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. This
excludes development and renovation projects and recently
completed development projects available for sale or
contribution. |
|
(2) |
|
The information for 2005 and 2004 is presented on a consolidated
basis while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned
and managed basis. Management believes that the difference in
comparability between 2006, 2005 and 2004, is not significant. |
|
(3) |
|
In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2006,
we managed, but did not have an ownership interest in,
approximately 0.2 million additional square feet of
properties. As of December 31, 2006, one of our
subsidiaries also managed approximately 1.1 million
additional square feet of properties representing the IAT
portfolio on behalf of the IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund.
As of December 31, 2006, we also had investments in
7.4 million square feet of operating properties through our
investments in non-managed unconsolidated joint ventures. |
|
(4) |
|
Consists of second generation leases renewing or re-tenanting
with current and prior lease terms greater than one year. |
|
(5) |
|
Second generation tenant improvements and leasing commissions
per square foot are the total cost of tenant improvements,
leasing commissions and other leasing costs incurred during
leasing of second generation space divided by the total square
feet leased. Costs incurred prior to leasing available space are
not included until such space is leased. Second generation space
excludes newly developed square footage or square footage vacant
at acquisition. |
27
|
|
|
(6) |
|
On a consolidated basis, we had approximately 80.3 million
rentable square feet with an occupancy rate of 97.0% at
December 31, 2006. |
Owned and
Managed Same Store Operating Statistics(1)
The following table summarizes key operating and leasing
statistics for our owned and managed same store operating
properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same Store Pool(2)
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(3)
|
|
|
2004(3)
|
|
|
Square feet in same store pool(4)
|
|
|
77,291,866
|
|
|
|
72,452,609
|
|
|
|
74,516,427
|
|
% of total industrial square feet
|
|
|
76.8
|
%
|
|
|
82.5
|
%
|
|
|
82.5
|
%
|
Occupancy percentage(4)
|
|
|
97.0
|
%
|
|
|
95.6
|
%
|
|
|
95.3
|
%
|
Weighted average lease terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
6.0 years
|
|
|
|
5.9 years
|
|
|
|
6.0 years
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
3.0 years
|
|
|
|
3.0 years
|
|
|
|
3.1 years
|
|
Tenant retention
|
|
|
72.5
|
%
|
|
|
63.7
|
%
|
|
|
66.4
|
%
|
Rent increases (decreases) on
renewals and rollovers
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(14.7
|
)%
|
Square feet leased (millions)
|
|
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
Growth % increase (decrease)
(including straight-line rents):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues(5)
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)%
|
Expenses(5)
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
Net operating income(5)
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
Growth % increase (decrease)
(excluding straight-line rents):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues(5)
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
Expenses(5)
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
Net operating income(5)(6)
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which
we define as properties in which we have at least a 10%
ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset
manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. This
excludes development and renovation projects and recently
completed development projects available for sale or
contribution. |
|
(2) |
|
Same store properties are those properties that we owned during
both the current and prior year reporting periods, excluding
development properties prior to being stabilized (generally
defined as properties that are 90% leased or properties for
which we have held a certificate of occupancy or where building
has been substantially complete for at least 12 months). |
|
(3) |
|
The information for 2005 and 2004 is presented on a consolidated
basis while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned
and managed basis. Management believes that the difference in
comparability between 2006, 2005 and 2004, is not significant. |
|
(4) |
|
On a consolidated basis, we had approximately 71.2 million
square feet with an occupancy rate of 96.9% at December 31,
2006. |
|
(5) |
|
On a consolidated basis, the percentage change was 2.1%, 4.7%
and 1.2%, respectively, for revenues, expenses and NOI
(including straight-line rents) and 2.4%, 4.7% and 1.6%,
respectively, for the revenues, expenses, and NOI (excluding
straight line rents). |
|
(6) |
|
See Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Supplemental Earnings Measures for
a discussion of same store net operating income and a
reconciliation of same store net operating income and net income. |
28
DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTIES
Development
Pipeline
The following table sets forth the properties owned by us as of
December 31, 2006, which were undergoing development,
renovation or expansion. We cannot assure you that any of these
projects will be completed on schedule or within budgeted
amounts.
Industrial
Development and Renovation Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
|
Investment(1)
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
Projects
|
|
Market
|
|
Developer
|
|
Stabilization(6)
|
|
|
at Stabilization(6)
|
|
|
(000s)
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2007
Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Beacon Lakes
Village Phase 1 Bldg E1
|
|
Miami
|
|
Flagler
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
52,668
|
|
|
$
|
6,100
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
2. AMB Annagem Distribution
Centre
|
|
Toronto, Canada
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
198,169
|
|
|
|
13,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
3. AMB Des Plaines Logistics
Center
|
|
Chicago
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
126,053
|
|
|
|
18,600
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
4. AMB DFW Logistics Center 1
|
|
Dallas
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
113,640
|
|
|
|
5,900
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
5. AMB Turnberry Distribution
VI(7)
|
|
Chicago
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
179,400
|
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
6. Beacon Lakes
Bldg 6
|
|
Miami
|
|
Flagler
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
206,464
|
|
|
|
13,300
|
|
|
|
79
|
%
|
7. AMB Fokker Logistics Center
2A
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
Delta Group
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
118,166
|
|
|
|
15,900
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
8. AMB Riverfront Distribution
Center Bldg B
|
|
Seattle
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
388,000
|
|
|
|
22,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
9. AMB Forest Park Freight
Terminal
|
|
Atlanta
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
142,000
|
|
|
|
11,200
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
10. AMB Gonesse Distribution
Center
|
|
Paris, France
|
|
GEPRIM
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
598,161
|
|
|
|
55,400
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
11. AMB Douglassingel
Distribution Center
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
Austin
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
148,714
|
|
|
|
22,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
12. AMB Port of Hamburg 1
|
|
Hamburg, Germany
|
|
BUSS Ports + Logistics
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
414,701
|
|
|
|
36,800
|
|
|
|
94
|
%
|
13. AMB Pearson Logistics
Centre 1 Bldg 200
|
|
Toronto, Canada
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
205,518
|
|
|
|
16,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
14. AMB Tres Rios Industrial
Park Bldg 3
|
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
|
G. Accion
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
628,784
|
|
|
|
34,900
|
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
15. AMB Tres Rios Industrial
Park Bldg 4
|
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
|
G. Accion
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
315,156
|
|
|
|
17,800
|
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
16. AMB Arrayanes
Bldg 2
|
|
Guadalajara, Mexico
|
|
G. Accion
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
473,720
|
|
|
|
17,800
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
17. AMB Aurora Industrial(4)
|
|
Minneapolis
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
125,200
|
|
|
|
7,100
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
18. AMB Milton 401 Business
Park Bldg 2
|
|
Toronto, Canada
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
281,358
|
|
|
|
21,700
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
19. AMB Sagamihara
Distribution Center
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
543,056
|
|
|
|
87,100
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
20. AMB Pearson Logistics Centre
1 Bldg 100
|
|
Toronto, Canada
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
446,338
|
|
|
|
31,700
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
21. AMB Dublin(3)
|
|
San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,600
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
22. AMB Hathaway(3)
|
|
San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,500
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
23. AMB Valley Distribution
Center
|
|
Seattle
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
749,970
|
|
|
|
43,600
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
24. AMB Redlands
Parcel 2
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
1,313,470
|
|
|
|
57,200
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
25. Platinum Triangle
Land Phase 1(3)
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,400
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
26. AMB Fokker Logistics
Center 3
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
Delta Group
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
324,725
|
|
|
|
44,900
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
27. AMB Isle dAbeau
Logistics Park Bldg C
|
|
Lyon, France
|
|
GEPRIM
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
277,817
|
|
|
|
21,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
28. AMB Torrance Matrix
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
161,785
|
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total 2007 Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,533,033
|
|
|
$
|
709,100
|
|
|
|
94
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leased or Under Contract For
Sale/Funded-to-date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
$
|
516,800
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
|
Investment(1)
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
Projects
|
|
Market
|
|
Developer
|
|
Stabilization(6)
|
|
|
at Stabilization(6)
|
|
|
(000s)
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2008
Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29. AMB Steel Road
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
161,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,400
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
30. Beacon Lakes Bldg 7
|
|
Miami
|
|
Flagler
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
193,090
|
|
|
|
14,400
|
|
|
|
79
|
%
|
31. AMB Amagasaki Distribution
Center 2
|
|
Osaka, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
981,679
|
|
|
|
105,900
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
32. Agave Bldg 5
|
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
|
G. Accion
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
103,204
|
|
|
|
7,100
|
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
33. AMB Le Grand Roissy
Distribution Mitry
|
|
Paris, France
|
|
SIRIUS
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
37,954
|
|
|
|
4,600
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
34. AMB Shinkiba Distribution
Center
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
328,764
|
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
35. AMB Theodore Park
Logistics Center
|
|
Dusseldorf, Germany
|
|
Delta Group
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
140,566
|
|
|
|
17,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
36. AMB Narita Distribution
Center 1 Bldg C
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
348,891
|
|
|
|
43,500
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
37. AMB Barajas Logistics Park
|
|
Madrid, Spain
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
427,133
|
|
|
|
39,500
|
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
38 AMB Funabashi Distribution
Center 5
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
469,254
|
|
|
|
57,500
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
39. AMB Palmetto Distribution
Center
|
|
Orlando
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
406,400
|
|
|
|
20,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
40. Platinum Triangle
Land Phase 2(3)
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,100
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
41. AMB Franklin Commerce
Center
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
366,896
|
|
|
|
26,700
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
42. AMB Pompano Center of
Commerce Phase 1
|
|
Miami
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
218,835
|
|
|
|
21,400
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
43. AMB Lijnden Logistics
Court 1
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
Keystone Vasgoed
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
96,520
|
|
|
|
16,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
44. AMB Nanko Naka
Distribution Center
|
|
Osaka, Japan
|
|
AMB
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
402,313
|
|
|
|
48,700
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
45. AMB Siziano Business
Park Bldg 1
|
|
Milan, Italy
|
|
Redilco
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
436,916
|
|
|
|
34,000
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total 2008 Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,119,415
|
|
|
$
|
588,400
|
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leased or Under Contract For
Sale/Funded-to-date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
$
|
297,700
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total Scheduled
Deliveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,652,448
|
|
|
$
|
1,297,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leased or Under Contract For
Sale/Funded-to-date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
|
$
|
814,500
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Estimated Yield(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents total estimated cost of development, renovation or
expansion, including initial acquisition costs, prepaid ground
leases and associated carry costs. Estimated total investments
are based on current forecasts and are subject to change.
Non-U.S. dollar
investments are translated to U.S. dollars using the
exchange rate at December 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Our pro rata share of amounts funded to date for 2007 and 2008
deliveries was $489.0 million and $288.5, respectively, for
a total of $777.5 million. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents a value-added conversion project. |
|
(4) |
|
Represents a renovation project. |
|
(5) |
|
Yields exclude value-added conversion projects and are
calculated on an after-tax basis for international projects. |
|
(6) |
|
Stabilization is generally defined as properties that are 90%
leased or properties for which we have held a certificate of
occupancy or where building has been substantially complete for
at least twelve months. |
|
(7) |
|
Represents projects in unconsolidated joint ventures. |
30
The following table sets forth completed development projects
that we intend to either sell or contribute to co-investment
funds as of December 31, 2006:
Completed
Development Projects Available for Sale or
Contribution(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
Projects(1)
|
|
Market
|
|
at Completion
|
|
|
(000s)(2)
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
1. Agave
Bldg 4
|
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
|
|
217,514
|
|
|
$
|
14,200
|
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
2. AMB BRU Air Cargo Center
|
|
Brussels, Belgium
|
|
|
102,655
|
|
|
|
12,900
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
3. AMB Fengxian Logistics
Center Bldgs 2, 4 & 6(3)
|
|
Shanghai, China
|
|
|
1,040,633
|
|
|
|
41,500
|
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
4. AMB Fokker Logistics
Center 1
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands
|
|
|
236,203
|
|
|
|
30,300
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
5. AMB Jiuting Distribution
Center 2
|
|
Shanghai, China
|
|
|
187,866
|
|
|
|
7,300
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
6. AMB Layline Distribution
Center(3)
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
|
298,000
|
|
|
|
30,200
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
7. AMB Milton 401 Business
Park Bldg 1
|
|
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
375,241
|
|
|
|
21,100
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
8. Frankfurt Logistics Center
556 Phase II
|
|
Frankfurt, Germany
|
|
|
105,723
|
|
|
|
15,800
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
9. Highway 17 55
Madison Street(3)
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
150,446
|
|
|
|
12,900
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
10. Singapore Airport
Logistics Center Bldg 2(4)
|
|
Singapore City, Singapore
|
|
|
250,758
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Available for Sale or
Contribution
|
|
|
|
|
2,965,039
|
|
|
$
|
199,200
|
|
|
|
88
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents projects where development activities have been
completed and which we intend to sell or contribute within two
years of construction completion. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents total estimated cost of development, renovation or
expansion, including initial acquisition costs, prepaid ground
leases and associated carry costs. The estimates are based on
current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change.
