Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Parkway Properties Inc. (NYSE:PKY)

Q3 2013 Earnings Conference Call

November 5, 2013 9:00 am ET

Executives

James Heistand – President, Chief Executive Officer

David O’Reilly – Chief Financial Officer

Jason Lipsey – Chief Operating Officer

Jeremy Dorsett – Executive Vice President, General Counsel

Analysts

Kevin Varin – Citi

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

John Guinee – Stifel

Jamie Feldman – Bank of America

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

Matt Spencer – Robert W. Baird

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Operator

Greetings and welcome to the Parkway Properties Incorporated Third Quarter 2013 Earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star, zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Jeremy Dorsett, Executive Vice President and General Counsel. Thank you, Mr. Dorsett, you may begin.

Jeremy Dorsett

Good morning and welcome to Parkway’s third quarter 2013 earnings call. With me today are Jim Heistand, Parkway’s President and Chief Executive Officer; David O’Reilly, Parkway’s Chief Financial Officer and Chief Investment Officer, and Jason Lipsey, our Chief Operating Officer.

Before we begin, I would like to direct you to our website at pky.com, where you can download our third quarter earnings press release and the supplemental information package. The earnings release and supplemental package both include a reconciliation of certain non-GAAP financial measures that will be discussed today to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. Certain statements made today that are not in the present tense or that discuss the company’s expectations are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Although the company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, we can give no assurance that these expectations will be achieved. Please see the forward-looking statement disclaimer in Parkway’s third quarter press release for factors that could cause material differences between forward-looking statements and actual results.

With that, I’ll now turn the call over to Jim.

James Heistand

Good morning and thank you for joining us today. It has been nearly two years since we started the transformation of Parkway, and I wanted to spend a few minutes to highlight the progress we’ve made during that time. The strategy we originally articulated was to create long-term value for our shareholders through owning and operating high quality properties in targeted higher growth submarkets throughout the sun belt.

Since my first earnings call, we have achieved a great deal, including our occupancy has increased 480 basis points to 89.2% at the end of the third quarter. The embedded growth our in-place leases have moved from a negative 5.1% at the end of the third quarter 2011 to a positive mark-to-mark of 3.2% at the end of this quarter. Our NOI margins have improved from 51.7% during the third quarter of 2011 to nearly 61% during the third quarter of 2013. Our year-to-date FAD to recurring FFO margin was approximately 37.6% through the end of the third quarter for 2011 and was 73.4% year-to-date at the end of this quarter. Finally, Parkway’s equity market cap has increased from $237 million at the end of the third quarter 2011 to over $1.2 billion today, and it’s expected to surpass over $1.5 billion after the Thomas Properties transaction.

What is just as impressive is that this was done while simultaneously improving Parkway’s balance sheet as all of our (indiscernible) metrics have improved and our debt to total market cap has been reduced from 63.5% to 41.3% today. While we have accomplished much over the past two years, I can honestly say that today I am even more excited about Parkway’s prospects in the coming years. By repositioning our portfolio in terms of quality and geography and executing on our growth strategy of acquiring of concentration in select sun belt markets, including our merger with Thomas Properties, we believe that we have positioned Parkway for continued success as our markets continue to recover.

Specifically as it relates to the Thomas Properties merger, the deal provides us the opportunity to acquire 10 high quality buildings across seven assets that will significantly upgrade our Houston portfolio and expand into the very attractive Austin market. As I’ve repeatedly said over the past two years, we intend to enter the Austin market and the Thomas Property deal allows us to acquire some of the most noteworthy assets in the city at scale, all concentrated in the central business district. Our enthusiasm to own the Thomas assets was further validated after Thomas Properties announced this quarter that Statoil Gulf Services entered into a long term renewal and expansion lease of 581,000 square feet at CityWestPlace in Houston which will backfill a large pending vacancy in 2014 and confirmed the attractive market rates that we believed were achievable at these assets. As we have stated before, we estimate that this transaction will be approximately $0.13 to $0.18 per share accretive to our 2014 FFO.