Non-U.S. Dollar
investments are translated to U.S. Dollar using the
exchange rate at December 31, 2006. |
|
(3) |
|
Renovation projects represent projects where the acquired
buildings are less than 75% leased and require significant
capital expenditures (generally more than 10% - 25% of
acquisition cost) to bring the buildings up to operating
standards and stabilization (generally 90% occupancy). |
|
(4) |
|
Represents a project in an unconsolidated joint venture. |
Properties
held through Joint Ventures, Limited Liability Companies and
Partnerships
Consolidated
Joint Ventures:
As of December 31, 2006, we held interests in joint
ventures, limited liability companies and partnerships with
institutional investors and other third parties, which we
consolidate in our financial statements. Such investments are
consolidated because we own a majority interest or, as general
partner, exercise significant control over major operating
decisions such as acquisition or disposition decisions, approval
of budgets, selection of property managers and changes in
financing. Under the agreements governing the joint ventures, we
and the other party to the joint venture may be required to make
additional capital contributions and, subject to certain
limitations, the joint ventures may incur additional debt. Such
agreements also impose certain restrictions on the transfer of
joint venture interests by us or the other party to the joint
venture and typically provide certain rights to us or the other
party to the joint venture to sell our or their interest in the
joint venture to the joint venture or to the other joint-venture
partner on terms specified in the agreement. In addition, under
certain circumstances, many of the joint
31
ventures include buy/sell provisions. See Part IV,
Item 15: Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for additional details.
The tables that follow summarize our consolidated joint ventures
as of December 31, 2006:
Consolidated
Co-Investment Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JV Partners
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Book
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Share
|
|
Joint Ventures
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
of Buildings
|
|
|
Feet(1)
|
|
|
Value(2)
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
of Debt(3)
|
|
|
Co-Investment Operating Joint
Ventures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMB Erie(4)
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
821,712
|
|
|
$
|
52,942
|
|
|
$
|
20,605
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
10,303
|
|
AMB Partners II(5)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
9,913,375
|
|
|
|
678,796
|
|
|
|
323,532
|
|
|
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
311,470
|
|
AMB-SGP(6)
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
8,287,424
|
|
|
|
444,990
|
|
|
|
235,480
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,449
|
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund II(7)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
8,007,103
|
|
|
|
515,334
|
|
|
|
243,263
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,058
|
|
AMB-AMS(8)
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
2,172,137
|
|
|
|
153,563
|
|
|
|
78,904
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,420
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Co-Investment Operating
Joint Ventures
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
298
|
|
|
|
29,201,751
|
|
|
|
1,845,625
|
|
|
|
901,784
|
|
|
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
679,700
|
|
Co-Investment Development Joint
Ventures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMB Partners II(5)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund II(7)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
4,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Co-Investment Development
Joint Ventures
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,542
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Co-Investment Consolidated
Joint Ventures
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
298
|
|
|
|
29,201,751
|
|
|
$
|
1,850,167
|
|
|
$
|
901,784
|
|
|
$
|
65,000
|
|
|
$
|
679,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For development properties, this represents estimated square
feet at completion of development for committed phases of
development and renovation projects. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated
depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net
other assets as of December 31, 2006. Development book
values include uncommitted land. |
|
(3) |
|
JV Partners Share of Debt is defined as total debt less
our share of total debt. See footnote 1 to the
Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II,
Item 7: Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources for a discussion of why we
believe our share of total debt is a useful supplemental measure
for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure
when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the
measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our
share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial
measure. |
|
(4) |
|
AMB/Erie, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 1998
with the Erie Insurance Company and certain related entities. |
|
(5) |
|
AMB Partners II, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed
in 2001 with the City and County of San Francisco
Employees Retirement System. |
|
(6) |
|
AMB-SGP, L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with
Industrial JV Pte. Ltd., a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte.
Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of
Singapore Investment Corporation. |
|
(7) |
|
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P. is a co-investment
partnership formed in 2001 with institutional investors, which
invest through a private real estate investment trust. |
|
(8) |
|
AMB-AMS,
L.P. is a co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with three
Dutch pension funds. |
32
Other
Consolidated Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JV Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Book
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Share
|
|
Properties
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
of Buildings
|
|
|
Feet
|
|
|
Value(1)
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
of Debt(2)
|
|
|
Other Industrial Operating Joint
Ventures
|
|
|
Various
|
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
2,982,313
|
|
|
$
|
258,374
|
|
|
$
|
60,435
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,419
|
|
Other Industrial Development
Joint Ventures
|
|
|
Various
|
|
|
|
81
|
%
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
3,930,930
|
|
|
|
320,942
|
|
|
|
63,171
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
28,095
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Industrial
Consolidated Joint Ventures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
6,913,243
|
|
|
$
|
579,316
|
|
|
$
|
123,606
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
|
$
|
32,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated
depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net
other assets as of December 31, 2006. Development book
values include uncommitted land. |
|
(2) |
|
JV Partners Share of Debt is defined as total debt less
our share of total debt. See footnote 1 to the
Capitalization Ratios table contained in Part II,
Item 7: Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operation
Liquidity and Capital Resources for a discussion of why we
believe our share of total debt is a useful supplemental measure
for our management and investors, of ways to use this measure
when assessing our financial performance, the limitations of the
measure as a measurement tool, and for a reconciliation of our
share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial
measure. |
Unconsolidated
Joint Ventures:
As of December 31, 2006, we held interests in
14 equity investment joint ventures that are not
consolidated in our financial statements. Effective
October 1, 2006, we deconsolidated AMB Institutional
Alliance Fund III, L.P. on a prospective basis. The
management and control over significant aspects of these
investments are held by the third-party joint-venture partners
and we are not the primary beneficiary for the investments that
meet the variable-interest entity consolidation criteria under
FASB Interpretation
No. 46®,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.
The tables that follow summarize our unconsolidated joint
ventures as of December 31, 2006:
Unconsolidated
Joint Ventures
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Book
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Net Equity
|
|
|
Share of
|
|
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
of Buildings
|
|
|
Feet(1)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
Debt(2)
|
|
|
Co-Investment Operating Joint
Ventures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC(3)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
2,737,515
|
|
|
$
|
165,381
|
|
|
$
|
95,000
|
|
|
$
|
11,700
|
|
|
$
|
7,601
|
|
|
$
|
20,912
|
|
2. AMB Japan Fund I,
L.P.(4)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
3,814,773
|
|
|
|
602,397
|
|
|
|
368,086
|
|
|
|
82,184
|
|
|
|
31,811
|
|
|
|
90,004
|
|
3. AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund III, L.P.(5)
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
13,784,406
|
|
|
|
1,313,858
|
|
|
|
615,500
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
136,971
|
|
|
|
160,280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Co-Investment Joint
Ventures
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
20,336,694
|
|
|
|
2,081,636
|
|
|
|
1,078,586
|
|
|
|
153,884
|
|
|
|
176,383
|
|
|
|
271,196
|
|
Co-Investment Development Joint
Ventures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund III, L.P.(5)
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
179,400
|
|
|
|
9,636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. AMB DFS Fund I, LLC(6)
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,450
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Industrial Operating Joint
Ventures
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
7,684,931
|
(7)
|
|
|
295,036
|
|
|
|
184,423
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,955
|
|
|
|
89,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Unconsolidated Joint
Ventures
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
192
|
|
|
|
28,201,025
|
|
|
$
|
2,464,758
|
|
|
$
|
1,263,009
|
|
|
$
|
153,884
|
|
|
$
|
236,038
|
|
|
$
|
360,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For development properties, this represents estimated square
feet at completion of development for committed phases of
development and renovation projects. |
|
(2) |
|
See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained
in Part II, Item 7: Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation Liquidity and Capital Resources for
a discussion |
33
|
|
|
|
|
of why we believe our share of total debt is a useful
supplemental measure for our management and investors, of ways
to use this measure when assessing our financial performance,
the limitations of the measure as a measurement tool, and for a
reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated
debt, a GAAP financial measure. |
|
(3) |
|
AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC is an unconsolidated co-investment
joint venture formed in 2004 with Industrial (Mexico)
JV Pte. Ltd., a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte.
Ltd, the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of
Singapore Investment Corporation. Includes $5.5 million of
shareholder loans outstanding at December 31, 2006 between
us and the co-investment partnership and its subsidiaries. |
|
(4) |
|
AMB Japan Fund I, L.P. is a co-investment partnership
formed in 2005 with 13 institutional investors as limited
partners. |
|
(5) |
|
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. is an open-ended
co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with institutional
investors, which invest through a private real estate investment
trust. Prior to October 1, 2006, the Company accounted for
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. as a
consolidated joint venture. |
|
(6) |
|
AMB DFS Fund I, LLC is a co-investment partnership formed
in 2006 with a subsidiary of GE Real Estate to build and
sell properties. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes investments in 7.4 million square feet of
operating properties through the Companys investments in
unconsolidated joint ventures that it does not manage which it
excludes from its owned and managed portfolio. Our owned and
managed operating portfolio includes properties in which we have
at least a 10% ownership interest, for which we are the property
or asset manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. |
Mortgage
and Loan Receivables and Other Investments:
The tables that follow summarize our mortgage investments and
other investments as of December 31, 2006:
Mortgage
Investments and Other Investments
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage and Loan Receivables
|
|
Market
|
|
Maturity
|
|
Receivable(2)
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
1. AMB Pier One, LLC(1)
|
|
San Francisco Bay
|
|
May 2026
|
|
$
|
12,686
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
%
|
2. G. Accion
|
|
Various
|
|
March 2010
|
|
|
6,061
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Share
|
|
Other Investments
|
|
Market
|
|
Property Type
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
of Debt(5)
|
|
|
1. Park One Land Parcel
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
Parking Lot
|
|
$
|
75,498
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
2. G. Accion(3)
|
|
Various
|
|
Various
|
|
|
38,343
|
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
|
2,965
|
|
3. IAT Air Cargo Facilities
Income Fund(4)
|
|
Canada
|
|
Industrial
|
|
|
2,644
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
116,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
AMB has an 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with a 33%
economic interest) in this property and also has an option to
purchase the remaining equity interest beginning January 1,
2007 and expiring December 31, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
We hold inter-company loans that we eliminate in the
consolidation process. |
|
(3) |
|
We also have a 39% unconsolidated equity interest in
G. Accion, S.A. de C.V. (G. Accion), a
Mexican real estate company. G. Accion provides management
and development services for industrial, retail, residential and
office properties in Mexico. |
|
(4) |
|
We also have an approximate 5% equity interest in IAT Air
Cargo Facilities Income Fund, a public Canadian real estate
income trust. |
34
|
|
|
(5) |
|
See footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table contained
in Part II, Item 7: Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation Liquidity and Capital Resources for
a discussion of why we believe our share of total debt is a
useful supplemental measure for our management and investors, of
ways to use this measure when assessing our financial
performance, the limitations of the measure as a measurement
tool, and for a reconciliation of our share of total debt to
total consolidated debt, a GAAP financial measure. |
Secured
Debt
As of December 31, 2006, we had $1.4 billion of
secured indebtedness, net of unamortized premiums, secured by
deeds of trust or mortgages. As of December 31, 2006, the
total gross consolidated investment value of those properties
securing the debt was $2.6 billion. Of the
$1.4 billion of secured indebtedness, $1.0 billion was
consolidated joint venture debt secured by properties with a
gross investment value of $1.9 billion. For additional
details, see Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital Resources and
Part IV, Item 15: Note 6 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.
We believe that as of December 31, 2006, the fair value of
the properties securing the respective obligations in each case
exceeded the principal amount of the outstanding obligations.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
As of December 31, 2006, there were no pending legal
proceedings to which we were a party or of which any of our
properties was the subject, the adverse determination of which
we anticipate would have a material adverse effect upon our
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
35
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Our common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on
November 21, 1997 under the symbol AMB. As of
February 20, 2007, there were approximately 471 holders of
record of our common stock (excluding shares held through The
Depository Trust Company, as nominee). Set forth below are the
high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as
reported on the NYSE composite tape, and the distribution per
share paid or payable by us during the period from
January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter
|
|
$
|
41.45
|
|
|
$
|
36.52
|
|
|
$
|
0.440
|
|
2nd Quarter
|
|
|
44.00
|
|
|
|
36.38
|
|
|
|
0.440
|
|
3rd Quarter
|
|
|
46.46
|
|
|
|
41.85
|
|
|
|
0.440
|
|
4th Quarter
|
|
|
50.25
|
|
|
|
40.92
|
|
|
|
0.440
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter
|
|
$
|
56.53
|
|
|
$
|
48.89
|
|
|
$
|
0.460
|
|
2nd Quarter
|
|
|
54.25
|
|
|
|
46.26
|
|
|
|
0.460
|
|
3rd Quarter
|
|
|
58.65
|
|
|
|
50.05
|
|
|
|
0.460
|
|
4th Quarter
|
|
|
63.02
|
|
|
|
54.49
|
|
|
|
0.460
|
|
The payment of dividends and other distributions by us is at the
discretion of our board of directors and depends on numerous
factors, including our cash flow, financial condition and
capital requirements, real estate investment trust provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code and other factors.
36
Stock
Performance Graph
The following line graph compares the change in our cumulative
total stockholder return on shares of our common stock from
December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006, to the
cumulative total return of the Standard & Poors
500 Stock Index and the NAREIT Equity REIT Total Return Index
from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. The graph
assumes an initial investment of $100 in the common stock of AMB
Property Corporation and each of the indices on
December 31, 2000 and, as required by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the reinvestment
of all distributions. The return shown on the graph is not
necessarily indicative of future performance.
COMPARISON
OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE RETURN
Among AMB Property Corporation, The S&P 500 Index
And The NAREIT Equity Index
37
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
SELECTED
COMPANY FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA(1)
The following table sets forth selected consolidated historical
financial and other data for AMB Property Corporation on a
historical basis as of and for the years ended December 31:
Note: Effective October 1, 2006, the Company
deconsolidated AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. on
a prospective basis. See footnote 4 below for further
discussion of the comparability of selected financial and other
data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006(5)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Operating Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
729,896
|
|
|
$
|
660,875
|
|
|
$
|
576,395
|
|
|
$
|
501,323
|
|
|
$
|
480,473
|
|
Income before minority interests,
discontinued operations and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
234,785
|
|
|
|
205,086
|
|
|
|
114,446
|
|
|
|
111,560
|
|
|
|
115,405
|
|
Income from continuing operations
before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
171,930
|
|
|
|
130,309
|
|
|
|
61,583
|
|
|
|
54,118
|
|
|
|
70,228
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
51,949
|
|
|
|
127,498
|
|
|
|
63,888
|
|
|
|
75,010
|
|
|
|
50,891
|
|
Net income before cumulative
effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
223,879
|
|
|
|
257,807
|
|
|
|
125,471
|
|
|
|
129,128
|
|
|
|
121,119
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
224,072
|
|
|
|
257,807
|
|
|
|
125,471
|
|
|
|
129,128
|
|
|
|
121,119
|
|
Net income available to common
stockholders
|
|
|
209,420
|
|
|
|
250,419
|
|
|
|
118,340
|
|
|
|
116,716
|
|
|
|
113,035
|
|
Income from continuing operations
per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic(2)
|
|
|
1.80
|
|
|
|
1.46
|
|
|
|
0.66
|
|
|
|
0.52
|
|
|
|
0.75
|
|
Diluted(2)
|
|
|
1.73
|
|
|
|
1.40
|
|
|
|
0.64
|
|
|
|
0.50
|
|
|
|
0.73
|
|
Income from discontinued
operations per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic(2)
|
|
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
1.52
|
|
|
|
0.78
|
|
|
|
0.92
|
|
|
|
0.61
|
|
Diluted(2)
|
|
|
0.57
|
|
|
|
1.45
|
|
|
|
0.75
|
|
|
|
0.91
|
|
|
|
0.60
|
|
Net income available to common
stockholders per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic(2)
|
|
|
2.39
|
|
|
|
2.98
|
|
|
|
1.44
|
|
|
|
1.44
|
|
|
|
1.36
|
|
Diluted(2)
|
|
|
2.30
|
|
|
|
2.85
|
|
|
|
1.39
|
|
|
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
1.33
|
|
Dividends declared per common share
|
|
|
1.84
|
|
|
|
1.76
|
|
|
|
1.70
|
|
|
|
1.66
|
|
|
|
1.64
|
|
Other Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations(3)
|
|
$
|
297,912
|
|
|
$
|
254,363
|
|
|
$
|
207,314
|
|
|
$
|
186,666
|
|
|
$
|
215,194
|
|
Funds from operations per common
share and unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
3.24
|
|
|
|
2.87
|
|
|
|
2.39
|
|
|
|
2.17
|
|
|
|
2.44
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
3.12
|
|
|
|
2.75
|
|
|
|
2.30
|
|
|
|
2.13
|
|
|
|
2.40
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
335,855
|
|
|
|
295,815
|
|
|
|
297,349
|
|
|
|
269,808
|
|
|
|
297,723
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006(5)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(880,560
|
)
|
|
|
(60,407
|
)
|
|
|
(731,402
|
)
|
|
|
(346,275
|
)
|
|
|
(253,312
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
483,621
|
|
|
|
(101,856
|
)
|
|
|
409,705
|
|
|
|
112,022
|
|
|
|
(28,150
|
)
|
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in real estate at cost
|
|
$
|
6,575,733
|
|
|
$
|
6,798,294
|
|
|
$
|
6,526,144
|
|
|
$
|
5,491,707
|
|
|
$
|
4,922,782
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
6,713,512
|
|
|
|
6,802,739
|
|
|
|
6,386,943
|
|
|
|
5,409,559
|
|
|
|
4,983,629
|
|
Total consolidated debt
|
|
|
3,437,415
|
|
|
|
3,401,561
|
|
|
|
3,257,191
|
|
|
|
2,574,257
|
|
|
|
2,235,361
|
|
Our share of total debt(4)
|
|
|
3,088,624
|
|
|
|
2,601,878
|
|
|
|
2,395,046
|
|
|
|
1,954,314
|
|
|
|
1,691,737
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
2,166,657
|
|
|
|
1,916,299
|
|
|
|
1,671,140
|
|
|
|
1,657,137
|
|
|
|
1,676,079
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Certain items in the consolidated financial statements for prior
periods have been reclassified to conform with current
classifications with no effect on net income or
stockholders equity. |
|
(2) |
|
Basic and diluted net income per weighted average share equals
the net income available to common stockholders divided by
87,710,500 and 91,106,893 shares, respectively, for 2006;
84,048,936 and 87,873,399 shares, respectively, for 2005;
82,133,627 and 85,368,626 shares, respectively, for 2004;
81,096,062 and 82,852,528 shares, respectively, for 2003;
83,310,885 and 84,795,987 shares, respectively, for 2002. |
|
(3) |
|
See Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Supplemental Earnings
Measures FFO, for a discussion of why we
believe FFO is a useful supplemental measure of operating
performance, of ways in which investors might use FFO when
assessing our financial performance, and of FFOs
limitations as a measurement tool. |
|
(4) |
|
Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total
debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the
consolidated ventures holding the debt. We believe that our
share of total debt is a meaningful supplemental measure, which
enables both management and investors to analyze our leverage
and to compare our leverage to that of other companies. In
addition, it allows for a more meaningful comparison of our debt
to that of other companies that do not consolidate their joint
ventures. Our share of total debt is not intended to reflect our
actual liability should there be a default under any or all of
such loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. For a
reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated
debt, a GAAP financial measure, please see the table of debt
maturities and capitalization in Part II, Item 7:
Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Resources. |
|
(5) |
|
Effective October 1, 2006, we deconsolidated AMB
Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. on a prospective
basis, due to the re-evaluation of the accounting for our
investment in the fund in light of changes to the partnership
agreement regarding the general partners rights effective
October 1, 2006. As a result, the financial measures for
the years 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002, included in our
operating data, other data and balance sheet data above are not
comparable. |
39
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
GENERAL
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our
consolidated financial condition and results of operations in
conjunction with the notes to consolidated financial
statements.
We commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate
company effective with the completion of our initial public
offering on November 26, 1997, and elected to be taxed as a
real estate investment trust under Sections 856 through 860
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, with our
initial tax return for the year ended December 31, 1997.
AMB Property Corporation and AMB Property, L.P. were formed
shortly before the consummation of our initial public offering.
Managements
Overview
The primary source of our revenue and earnings is rent received
from customers under long-term (generally three to ten years)
operating leases at our properties, including reimbursements
from customers for certain operating costs, and from partnership
distributions and fees from our private capital business. We
also produce earnings from the disposition of operating assets
that no longer fit our strategy, from the disposition of
projects in our
development-for-sale
program and from the contributions of properties to our
co-investment joint ventures. Our long-term growth is driven by
our ability to maintain and increase occupancy rates or increase
rental rates at our properties, and by our ability to continue
to acquire and develop new properties.
National industrial markets continued to improve during 2006
when compared with market conditions in 2005. According to Torto
Wheaton Research, availability dropped 10 basis points in
the fourth quarter of 2006 to 9.4%, and availability for the
year dropped 50 basis points. We believe the strongest
industrial markets in the U.S. are the coastal gateway
markets tied to global trade, including Los Angeles, our largest
market, Miami, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle, and
to a lesser degree Northern New Jersey/New York (with the
exception of the Exit 8A submarket). While we believe that the
broader Chicago market is showing signs of stabilization,
certain submarkets, like the OHare submarket, are
relatively strong. We believe Dallas continues to recover, and
Atlanta continues to suffer from a large increase in supply. We
believe the operating environment in our U.S. on-tarmac
business remains good with improving cargo volumes and
essentially no new supply.
Investor demand for industrial property (as supported by our
observation of strong national sales volumes and declining
acquisition capitalization rates) has remained consistently
strong over the past several years. We believe we capitalized on
this demand for industrial property by accelerating the
repositioning of our portfolio, through the disposition of
non-core properties, which was effectively completed in 2006
with our exit from the Charlotte and Memphis markets. We plan to
continue selling selected assets on an opportunistic basis or
that no longer fit our strategic investment objectives, but we
believe we have substantially achieved our repositioning goals.
Occupancy levels in our portfolio continue to outperform the
national industrial market, as determined by Torto Wheaton
Research, by pricing lease renewals and new leases with
sensitivity to local market conditions. During the prior periods
of decreasing or stabilizing rental rates, we strove to sign
leases with shorter terms to prevent locking in lower rent
levels for long periods and to be prepared to sign new,
longer-term leases during periods of growing rental rates. When
we sign leases of shorter duration, we attempt to limit overall
leasing costs and capital expenditures by offering different
grades of tenant improvement packages, appropriate to the lease
term. In our stronger markets, we are increasing rents as
opposed to occupancy.
40
The table below summarizes key operating and leasing statistics
for our owned and managed operating properties for the years
ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Hub and
|
|
|
Total Other
|
|
|
Total/Weighted
|
|
Owned and Managed Property Data(1)
|
|
Gateway Markets(2)
|
|
|
Markets(3)
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
For the year ended
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of total rentable square feet
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Occupancy percentage at year end
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
|
95.0
|
%
|
|
|
96.1
|
%
|
Same space square footage leased
|
|
|
13,016,726
|
|
|
|
3,186,854
|
|
|
|
16,203,580
|
|
Rent (decreases) increases on
renewals and rollovers(4)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
For the year ended
December 31, 2005:(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of total rentable square feet
|
|
|
74.9
|
%
|
|
|
25.1
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Occupancy percentage at year end
|
|
|
96.2
|
%
|
|
|
94.6
|
%
|
|
|
95.8
|
%
|
Same space square footage leased
|
|
|
11,032,482
|
|
|
|
2,574,944
|
|
|
|
13,607,426
|
|
Rent decreases on renewals and
rollovers
|
|
|
(10.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Schedule includes owned and managed operating properties which
we define as properties in which we have at least a 10%
ownership interest, for which we are the property or asset
manager, and which we intend to hold for the long-term. |
|
(2) |
|
Our U.S. hub and gateway markets include on-tarmac and
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Northern New
Jersey/New York City, San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle. |
|
(3) |
|
Our total markets include other U.S. target markets, other
non-target markets, and
non-U.S. target
markets. |
|
(4) |
|
On a consolidated basis, rent increases on renewals and
rollovers were 4.4% and 3.0%, respectively, for U.S. hub
and gateway markets and total other markets. |
|
(5) |
|
The information for 2005 is presented on a consolidated basis
while the information for 2006 is presented on an owned and
managed basis. Management believes that the difference in
comparability between the information for 2006 and 2005 is not
significant. |
At December 31, 2006, our operating portfolios
occupancy rate was 96.1%, on an owned and managed basis (97.0%
on a consolidated basis), an increase from both the prior
quarter and December 31, 2005. Rental rates on lease
renewals and rollovers in our portfolio increased 4.1% in the
fourth quarter of 2006 and decreased 0.1% for the full year.