This past quarter, we continued to successfully execute on our operational strategy as we signed 759,000 square feet of leases during the third quarter. Our leasing performance not only outpaced results in the last quarter by 30%, but was the strongest that Parkway has posted since the fourth quarter of 2010. Our portfolio overall lease percentage increased 50 basis points to 91.1% and we signed 153,000 square feet of new leasing at rental rates that were a 16% premium to new deals last quarter. While we are proud of our accomplishments thus far, we believe this is only the early stages of our long-term plan for the company. Both the merger and the transition of our Jackson office are expected to be completed by the end of the year and we look forward to starting 2014 with the continued execution of our plan while maintaining the momentum we have achieved thus far.

I will now turn the call over to David for an update on our recent investment activity.

David O’Reilly

As we announced in September, we have entered into a definitive merge agreement for Thomas Properties Group to merge with Parkway in a stock-for-stock transaction valued at approximately $1.2 billion. Since that announcement, Thomas Properties has successfully liquidated its joint venture with CalSTRS, exiting the Los Angeles market and assuming 100% ownership of the two Houston assets. Brandywine Realty Trust has agreed to acquire Thomas Properties’ interest in the Commerce Square assets in Philadelphia simultaneous with the merger closing and Four Point Center, a suburban Austin asset remains under contract to be sold to Brandywine subject to due diligence and other customary closing conditions. As a result of these transactions, Parkway will be acquiring seven high quality class-A assets in two very desirable sun belt markets, Houston and Austin.

We believe this transaction puts Parkway in an excellent position to take advantage of two high growth markets that fit our long-term goals. As we noted on the initial call back in September, both the Houston and Austin economies have outperformed the rest of the country, and this has had a very positive impact on these respective office markets. Specifically, the Houston and Austin markets combined have realized year-to-date net absorption in excess of 2 million square feet. This acquisition aligns within our stated strategy to obtain critical mass in targeted submarkets. Specifically, the addition of the four buildings included in the CityWestPlace will give us approximately 25% ownership of the class-A inventory in the west (indiscernible) submarket. Additionally, the five Austin assets will immediately enable us to own approximately 40% of the class-A office market in the Austin CBD.

In addition to the operating real estate assets of Thomas Properties, we will acquire a number of other tangible assets, including a land parcel at CityWestPlace, condominium projects at Murano, continuing fee income from the Austin joint venture, and cash and cash equivalents from Thomas Properties’ balance sheet. These assets are valued at approximately $79.5 million.

During the third quarter, we acquired with a joint venture partner a 40% common equity interest in a mortgage note secured by 7000 Central Park, which is an 18-storey class-A office building located in the central perimeter submarket of Atlanta, Georgia. The central perimeter submarket continues to benefit from aggressive expansions by both Cox Communications and State Farm Insurance. The 415,000 square foot asset offers structure parking, a 7,000 square foot fitness club, and many other amenities. This was an off-market transaction structured as a note purchase with an eventual intent to foreclose and own the asset on a fee simple basis. The note, which was previously under special service or oversight and had an outstanding balance of $65 million, was purchased by the joint venture for a gross purchase price of $56.6 million plus an additional $318,000 in transaction costs. At closing, Parkway funded an approximate $37 million in preferred equity and an additional $8 million for our 40% common equity interest for a total investment of approximately $45 million.

We expect to foreclose on the property this month and subsequently place secured financing on the asset, the proceeds of which will be used to repay in part our preferred equity. The building is currently 77.5% leased and the pro forma purchase price of approximately $136 per square foot represents a significant discount to estimated replacement cost. We are excited to acquire this value-add property as we believe that strong submarket fundamentals, combined with leveraging our existing local operating and leasing efficiencies, will provide us the opportunity to stabilize this asset which we believe has underperformed, given that it has been capital constrained as