Cash basis same store net operating income (rental revenues less
property operating expenses and real estate taxes for properties
included in the same store pool, which is set annually and
excludes properties purchased or developments stabilized after
December 31, 2004) grew by 1.3% in the fourth quarter
of 2006 and 2.6% for the full-year 2006, on an owned and managed
basis. Excluding lease termination fees, same store net
operating income grew 3.0% and 3.2% in the quarter and for the
full year (decreased 0.5% and increased 1.6%, respectively, on a
consolidated basis), respectively, on an owned and managed
basis. See Part II, Item 7: Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Supplemental Earnings Measures for
a discussion of same store net operating income and a
reconciliation of same store net operating income and net
income. We currently expect that same store growth in our
operating portfolio, excluding lease termination fees, will be
about 3% to 4% for 2007, on an owned and managed basis. Market
rents continue to rebound from their lows and in many of our hub
and gateway markets are back to or above their prior peak levels
of 2001.
We believe that industrial market rents in the
San Francisco Bay Area are improving. While market rents in
the San Francisco Bay Area were up 10% to 15% in 2006,
rents still have not yet fully recovered to normal levels. Rents
on lease renewals and rollovers in the San Francisco Bay
Area declined 21.0% in the fourth quarter of 2006 and 13.2% for
the full-year 2006, on an owned and managed basis. Without the
effect of the San Francisco Bay Area, rents on renewals and
rollovers for the full-year 2006 would have been 2.0%, on an
owned and managed basis, which we believe reflects the generally
positive trends in U.S. industrial space availability.
We expect development to be a significant driver of our earnings
growth as we expand our land and development pipeline, and
contribute completed development projects into our co-investment
program and recognize development profits. We believe that
development, renovation and expansion of well-located, high-
41
quality industrial properties should generally continue to
provide us with attractive investment opportunities at a higher
rate of return than we may obtain from the purchase of existing
properties. We believe that our development opportunities in
Mexico, Japan and China are particularly attractive given the
current lack of supply of modern industrial distribution
facilities in the major metropolitan markets of these countries.
Prior to our global expansion, our development pipeline was
$106.8 million at the end of 2002. As a result of our
global expansion and increased development capabilities, we have
increased our development pipeline to approximately
$1.3 billion at December 31, 2006. In addition to our
committed development pipeline, we hold a total of
1,735 acres for future development or sale, of which 92% is
in North America. We believe these 1,735 acres of land
could support approximately 30.5 million square feet of
future development.
Going forward, we believe that our co-investment program with
private-capital investors will continue to serve as a
significant source of revenues and capital for new investments.
Through these co-investment joint ventures, we typically earn
acquisition fees, asset management fees and priority
distributions, as well as promoted interests and incentive
distributions based on the performance of the co-investment
joint ventures; however, we cannot assure you that we will
continue to do so. Through contribution of development
properties to our co-investment joint ventures, we expect to
recognize value creation from our development pipeline. As of
December 31, 2006, we owned approximately 64.3 million
square feet of our properties (51.6% of the total operating and
development portfolio) through our consolidated and
unconsolidated co-investment joint ventures. We may make
additional investments through these co-investment joint
ventures or new joint ventures in the future and presently plan
to do so.
By the end of 2010, we expect to have approximately 50% of our
owned and managed operating portfolio invested in
non-U.S. markets
(based on owned and managed annualized base rent). As of
December 31, 2006, our
non-U.S. operating
properties comprised 14.1% of our owned and managed operating
portfolio (based on annualized base rent) and 7.4% of our
consolidated operating portfolio (based on annualized base
rent). Our North American target countries outside of the United
States currently comprise Canada and Mexico. Our European target
countries currently comprise Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Our Asian target
countries currently comprise China, India, Japan, Singapore and
South Korea. We expect to add additional target countries
outside the United States in the future.
To maintain our qualification as a real estate investment trust,
we must pay dividends to our stockholders aggregating annually
at least 90% of our taxable income. As a result, we cannot rely
on retained earnings to fund our on-going operations to the same
extent that other corporations that are not real estate
investment trusts can. We must continue to raise capital in both
the debt and equity markets to fund our working capital needs,
acquisitions and developments. See Liquidity and Capital
Resources for a complete discussion of the sources of our
capital.
Summary
of Key Transactions in 2006
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we completed the
following significant capital deployment and other transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired, on an owned and managed basis, 106 buildings in North
America and Europe, aggregating approximately 9.8 million
square feet, for $834.2 million;
|
|
|
|
Committed to 30 development projects in North America, Asia and
Europe totaling 10.4 million square feet with an estimated
total investment of approximately $914.3 million;
|
|
|
|
Acquired 835 acres of land for development in North America
and Asia for approximately $293.2 million;
|
|
|
|
Sold five land parcels and six development projects totaling
approximately 1.3 million square feet for an aggregate sale
price of $86.6 million;
|
|
|
|
Contributed four completed development projects for
$486.2 million to AMB Japan Fund I, L.P., two
completed development projects for $56.4 million to AMB-SGP
Mexico, LLC, three completed development projects for
$64.8 million to AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III,
L.P. and one land parcel for $77.5 million to AMB DFS
Fund I, LLC, all of which entities are unconsolidated
co-investment joint ventures. As a result of these
contributions, we recognized an aggregate after-tax gain of
$94.1 million,
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
representing the portion of our interest in the contributed
properties acquired by the third-party co-investors for cash;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divested ourselves of 73 industrial buildings aggregating
approximately 6.4 million square feet, for an aggregate
price of approximately $335.1 million, including 34
industrial buildings that were sold by two of our unconsolidated
joint ventures; and
|
|
|
|
Acquired the 50% interest in AMB BlackPine that we did not
previously own;
|
|
|
|
Received an incentive distribution of $19.8 million from
AMB Partners II, L.P.; and
|
|
|
|
Deconsolidated AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P.,
on a prospective basis, as of October 1, 2006.
|
See Part IV, Item 15: Notes 3 and 4 of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a
more detailed discussion of our acquisition, development and
disposition activity.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we completed the
following significant capital markets and other financing
transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
Obtained long-term secured debt financings for our co-investment
joint ventures of $141.6 million with a weighted average
interest rate of 6.1%;
|
|
|
|
Assumed $29.9 million of debt for our co-investment joint
ventures at a weighted average interest rate of 6.0%;
|
|
|
|
Obtained $177.7 million of new debt (using exchange rates
in effect at applicable quarter end dates) with a weighted
average interest rate of 4.2% for international acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
Obtained a $65.0 million floating rate unsecured revolving
credit facility for one of our co-investment joint ventures;
|
|
|
|
Entered into a third amended and restated credit agreement for a
$250.0 million unsecured multi-currency revolving credit
facility which replaced an existing $100.0 million
unsecured multi-currency revolving credit facility;
|
|
|
|
Repurchased all of AMB Property II, L.P.s outstanding
7.75% Series E Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited
Partnership Units for an aggregate cost of $10.9 million,
including accrued and unpaid distributions;
|
|
|
|
Repurchased all of AMB Property II, L.P.s outstanding
7.95% Series F Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited
Partnership Units for an aggregate cost of $10.0 million,
including accrued and unpaid distributions;
|
|
|
|
Repurchased all of AMB Property II, L.P.s outstanding
8.125% Series H Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited
Partnership Units for an aggregate cost of $42.8 million,
including accrued and unpaid distributions;
|
|
|
|
Purchased all of AMB Property II, L.P.s outstanding
5.00% Series N Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited
Partnership Units for an aggregate cost of $36.6 million,
including accrued and unpaid distributions;
|
|
|
|
Completed the early renewal and increase of our senior unsecured
revolving line of credit in the amount of $550.0 million,
an increase of $50.0 million;
|
|
|
|
Entered into an amended and restated revolving credit agreement
for a 45.0 billion Yen (approximately $377.9 million
U.S. dollars, using the exchange rate at December 31,
2006) unsecured revolving credit facility that replaced an
existing 35.0 billion Yen (approximately
$293.9 million U.S. dollars, using the exchange rate
at December 31, 2006) unsecured revolving credit
facility;
|
|
|
|
Raised approximately $48.1 million in net proceeds from the
issuance and sale of $50.0 million of our 6.85%
Series P Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock;
|
|
|
|
Issued $175.0 million aggregate principal amount of fixed
rate senior unsecured notes under the operating
partnerships 2006 medium-term note program which mature on
August 15, 2013 and bear interest at a rate of
5.90% per annum; and
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
Entered into a 228.0 million Euro (approximately
$300.9 million U.S. dollars, using the exchange rate
at December 31, 2006) revolving credit facility
agreement, which provides for loans on a secured and unsecured
basis.
|
See Part IV, Item 15: Notes 6, 9 and 11 of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a
more detailed discussion of our capital markets transactions.
Critical
Accounting Policies
Our discussion and analysis of financial condition and results
of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements,
which have been prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP). The
preparation of these financial statements requires us to make
estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities and contingencies as of the date of the
financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our
assumptions and estimates on an on-going basis. We base our
estimates on historical experience and on various other
assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results
may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or
conditions. We believe the following critical accounting
policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates
used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.
Investments in Real Estate. Investments in
real estate and leasehold interests are stated at cost unless
circumstances indicate that cost cannot be recovered, in which
case, the carrying value of the property is reduced to estimated
fair value. We also regularly review the impact of above or
below-market leases, in-place leases and lease origination costs
for all new acquisitions, and record an intangible asset or
liability accordingly. Carrying values for financial reporting
purposes are reviewed for impairment on a
property-by-property
basis whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that
the carrying value of a property may not be fully recoverable.
Impairment is recognized when estimated expected future cash
flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) are less than
the carrying value of the property. The estimation of expected
future net cash flows is inherently uncertain and relies on
assumptions regarding current and future economics and market
conditions and the availability of capital. If impairment
analysis assumptions change, then an adjustment to the carrying
value of our long-lived assets could occur in the future period
in which the assumptions change. To the extent that a property
is impaired, the excess of the carrying amount of the property
over its estimated fair value is charged to earnings. As a
result of leasing activity and the economic environment, we
re-evaluated the carrying value of our investments and recorded
impairment charges of $6.3 million during the year ended
December 31, 2006 on certain of our investments.
Revenue Recognition. We record rental revenue
from operating leases on a straight-line basis over the term of
the leases and maintain an allowance for estimated losses that
may result from the inability of our customers to make required
payments. If customers fail to make contractual lease payments
that are greater than our allowance for doubtful accounts,
security deposits and letters of credit, then we may have to
recognize additional doubtful account charges in future periods.
We monitor the liquidity and creditworthiness of our customers
on an on-going basis by reviewing their financial condition
periodically as appropriate. Each period we review our
outstanding accounts receivable, including straight-line rents,
for doubtful accounts and provide allowances as needed. We also
record lease termination fees when a customer has executed a
definitive termination agreement with us and the payment of the
termination fee is not subject to any conditions that must be
met or waived before the fee is due to us. If a customer remains
in the leased space following the execution of a definitive
termination agreement, the applicable termination fees are
deferred and recognized over the term of such customers
occupancy.
Property Dispositions. We report real estate
dispositions in three separate categories on our consolidated
statements of operations. First, when we divest a portion of our
interests in real estate entities or properties, gains from the
sale represent the interests acquired by third-party investors
for cash and are included in gains from disposition of real
estate interests in the statement of operations. Second, we
dispose of value-added conversion projects and
build-to-suit
and speculative development projects for which we have not
generated material operating income prior to sale. The gain or
loss recognized from the disposition of these projects is
reported net of estimated taxes, when applicable, and are
included in development profits, net of taxes, in the statement
of operations. Lastly,
44
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144,
Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived
Assets, requires us to separately report as discontinued
operations the historical operating results attributable to
operating properties sold and the applicable gain or loss on the
disposition of the properties, which is included in gains from
dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests, in the
statement of operations. The consolidated statements of
operations for prior periods are also adjusted to conform with
this classification. There is no impact on our previously
reported consolidated financial position, net income or cash
flows. In all cases, gains and losses are recognized using the
full accrual method of accounting. Gains relating to
transactions which do not meet the requirements of the full
accrual method of accounting are deferred and recognized when
the full accrual method of accounting criteria are met.
Joint Ventures. We hold interests in both
consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. We determine
consolidation based on standards set forth in EITF
04-5,
Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General
Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar
Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights or FASB
Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable
Interest Entities FIN 46. Based on the
guidance set forth in EITF
04-5, we
consolidate certain joint venture investments because we
exercise significant control over major operating decisions,
such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers,
asset management, investment activity and changes in financing.
For joint ventures that are variable interest entities as
defined under FIN 46 where we are not the primary
beneficiaries, we do not consolidate the joint venture for
financial reporting purposes. For joint ventures under EITF
04-5, where
we do not exercise significant control over major operating and
management decisions, but where we exercise significant
influence, we use the equity method of accounting and do not
consolidate the joint venture for financial reporting purposes.
Real Estate Investment Trust. As a real estate
investment trust, we generally will not be subject to corporate
level federal income taxes in the U.S. if we meet minimum
distribution, income, asset and shareholder tests. However, some
of our subsidiaries may be subject to federal and state taxes.
In addition, foreign entities may also be subject to the taxes
of the host country. An income tax allocation is required to be
estimated on our taxable income arising from our taxable real
estate investment trust subsidiaries and international entities.
A deferred tax component could arise based upon the differences
in GAAP versus tax income for items such as depreciation and
gain recognition. However, we believe deferred tax is an
immaterial component of our consolidated balance sheet.
CONSOLIDATED
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Effective October 1, 2006, we deconsolidated AMB
Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., on a prospective
basis, due to the re-evaluation of the accounting for our
investment in the fund in light of changes to the partnership
agreement regarding the general partners rights effective
October 1, 2006. As a result, our results of operations
presented below are not comparable between years presented.
The analysis below includes changes attributable to same store
growth, acquisitions, development activity and divestitures.
Same store properties are those that we owned during both the
current and prior year reporting periods, excluding development
properties stabilized after December 31, 2004 (generally
defined as properties that are 90% leased or properties for
which we have held a certificate of occupancy or where building
has been substantially complete for at least 12 months).
As of December 31, 2006, same store industrial properties
consisted of properties aggregating approximately
71.2 million square feet. The properties acquired during
2006 consisted of 73 buildings, aggregating approximately
6.6 million square feet. The properties acquired during
2005 consisted of 41 buildings, aggregating approximately
6.9 million square feet. During 2006, property divestitures
and contributions consisted of 50 buildings, aggregating
approximately 7.5 million square feet. In 2005, property
divestitures and contributions consisted of 150 buildings,
aggregating approximately 10.6 million square feet. Our
future financial condition and results of operations, including
rental revenues, may be impacted by the acquisition of
additional properties and dispositions. Our future revenues and
expenses may vary materially from historical results.
45
For the
Years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 (dollars in
millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Rental revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. industrial:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store
|
|
$
|
514.9
|
|
|
$
|
501.5
|
|
|
$
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
2006 acquisitions
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
2005 acquisitions
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
70.2
|
%
|
Development
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
Other industrial
|
|
|
74.3
|
|
|
|
63.6
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
%
|
Non U.S. industrial
|
|
|
62.5
|
|
|
|
33.1
|
|
|
|
29.4
|
|
|
|
88.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total rental revenues
|
|
|
683.8
|
|
|
|
617.0
|
|
|
|
66.8
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
Private capital income
|
|
|
46.1
|
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
729.9
|
|
|
$
|
660.9
|
|
|
$
|
69.0
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. industrial same store revenues increased
$13.4 million from the prior year despite the decrease of
$12.8 million in same store revenues due to the
deconsolidation of AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III,
L.P., effective October 1, 2006, attributable primarily to
improved occupancy and increased rental rates in various
markets. The properties acquired during 2005 consisted of 41
buildings, aggregating approximately 6.9 million square
feet. The properties acquired during 2006 consisted of 73
buildings, aggregating approximately 6.6 million square
feet. Other industrial revenues include rental revenues from
properties that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint
venture, and accordingly are not classified as discontinued
operations in our consolidated financial statements, and
development projects that have reached certain levels of
operation and are not yet part of the same store operating pool
of properties.
Non-U.S. industrial
revenues increased approximately $29.4 million from the
prior year due primarily to the stabilization of three
properties in Japan and the continued acquisition of properties
in France, Germany and Mexico. The increase in private capital
income was primarily due to increased asset management and
acquisition fees from additional assets held in co-investment
joint ventures, which were partially offset by a decrease in
incentive distributions of approximately $3.9 million.
During 2006, we received
46
incentive distributions of $22.5 million, of which
$19.8 million was from AMB Partners II, L.P., as
compared to incentive distribution of $26.4 million for the
sale of AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P., during
2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and Expenses
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Property operating costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental expenses
|
|
$
|
100.8
|
|
|
$
|
78.4
|
|
|
$
|
22.4
|
|
|
|
28.6
|
%
|
Real estate taxes
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
|
|
80.5
|
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
(6.8
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property operating costs
|
|
$
|
175.8
|
|
|
$
|
158.9
|
|
|
$
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating costs
U.S. industrial:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store
|
|
$
|
139.0
|
|
|
$
|
132.5
|
|
|
$
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
2006 acquisitions
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
2005 acquisitions
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
76.0
|
%
|
Development
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
Other industrial
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
Non U.S. industrial
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
96.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property operating costs
|
|
|
175.8
|
|
|
|
158.9
|
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
177.8
|
|
|
|
161.7
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
Impairment losses
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
104.3
|
|
|
|
71.6
|
|
|
|
32.7
|
|
|
|
45.7
|
%
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
(48.0
|
)%
|
Fund costs
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
$
|
468.9
|
|
|
$
|
398.7
|
|
|
$
|
70.2
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store properties operating expenses increased
$6.5 million from the prior year, despite the decrease of
$2.5 million in same store operating expenses due to the
deconsolidation of AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III,
L.P., effective October 1, 2006, due primarily to increased
insurance costs, utility expenses, repair and maintenance
expenses, and other non-reimbursable expenses. The 2005
acquisitions consisted of 41 buildings, aggregating
approximately 6.9 million square feet. The 2006
acquisitions consisted of 73 buildings, aggregating
approximately 6.6 million square feet. Other industrial
expenses include expenses from divested properties that have
been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture, and
accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in our
consolidated financial statements, and development properties
that have reached certain levels of operation and are not yet
part of the same store operating pool of properties.
Non-U.S. industrial
revenues increased approximately $6.0 million from the
prior year due primarily to the stabilization of three
properties in Japan and the continued acquisition of properties
in France, Germany and Mexico. The increase in depreciation and
amortization expense was due to the increase in our net
investment in real estate. The 2006 impairment loss was taken on
several non-core assets as a result of leasing activities and
changes in the economic environment and the holding period of
certain assets. The increase in general and administrative
expenses was primarily due to increased
stock-based
compensation expense as a result of higher values assigned to
option and stock awards and executive departures, additional
staffing and expenses for our international expansion, and the
acquisition of AMB Blackpine. Other expenses decreased
approximately $2.4 million from the prior year due
primarily to a decrease in losses associated with our deferred
compensation plan and a decrease in certain deal costs. Fund
costs represent general and administrative costs paid to third
parties associated with our co-investment joint ventures.
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income and (Expenses)
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of
unconsolidated joint ventures, net
|
|
$
|
23.2
|
|
|
$
|
10.8
|
|
|
$
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
114.8
|
%
|
Other income
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
67.9
|
%
|
Gains from dispositions of real
estate interests, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
(19.1
|
)
|
|
|
(100.0
|
)%
|
Development profits, net of taxes
|
|
|
106.4
|
|
|
|
54.8
|
|
|
|
51.6
|
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
Interest expense, including
amortization
|
|
|
(165.2
|
)
|
|
|
(147.3
|
)
|
|
|
17.9
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income and (expenses),
net
|
|
$
|
(26.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(57.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(30.8
|
)
|
|
|
(54.0
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The $12.4 million increase in equity in earnings of
unconsolidated joint ventures was primarily due to gains of
$17.5 million from the disposition of real estate by our
unconsolidated co-investment joint ventures during 2006 as
opposed to $5.5 million of such gains during 2005 and,
effective October 1, 2006, the deconsolidation of AMB
Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., which resulted in an
increase of approximately $5.1 million. These increases
were partially offset by an increase in expenses by our
unconsolidated joint ventures. The increase in other income was
primarily due to increased bank interest income and an increase
in property management income due to the expansion of our
property management business. The 2005 gains from disposition of
real estate interests resulted primarily from our contribution
of $106.9 million (using the exchange rate in effect at
contribution) in operating properties to our then newly formed
unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB Japan
Fund I, L.P. Development profits represent gains from the
sale of development projects and land as part of our
development-for-sale
program. The increase in development profits was due to
increased disposition and contribution volume during 2006.
During 2006, we sold five land parcels and six development
projects totaling approximately 1.3 million square feet for
an aggregate sale price of $86.6 million, resulting in an
after-tax gain of $13.3 million. In addition, during 2006,
we received approximately $0.4 million in connection with
the condemnation of a parcel of land resulting in a loss of
$1.0 million, $0.8 million of which was the joint
venture partners share. During 2006, we also contributed a
total of ten completed development projects into unconsolidated
co-investment joint ventures. Four projects totaling
approximately 2.6 million square feet were contributed into
AMB Japan Fund I, L.P, two projects totaling approximately
0.8 million square feet were contributed into AMB-SGP
Mexico, LLC, three projects totaling approximately
0.6 million square feet were contributed into AMB
Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P., and one land parcel
into AMB DFS Fund I, LLC. As a result of these
contributions, we recognized an aggregate after-tax gain of
$94.1 million, representing the portion of our interest in
the contributed property acquired by the third-party investors
for cash. During 2005, we sold five land parcels and five
development projects, aggregating approximately 0.9 million
square feet for an aggregate price of $155.2 million,
resulting in an after-tax gain of $45.1 million. In
addition, during 2005, we received final proceeds of
$7.8 million from a land sale that occurred in 2004. During
2005, we also contributed one completed development project into
an unconsolidated joint venture,
AMB-SGP
Mexico, LLC, and recognized an after-tax gain of
$1.9 million representing the portion of our interest in
the contributed property acquired by the third-party
co-investor
for cash. The increase in interest expense, including
amortization, was due primarily to increased borrowings on
unsecured credit facilities and other debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Income attributable to
discontinued operations, net of minority interests
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
13.9
|
|
|
$
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
(33.1
|
)%
|
Gains from dispositions of real
estate, net of minority interests
|
|
|
42.6
|
|
|
|
113.6
|
|
|
|
(71.0
|
)
|
|
|
(62.5
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
51.9
|
|
|
$
|
127.5
|
|
|
$
|
(75.6
|
)
|
|
|
(59.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During 2006, we divested ourselves of 39 industrial buildings,
aggregating approximately 3.5 million square feet, for an
aggregate price of approximately $175.3 million, with a
resulting net gain of approximately $42.6 million. During
2005, we divested ourselves of 142 industrial buildings and one
retail center, aggregating approximately 9.3 million square
feet, for an aggregate price of $926.6 million, with a
resulting net gain of $113.6 million. Included in these
divestitures is the sale of the assets of AMB Institutional
Alliance Fund I, L.P., for $618.5 million. The
multi-investor fund owned 100 buildings totaling approximately
5.8 million square feet. We
48
received cash and a distribution of an on-tarmac property, AMB
DFW Air Cargo Center I, in exchange for our 21% interest in
the fund.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Preferred stock dividends
|
|
$
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
83.8
|
%
|
Preferred unit redemption issuance
costs
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total preferred stock dividends
|
|
$
|
(14.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
98.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In December 2005, we issued 3,000,000 shares of 7.0%
Series O Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. In August
2006, we issued 2,000,000 shares of 6.85% Series P
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The increase in preferred
stock dividends is due to the newly issued shares. In addition,
during the year ended December 31, 2006, AMB
Property II, L.P., one of our subsidiaries, repurchased all
840,000 of its outstanding 8.125% Series H Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units, all 220,440 of
its outstanding 7.75% Series E Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Limited Partnership Units, all 201,139 of its
outstanding 7.95% Series F Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Limited Partnership Units and all 729,582 of its outstanding
5.00% Series N Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited
Partnership Units. As a result, we recognized a decrease in
income available to common stockholders of $1.1 million for
the original issuance costs, net of discount on repurchase.
For the
Years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 (dollars in
millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Rental revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. industrial:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store
|
|
$
|
501.5
|
|
|
$
|
489.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
2005 acquisitions
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
256.3
|
%
|
Development
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
(14.0
|
)%
|
Other industrial
|
|
|
63.6
|
|
|
|
34.6
|
|
|
|
29.0
|
|
|
|
83.8
|
%
|
Non U.S. industrial
|
|
|
33.1
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total rental revenues
|
|
|
617.0
|
|
|
|
563.5
|
|
|
|
53.5
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
%
|
Private capital income
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
240.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
660.9
|
|
|
$
|
576.4
|
|
|
$
|
84.5
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. industrial same store revenues increased
$11.6 million from 2004 to 2005 on a
year-to-date
basis attributable primarily to improved occupancy and increased
rental rates in various markets. The properties acquired during
2004 consisted of 64 buildings, aggregating approximately
7.6 million square feet. The properties acquired during
2005 consisted of 41 buildings, aggregating approximately
6.9 million square feet. Other industrial revenues include
rental revenues from properties that have been contributed to an
unconsolidated joint venture, and accordingly are not classified
as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial
statements, and development projects that have reached certain
levels of operation and are not yet part of the same store
operating pool of properties. In 2004 and 2005, we continued to
acquire properties in China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and
the Netherlands, resulting in increased international industrial
revenues. The increase in private capital income was primarily
due to increased asset management fees from additional assets
held in co-investment joint ventures and incentive distributions
for 2005 of $26.4 million for the sale of
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, asset
49
management priority distributions from AMB Japan Fund I,
L.P., and acquisition fees from AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund III, L.P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and Expenses
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Property operating costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental expenses
|
|
$
|
78.4
|
|
|
$
|
80.8
|
|
|
$
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)%
|
Real estate taxes
|
|
|
80.5
|
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property operating costs
|
|
$
|
158.9
|
|
|
$
|
144.1
|
|
|
$
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property operating costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. industrial:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store
|
|
$
|
132.5
|
|
|
$
|
128.7
|
|
|
$
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
2005 acquisitions
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
177.8
|
%
|
Development
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
Other industrial
|
|
|
15.2
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
94.9
|
%
|
Non U.S. industrial
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
34.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property operating costs
|
|
|
158.9
|
|
|
|
144.1
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
161.7
|
|
|
|
136.6
|
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
71.6
|
|
|
|
57.2
|
|
|
|
14.4
|
|
|
|
25.2
|
%
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
92.3
|
%
|
Fund costs
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.8
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
$
|
398.7
|
|
|
$
|
342.2
|
|
|
$
|
56.5
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same store properties operating expenses increased
$3.8 million from 2004 to 2005 on a
year-to-date
basis due primarily to increased insurance costs, utility
expenses, repair and maintenance expenses, and other
non-reimbursable expenses. The 2004 acquisitions consisted of 64
buildings, aggregating approximately 7.6 million square
feet. The 2005 acquisitions consisted of 41 buildings,
aggregating approximately 6.9 million square feet. Other
industrial expenses include expenses from divested properties
that have been contributed to an unconsolidated joint venture,
and accordingly are not classified as discontinued operations in
our consolidated financial statements, and development
properties that have reached certain levels of operation and are
not yet part of the same store operating pool of properties. In
2004 and 2005, we continued to acquire properties in China,
France, Germany, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands, resulting in
increased international industrial property operating costs. The
increase in depreciation and amortization expense was due to the
increase in our net investment in real estate during the year.
The increase in general and administrative expenses was
primarily due to additional staffing and expenses for new
initiatives, including our international and development
expansions and the expansion of satellite offices. Other
expenses increased approximately $2.4 million from the
prior year due primarily to greater losses on our non-qualified
deferred compensation plan in 2005 and an increase in certain
deal costs. Fund costs represent general and administrative
costs paid to third parties associated with our co-investment
joint ventures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income and (Expenses)
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of
unconsolidated joint ventures, net
|
|
$
|
10.8
|
|
|
$
|
3.8
|
|
|
$
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
184.2
|
%
|
Other income
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
%
|
Gains from dispositions of real
estate interests
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
267.3
|
%
|
Development profits, net of taxes
|
|
|
54.8
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
46.3
|
|
|
|
544.7
|
%
|
Interest expense, including
amortization
|
|
|
(147.3
|
)
|
|
|
(141.9
|
)
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income and (expenses),
net
|
|
$
|
(57.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(119.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(62.7
|
)
|
|
|
(52.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The $7.0 million increase in equity in earnings of
unconsolidated joint ventures was primarily due to a gain of
$5.4 million from the disposition of real estate by one of
our unconsolidated co-investment joint ventures during the
50
second quarter of 2005. The increase in other income was
primarily due to increased bank interest income. The 2005 gains
from disposition of real estate interests resulted primarily
from our contribution of $106.9 million (using exchange
rate in effect at contribution) in operating properties to our
newly formed unconsolidated co-investment joint venture, AMB
Japan Fund I, L.P. The 2004 gains from disposition of real
estate interests resulted from our contribution of
$71.5 million in operating properties to our unconsolidated
co-investment joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC. Development
profits represent gains from the sale of development projects
and land as part of our
development-for-sale
program. The increase in development profits was due to
increased volume in 2005. During 2005, we sold five land parcels
and five development projects, aggregating approximately
0.9 million square feet for an aggregate price of
$155.2 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of
$45.1 million. In addition, during 2005, we received final
proceeds of $7.8 million from a land sale that occurred in
2004. During 2005, we also contributed one completed development
project into an unconsolidated joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico,
LLC, and recognized an after-tax gain of $1.9 million
representing the portion of our interest in the contributed
property acquired by the third-party co-investor for cash.
During 2004, we sold seven land parcels and six development
projects as part of our
development-for-sale
program, aggregating approximately 0.3 million square feet
for an aggregate price of $40.4 million, resulting in an
after-tax gain of $6.5 million. During 2004, we also
contributed one completed development project into a newly
formed unconsolidated joint venture, AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, and
recognized an after-tax gain of $2.0 million representing
the portion of our interest in the contributed property acquired
by the third-party co-investor for cash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued Operations
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Income attributable to
discontinued operations, net of minority interests
|
|
$
|
13.9
|
|
|
$
|
21.9
|
|
|
$
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
(36.5
|
)%
|
Gains from dispositions of real
estate, net of minority interests
|
|
|
113.6
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
71.6
|
|
|
|
170.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
127.5
|
|
|
$
|
63.9
|
|
|
$
|
63.6
|
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During 2005, we divested ourselves of 142 industrial buildings
and one retail center, aggregating approximately
9.3 million square feet, for an aggregate price of
approximately $926.6 million, with a resulting net gain of
approximately $113.6 million. Included in these
divestitures is the sale of the assets of AMB Alliance
Fund I for $618.5 million. The multi-investor fund
owned 100 buildings totaling approximately 5.8 million
square feet. We received cash and a distribution of an on-tarmac
property, AMB DFW Air Cargo Center I, in exchange for our
21% interest in the fund. During 2004, we divested ourselves of
21 industrial buildings, two retail centers and one office
building, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square
feet, for an aggregate price of $200.3 million, with a
resulting net gain of $42.0 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Preferred stock dividends
|
|
$
|
(7.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total preferred stock
|
|
$
|
(7.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In December 2005, we issued 3,000,000 shares of 7.0%
Series O Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The
increase in preferred stock dividends is due to the newly issued
shares.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Balance Sheet Strategy. In general, we use
unsecured lines of credit, unsecured notes, preferred stock and
common equity (issued by us
and/or the
operating partnership and its subsidiaries) to capitalize our
100%-owned assets. Over time, we plan to retire non-recourse,
secured debt encumbering our 100%-owned assets and replace that
debt with unsecured notes. In managing our co-investment joint
ventures, in general, we use non-recourse, secured debt to
capitalize our co-investment joint ventures.
We currently expect that our principal sources of working
capital and funding for acquisitions, development, expansion and
renovation of properties will include:
|
|
|
|
|
retained earnings and cash flow from operations;
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
private capital from co-investment partners;
|
|
|
|
net proceeds from contribution of properties and completed
development projects to our co-investment joint ventures;
|
|
|
|
borrowings under our unsecured credit facilities;
|
|
|
|
other forms of secured or unsecured financing;
|
|
|
|
proceeds from equity (common and preferred) or debt securities
offerings;
|
|
|
|
proceeds from limited partnership unit offerings (including
issuances of limited partnership units by our
subsidiaries); and
|
|
|
|
net proceeds from divestitures of properties.
|
We currently expect that our principal funding requirements will
include:
|
|
|
|
|
working capital;
|
|
|
|
development, expansion and renovation of properties;
|
|
|
|
acquisitions, including our global expansion;
|
|
|
|
debt service; and
|
|
|
|
dividends and distributions on outstanding common and preferred
stock and limited partnership units.
|
Cash flows. As of December 31, 2006, cash
provided by operating activities was $335.9 million as
compared to $295.8 million for the same period in 2005.
This change is primarily due to increases in rental rates,
partially offset by an increase in general and administrative
expenses primarily due to additional staffing and expenses for
new initiatives, including our international and development
expansions and increased occupancy costs related to the
expansion of regional offices. Cash used for investing
activities was $880.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006, as compared to cash used for investing
activities of $60.4 million for the same period in 2005.
This change is primarily due to an increase in funds used for
property acquisitions and capital expenditures, and a decrease
in proceeds from property divestitures (mainly due to the
divesture of AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P.,
portfolio in 2005), offset by less funds used for additions to
interests in unconsolidated joint ventures and an increase in
capital distributions received from unconsolidated joint
ventures. Cash provided by financing activities was
$483.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006,
as compared to cash used in financing activities of
$101.9 million for the same period in 2005. This change is
due primarily to an increase in borrowings, net of repayments,
issuance of common stock upon the exercise of options and
issuances of preferred stock, offset by the cost of the
repurchase of preferred units for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
We believe that our sources of working capital, specifically our
cash flow from operations, borrowings available under our
unsecured credit facilities and our ability to access private
and public debt and equity capital, are adequate for us to meet
our liquidity requirements for the foreseeable future. The
unavailability of capital could adversely affect our financial
condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay
dividends on, and the market price of, our stock.
Capital
Resources
Property Divestitures. During 2006, we
divested ourselves of 39 industrial buildings, aggregating
approximately 3.5 million square feet, for an aggregate
price of $175.3 million, with a resulting net gain of
$42.6 million.
Development Sales. During 2006, we sold five
land parcels and six development projects totaling approximately
1.3 million square feet for an aggregate sale price of
$86.6 million, resulting in an after-tax gain of
$13.3 million. In addition, during 2006, we received
approximately $0.4 million in connection with the
condemnation of a parcel of land resulting in a loss of
$1.0 million, $0.8 million of which was the joint
venture partners share.
52
Development Contributions. During 2006, we
contributed a total of nine completed development projects and
one land parcel into unconsolidated co-investment joint
ventures. Four projects totaling approximately 2.6 million
square feet were contributed into AMB Japan Fund I, L.P,
two projects totaling approximately 0.8 million square feet
were contributed into AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC, and three projects
totaling approximately 0.6 million square feet were
contributed into AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P.
In addition, one land parcel was contributed into AMB DFS
Fund I, LLC. As a result of these contributions, we
recognized an aggregate after-tax gain of $94.1 million,
representing the portion of our interest in the contributed
property acquired by the third-party investors for cash. These
gains are included in development profits, net of taxes, in the
statement of operations.
Properties Held for Contribution. As of
December 31, 2006, we held for contribution to
co-investment joint ventures, nine industrial projects with an
aggregate net book value of $154.0 million, which, when
contributed to a joint venture, will reduce our current
ownership interest from approximately 100% to an expected range
of 15-50%.
Properties Held for Divestiture. As of
December 31, 2006, we held for divestiture four industrial
projects, which are not in our core markets, do not meet our
current strategic objectives or which we have included as part
of our
development-for-sale
program. The divestitures of the properties are subject to
negotiation of acceptable terms and other customary conditions.
As of December 31, 2006, the net carrying value of the
properties held for divestiture was $20.9 million. Expected
net sales proceeds exceed the net carrying value of the
properties.
Co-investment Joint Ventures. Through the
operating partnership, we enter into co-investment joint
ventures with institutional investors. These co-investment joint
ventures are managed by our private capital group and provide us
with an additional source of capital to fund certain
acquisitions, development projects and renovation projects, as
well as private capital income. We generally consolidate these
joint ventures for financial reporting purposes because they are
not variable interest entities and because we are the sole
managing general partner and control all major operating
decisions. However, in certain cases, our co-investment joint
ventures are unconsolidated because we do not control all major
operating decisions and the general partners do not have
significant rights under EITF
04-5.
Third-party equity interests in the joint ventures are reflected
as minority interests in the consolidated financial statements.
As of December 31, 2006, we owned approximately
64.3 million square feet of our properties (51.6% of the
total operating and development portfolio) through our
consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. We may make
additional investments through these joint ventures or new joint
ventures in the future and presently plan to do so. Our
consolidated co-investment joint ventures at December 31,
2006 (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Planned
|
|
Consolidated Co-Investment Joint Venture
|
|
Joint Venture Partner
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
Capitalization(1)
|
|
|
AMB/Erie, L.P.
|
|
Erie Insurance Company and
affiliates
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
200,000
|
|
AMB Partners II, L.P.
|
|
City and County of
San Francisco Employees Retirement System
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
$
|
580,000
|
|
AMB-SGP, L.P.
|
|
Industrial JV Pte. Ltd.(2)
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
420,000
|
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund II, L.P.
|
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
REIT II, Inc.(3)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
$
|
490,000
|
|
AMB-AMS, L.P.(4)
|
|
PMT, SPW and TNO(5)
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
$
|
228,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Planned capitalization includes anticipated debt and both
partners expected equity contributions. |
|
(2) |
|
A subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte. Ltd., the real estate
investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation. |
|
(3) |
|
Comprised of 14 institutional investors as stockholders and one
third-party limited partner as of December 31, 2006. |
|
(4) |
|
AMB-AMS,
L.P. is a co-investment partnership with three Dutch pension
funds. |
|
(5) |
|
PMT is Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek, SPW is
Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Woningcorporaties and TNO is
Stichting Pensioenfonds TNO. |
53
Our unconsolidated joint ventures at December 31, 2006
(dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Planned
|
|
Unconsolidated Co-Investment Joint Venture
|
|
Joint Venture Partner
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
Capitalization(1)
|
|
|
AMB-SGP Mexico, LLC
|
|
Industrial (Mexico) JV Pte. Ltd.(2)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
$
|
715,000
|
|
AMB Japan Fund I, L.P.
|
|
Institutional investors(3)
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,100,000
|
(4)
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
Fund III, L.P.(5)
|
|
AMB Institutional Alliance
REIT III, Inc.
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,323,000
|
(6)
|
AMB DFS Fund I, LLC(7)
|
|
Strategic Realty Ventures, LLC
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Planned capitalization includes anticipated debt and both
partners expected equity contributions. |
|
(2) |
|
A subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte. Ltd., the real estate
investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation. |
|
(3) |
|
Comprised of 13 institutional investors as of December 31,
2006. |
|
(4) |
|
AMB Japan Fund I, L.P. is a yen-denominated fund.
U.S. dollar amounts are converted at the December 31,
2006 exchange rate. |
|
(5) |
|
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. is an open-ended
co-investment partnership formed in 2004 with institutional
investors, which invests through a private real estate
investment trust. Prior to October 1, 2006, the Company
accounted for AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. as
a consolidated joint venture. |
|
(6) |
|
The planned gross capitalization and investment capacity of AMB
Institutional Alliance Fund III, L.P. as an open-end fund,
is not limited. The planned gross capitalization represents the
gross book value of real estate assets as of the most recent
quarter end. |
|
(7) |
|
AMB DFS Fund I, LLC is a co-investment partnership formed
in 2006 with a subsidiary of GE Real Estate to build and sell
properties. |
We also have a 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with an
approximate 33% economic interest) in AMB Pier One, LLC, a joint
venture related to the 2000 redevelopment of the pier which
houses our office space in the San Francisco Bay Area. The
investment is not consolidated because we do not exercise
control over major operating decisions such as approval of
budgets, selection of property managers, investment activity and
changes in financing. We have an option to purchase the
remaining equity interest beginning January 1, 2007 and
expiring December 31, 2009, based on the fair market value
as stipulated in the joint venture agreement. As of
December 31, 2006, we also had an approximate 39.0%
unconsolidated equity interest in G.Accion, a Mexican real
estate company. G.Accion provides management and development
services for industrial, retail, residential and office
properties in Mexico. In addition, as of December 31, 2006,
one of our subsidiaries also had an approximate 5% interest in
IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund (IAT), a Canadian income
trust specializing in aviation-related real estate at
Canadas leading international airports. This equity
investment is included in other assets on the consolidated
balance sheets.
Common and Preferred Equity. We have
authorized for issuance 100,000,000 shares of preferred
stock, of which the following series were designated as of
December 31, 2006: 1,595,337 shares of series D
preferred; 510,000 shares of series I cumulative
redeemable preferred; 800,000 shares of series J
cumulative redeemable preferred; 800,000 shares of
series K cumulative redeemable preferred;
2,300,000 shares of series L cumulative redeemable
preferred, of which 2,000,000 are outstanding;
2,300,000 shares of series M cumulative redeemable
preferred, all of which are outstanding; 3,000,000 shares
of series O cumulative redeemable preferred, all of which
are outstanding; and 2,000,000 shares of series P
cumulative redeemable preferred, all of which are outstanding.
On November 1, 2006, AMB Property II, L.P., issued
1,130,835 of its class B common limited partnership units
in connection with a property acquisition.
On September 21, 2006, AMB Property II, L.P.,
repurchased all 201,139 of its outstanding 7.95% Series F
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units from a
single institutional investor for an aggregate price of
$10.0 million, including accrued and unpaid distributions.
In connection with this repurchase, we reclassified all of our
267,439 shares of 7.95% series F Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock as preferred stock.
54
On June 30, 2006, AMB Property II, L.P., repurchased
all 220,440 of its outstanding 7.75% Series E Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units from a single
institutional investor for an aggregate price of
$10.9 million, including accrued and unpaid distributions.
In connection with this repurchase, we reclassified all of our
220,440 shares of 7.75% series E Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock as preferred stock.
On March 21, 2006, AMB Property II, L.P., repurchased
all 840,000 of its outstanding 8.125% Series H Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units from a single
institutional investor for an aggregate price of
$42.8 million, including accrued and unpaid distributions.
In connection with this repurchase, we reclassified all of our
840,000 shares of 8.125% Series H Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock as preferred stock.
On September 24, 2004, AMB Property II, L.P., a
partnership in which Texas AMB I, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and our indirect subsidiary, owns an
approximate 8.0% general partnership interest and the operating
partnership owns an approximate 92% common limited partnership
interest, issued 729,582 5.00% Series N Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Limited Partnership Units at a price of
$50.00 per unit. The series N preferred units were
issued to Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc. in exchange for the
contribution to AMB Property II, L.P of certain parcels of
land that are located in multiple markets. Effective
January 27, 2006, Robert Pattillo Properties, Inc.
exercised its rights under its Put Agreement, dated
September 24, 2004, with the operating partnership, and
sold all of the series N preferred units to the operating
partnership for an aggregate price of $36.6 million,
including accrued and unpaid distributions. Also on
January 27, 2006, AMB Property II, L.P. repurchased
all of the series N preferred units from the operating
partnership at an aggregate price of $36.6 million and
cancelled all of the outstanding series N preferred units
as of such date.
As of December 31, 2006, $145.3 million in preferred
units with a weighted average rate of 7.85%, issued by the
operating partnership, were callable under the terms of the
partnership agreement and $40.0 million in preferred units
with a weighted average rate of 7.95% become callable in 2007.
On August 25, 2006, we issued and sold
2,000,000 shares of 6.85% Series P Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock at $25.00 per share. Dividends
are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly
in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.7125 per annum.
The series P preferred stock is redeemable by us on or
after August 25, 2011, subject to certain conditions, for
cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus
accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the
redemption date. We contributed the net proceeds of
approximately $48.1 million to the operating partnership,
and in exchange, the operating partnership issued to us
2,000,000 6.85% Series P Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Units.
On December 13, 2005, we issued and sold
3,000,000 shares of 7.00% Series O Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock at $25.00 per share. Dividends
are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly
in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.75 per annum.
The series O preferred stock is redeemable by us on or
after December 13, 2010, subject to certain conditions, for
cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus
accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the
redemption date. We contributed the net proceeds of
approximately $72.3 million to the operating partnership,
and in exchange, the operating partnership issued to us
3,000,000 7.00% Series O Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Units.
On November 25, 2003, we issued and sold
2,300,000 shares of 6.75% Series M Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock at $25.00 per share. Dividends
are cumulative from the date of issuance and payable quarterly
in arrears at a rate per share equal to $1.6875 per annum.
The series M preferred stock is redeemable by us on or
after November 25, 2008, subject to certain conditions, for
cash at a redemption price equal to $25.00 per share, plus
accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the
redemption date. We contributed the net proceeds of
approximately $55.4 million to the operating partnership,
and in exchange, the operating partnership issued to us
2,300,000 6.75% Series M Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Units.
On June 23, 2003, we issued and sold 2,000,000 shares
of 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock at a
price of $25.00 per share. Dividends are cumulative from
the date of issuance and payable quarterly in arrears at a rate
per share equal to $1.625 per annum. The series L
preferred stock is redeemable by us on or after June 23,
2008, subject to certain conditions, for cash at a redemption
price equal to $25.00 per share, plus accumulated and
unpaid dividends thereon, if any, to the redemption date. We
contributed the net proceeds of
55
approximately $48.0 million to the operating partnership,
and in exchange, the operating partnership issued to us
2,000,000 6.5% Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Units. The operating partnership used the proceeds, in addition
to proceeds previously contributed to the operating partnership
from other equity issuances, to redeem all 3,995,800 of its 8.5%
Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units from us on
July 28, 2003. We, in turn, used those proceeds to redeem
all 3,995,800 of our 8.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock for $100.2 million, including all
accumulated and unpaid dividends thereon, to the redemption date.
In December 2005, our board of directors approved a new two-year
common stock repurchase program for the repurchase of up to
$200.0 million of our common stock. We did not repurchase
or retire any shares of our common stock during the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Debt. In order to maintain financial
flexibility and facilitate the deployment of capital through
market cycles, we presently intend to operate with an our share
of total
debt-to-our
share of total market capitalization ratio of approximately 45%
or less. As of December 31, 2006, our share of total
debt-to-our
share of total market capitalization ratio was 34.2%. (See
footnote 1 to the Capitalization Ratios table below for our
definitions of our share of total market
capitalization, market equity and our
share of total debt.) However, we typically finance our
co-investment joint ventures with secured debt at a
loan-to-value
ratio of
50-65% per
our joint venture agreements. Additionally, we currently intend
to manage our capitalization in order to maintain an investment
grade rating on our senior unsecured debt. Regardless of these
policies, however, our organizational documents do not limit the
amount of indebtedness that we may incur. Accordingly, our
management could alter or eliminate these policies without
stockholder approval or circumstances could arise that could
render us unable to comply with these policies.
As of December 31, 2006, the aggregate principal amount of
our secured debt was $1.4 billion, excluding unamortized
debt premiums of $6.3 million. Of the $1.4 billion of
secured debt, $1.0 billion is secured by properties in our
joint ventures. The secured debt is generally non-recourse and
bears interest at rates varying from 2.9% to 10.4% per
annum (with a weighted average rate of 6.2%) and final maturity
dates ranging from February 2007 to January 2025. As of
December 31, 2006, $1.0 billion of the secured debt
obligations bear interest at fixed rates with a weighted average
interest rate of 6.1%, while the remaining $386.1 million
bear interest at variable rates (with a weighted average
interest rate of 4.7%).
As of December 31, 2006, the operating partnership had
outstanding an aggregate of $1.1 billion in unsecured
senior debt securities, which bore a weighted average interest
rate of 6.2% and had a weighted average term of 4.8 years.
These unsecured senior debt securities include
$300.0 million in notes issued in June 1998,
$225.0 million of medium-term notes, which were issued
under the operating partnerships 2000 medium-term note
program, $275.0 million of medium-term notes, which were
issued under the operating partnerships 2002 medium-term
note program, $175.0 million of medium-term notes, which
were issued under the operating partnerships 2006 medium
term-note program and approximately $112.5 million of
5.094% Notes Due 2015, which were issued to Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America on July 11,
2005 in a private placement, in exchange for the cancellation of
$100.0 million of notes that were issued in June 1998
resulting in a discount of approximately $12.5 million. The
unsecured senior debt securities are subject to various
covenants. Also included is a $25.0 million promissory note
which matures in January 2007.
We guarantee the operating partnerships obligations with
respect to its senior debt securities. If we are unable to
refinance or extend principal payments due at maturity or pay
them with proceeds from other capital transactions, then our
cash flow may be insufficient to pay dividends to our
stockholders in all years and to repay debt upon maturity.
Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates or other factors at
the time of refinancing (such as the reluctance of lenders to
make commercial real estate loans) result in higher interest
rates upon refinancing, then the interest expense relating to
that refinanced indebtedness would increase. This increased
interest expense would adversely affect our financial condition,
results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends
on, and the market price of, our stock.
Credit Facilities. On June 1, 2006, the
operating partnership entered into a third amended and restated
$550.0 million unsecured revolving credit agreement that
replaced its then-existing $500.0 million credit facility,
which was to mature on June 1, 2007. We are a guarantor of
the operating partnerships obligations under the credit
facility. The line, which matures on June 1, 2010, carries
a one-year extension option and can be increased to up to
56
$700.0 million upon certain conditions. The rate on the
borrowings is generally LIBOR plus a margin, based on the
operating partnerships long-term debt rating, which was
42.5 basis points as of December 31, 2006, with an
annual facility fee of 15 basis points. The four-year
credit facility includes a multi-currency component, under which
up to $550.0 million can be drawn in U.S. dollars,
Euros, Yen or British Pounds Sterling. The operating partnership
uses its unsecured credit facility principally for acquisitions,
funding development activity and general working capital
requirements. As of December 31, 2006, the outstanding
balance on the credit facility was $303.7 million and the
remaining amount available was $234.6 million, net of
outstanding letters of credit of $11.7 million. The
outstanding balance included borrowings denominated in Euros,
which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31,
2006, equaled approximately $303.7 million
U.S. dollars.
On June 23, 2006, AMB Japan Finance Y.K., a subsidiary of
the operating partnership and as the initial borrower, entered
into an amended and restated revolving credit agreement for a
45.0 billion Yen unsecured revolving credit facility,
which, using the exchange rate in effect on December 31,
2006, equaled approximately $377.9 million
U.S. dollars. This replaced the 35.0 billion Yen
unsecured revolving credit facility executed on June 29,
2004, as previously amended, which using the exchange rate in
effect on December 31, 2006, equaled approximately
$293.9 million U.S. dollars. We, along with the
operating partnership, guarantee the obligations of AMB Japan
Finance Y.K. under the credit facility, as well as the
obligations of any other entity in which the operating
partnership directly or indirectly owns an ownership interest
and which is selected from time to time to be a borrower under
and pursuant to the credit agreement. The borrowers intend to
use the proceeds from the facility to fund the acquisition and
development of properties and for other real estate purposes in
Japan, China and South Korea. Generally, borrowers under the
credit facility have the option to secure all or a portion of
the borrowings under the credit facility with certain real
estate assets or equity in entities holding such real estate
assets. The credit facility matures in June 2010 and has a
one-year extension option. The credit facility can be increased
to up to 55.0 billion Yen, which, using the exchange rate
in effect on December 31, 2006, equaled approximately
$461.9 million U.S. dollars. The extension option is
subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and the
payment of an extension fee equal to 0.15% of the outstanding
commitments under the facility at that time. The rate on the
borrowings is generally TIBOR plus a margin, which is based on
the credit rating of the operating partnerships long-term
debt and was 42.5 basis points as of December 31,
2006. In addition, there is an annual facility fee, payable in
quarterly amounts, which is based on the credit rating of the
operating partnerships long-term debt, and was 15 basis
points of the outstanding commitments under the facility as of
December 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2006, the
outstanding balance on this credit facility, using the exchange
rate in effect on December 31, 2006, was
$320.9 million in U.S. dollars.
On June 13, 2006, the operating partnership and certain of
its consolidated subsidiaries entered into a fourth amended and
restated credit agreement for a $250.0 million unsecured
revolving credit facility, which replaced the third amended and
restated credit agreement for a $250.0 million unsecured
credit facility. On February 16, 2006, the third amended
and restated credit agreement replaced the then-existing
$100.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility that was
to mature in June 2008. We, along with the operating
partnership, guarantee the obligations for such subsidiaries and
other entities controlled by us or the operating partnership
that are selected by the operating partnership from time to time
to be borrowers under and pursuant to the credit facility. The
four-year credit facility includes a multi-currency component
under which up to $250.0 million can be drawn in
U.S. dollars, Hong Kong dollars, Singapore dollars,
Canadian dollars and Euros. The line, which matures in February
2010 and carries a one-year extension option, can be increased
to up to $350.0 million upon certain conditions and the
payment of an extension fee equal to 0.15% of the outstanding
commitments. The rate on the borrowings is generally LIBOR plus
a margin, based on the credit rating of the operating
partnerships senior unsecured long-term debt, which was 60
basis points as of December 31, 2006, with an annual
facility fee based on the credit rating of the operating
partnerships senior unsecured long-term debt. The
borrowers intend to use the proceeds from the facility to fund
the acquisition and development of properties and general
working capital requirements. As of December 31, 2006, the
outstanding balance on this facility was approximately
$227.4 million. The credit agreement contains affirmative
covenants, including financial reporting requirements and
maintenance of specified financial ratios by the operating
partnership, and negative covenants, including limitations on
the incurrence of liens and limitations on mergers or
consolidations.
57
Mortgages Receivable. Through a wholly owned
subsidiary, we hold a mortgage loan receivable on AMB Pier One,
LLC, an unconsolidated joint venture. The note bears interest at
13.0% and matures in May 2026. As of December 31, 2006, the
outstanding balance on the note was $12.7 million. We also
hold a loan receivable on G. Accion, an unconsolidated joint
venture totaling $6.1 million with an interest rate of
10.0%. The loan matures in March 2010.
The tables below summarize our debt maturities and
capitalization and reconcile our share of total debt to total
consolidated debt as of December 31, 2006 (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
|
Our
|
|
|
Joint
|
|
|
Unsecured
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secured
|
|
|
Venture
|
|
|
Senior Debt
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Debt(1)
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
Facilities(2)
|
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
12,929
|
|
|
$
|
84,815
|
|
|
$
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
16,125
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
213,869
|
|
2008
|
|
|
41,906
|
|
|
|
173,029
|
|
|
|
175,000
|
|
|
|
810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390,745
|
|
2009
|
|
|
3,536
|
|
|
|
96,833
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
971
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
201,340
|
|
2010
|
|
|
69,327
|
|
|
|
112,918
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
941
|
|
|
|
852,033
|
|
|
|
1,285,219
|
|
2011
|
|
|
3,094
|
|
|
|
228,708
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
1,014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
307,816
|
|
2012
|
|
|
5,085
|
|
|
|
169,717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,093
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,895
|
|
2013
|
|
|
38,668
|
|
|
|
55,168
|
|
|
|
175,000
|
|
|
|
65,920
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334,756
|
|
2014
|
|
|
186,864
|
|
|
|
4,261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,741
|
|
2015
|
|
|
2,174
|
|
|
|
19,001
|
|
|
|
112,491
|
|
|
|
664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134,330
|
|
2016
|
|
|
4,749
|
|
|
|
50,648
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,397
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,580
|
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,580
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
368,332
|
|
|
|
1,020,678
|
|
|
|
1,112,491
|
|
|
|
88,154
|
|
|
|
852,033
|
|
|
|
3,441,688
|
|
Unamortized premiums
|
|
|
1,632
|
|
|
|
4,712
|
|
|
|
(10,617
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,273
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total consolidated debt
|
|
|
369,964
|
|
|
|
1,025,390
|
|
|
|
1,101,874
|
|
|
|
88,154
|
|
|
|
852,033
|
|
|
|
3,437,415
|
|
Our share of unconsolidated joint
venture debt(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
330,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363,423
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
369,964
|
|
|
|
1,356,203
|
|
|
|
1,101,874
|
|
|
|
120,764
|
|
|
|
852,033
|
|
|
|
3,800,838
|
|
Joint venture partners share
of consolidated joint venture debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(660,193
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52,021
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(712,214
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our share of total debt(4)
|
|
$
|
369,964
|
|
|
$
|
696,010
|
|
|
$
|
1,101,874
|
|
|
$
|
68,743
|
|
|
$
|
852,033
|
|
|
$
|
3,088,624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average interest rate
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
Weighted average maturity
(in years)
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our secured debt and joint venture debt include debt related to
European assets in the amount of $331.3 million translated
to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate in effect on
December 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $418.5 million, $321.0 million and
$112.5 million in Euro, Yen and Canadian dollar based
borrowings, respectively, translated to U.S. dollars using
the exchange rates in effect on December 31, 2006. |
|
(3) |
|
The weighted average interest and maturity for the
unconsolidated joint venture debt were 4.4% and 5.8 years,
respectively. |
|
(4) |
|
Our share of total debt is the pro rata portion of the total
debt based on our percentage of equity interest in each of the
consolidated or unconsolidated joint ventures holding the debt.
We believe that our share of total debt is a meaningful
supplemental measure, which enables both management and
investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our leverage to
that of other companies. In addition, it allows for a more
meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other companies
that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our share of total
debt is not intended to reflect our actual liability should
there be a default under any or all of such loans or a
liquidation of the joint ventures. The above table reconciles
our share of total debt to total consolidated debt, a GAAP
financial measure. |
58
|
|
|
(5) |
|
Maturity includes $65.0 million balance outstanding on a
$65.0 million non-recourse credit facility obtained by AMB
Partners II, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Equity as of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
Shares/Units
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Market
|
|
Security
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
89,662,435
|
|
|
$
|
58.61
|
|
|
$
|
5,255,115
|
|
Common limited partnership units(1)
|
|
|
4,709,056
|
|
|
$
|
58.61
|
|
|
|
275,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
94,371,491
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,531,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes 1,258,713 class B common limited partnership units
issued by AMB Property II, L.P. as of December 31,
2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock and Units
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
Liquidation
|
|
|
|
Security
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Preference
|
|
|
Redemption Date
|
|
Series D preferred units
|
|
|
7.75
|
%
|
|
$
|
79,767
|
|
|
May 2004
|
Series I preferred units
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
|
25,500
|
|
|
March 2006
|
Series J preferred units
|
|
|
7.95
|
%
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
September 2006
|
Series K preferred units
|
|
|
7.95
|
%
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
April 2007
|
Series L preferred stock
|
|
|
6.50
|
%
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
June 2008
|
Series M preferred stock
|
|
|
6.75
|
%
|
|
|
57,500
|
|
|
November 2008
|
Series O preferred stock
|
|
|
7.00
|
%
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
December 2010
|
Series P preferred stock
|
|
|
6.85
|
%
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
August 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average/total
|
|
|
7.27
|
%
|
|
$
|
417,767
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization Ratios as of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
Total
debt-to-total
market capitalization(1)
|
|
|
39.0
|
%
|
Our share of total
debt-to-our
share of total market capitalization(1)
|
|
|
34.2
|
%
|
Total debt plus
preferred-to-total
market capitalization(1)
|
|
|
43.3
|
%
|
Our share of total debt plus
preferred-to-our
share of total market capitalization(1)
|
|
|
38.8
|
%
|
Our share of total
debt-to-our
share of total book capitalization(1)
|
|
|
55.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our definition of total market capitalization is
total debt plus preferred equity liquidation preferences plus
market equity. Our definition of our share of total market
capitalization is our share of total debt plus preferred
equity liquidation preferences plus market equity. Our
definition of market equity is the total number of
outstanding shares of our common stock and common limited
partnership units multiplied by the closing price per share of
our common stock as of December 31, 2006. Our definition of
preferred is preferred equity liquidation
preferences. Our share of total book capitalization is defined
as our share of total debt plus minority interests to preferred
unitholders and limited partnership unitholders plus
stockholders equity. Our share of total debt is the pro
rata portion of the total debt based on our percentage of equity
interest in each of the consolidated or unconsolidated ventures
holding the debt. We believe that our share of total debt is a
meaningful supplemental measure, which enables both management
and investors to analyze our leverage and to compare our
leverage to that of other companies. In addition, it allows for
a more meaningful comparison of our debt to that of other
companies that do not consolidate their joint ventures. Our
share of total debt is not intended to reflect our actual
liability should there be a default under any or all of such
loans or a liquidation of the joint ventures. For a
reconciliation of our share of total debt to total consolidated
debt, a GAAP financial measure, please see the table of debt
maturities and capitalization above. |
59
Liquidity
As of December 31, 2006, we had $174.8 million in cash
and cash equivalents and $314.2 million of additional
available borrowings under our credit facilities. As of
December 31, 2006, we had $21.1 million in restricted
cash.
Our board of directors declared a regular cash dividend for the
quarter ended December 31, 2006 of $0.46 per share of
common stock, and the operating partnership announced its
intention to pay a regular cash distribution for the quarter
ended December 31, 2006 of $0.46 per common unit. The
dividends and distributions were payable on January 5, 2007
to stockholders and unitholders of record on December 22,
2006. The series L, M, O and P preferred stock dividends
were payable on January 16, 2007 to stockholders of record
on January 5, 2007. The series J and K preferred unit
quarterly distributions were payable on January 16, 2007.
The series D and I preferred unit quarterly distributions
were paid on December 25, 2006. The following table sets
forth the dividends and distributions paid or payable per share
or unit for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004: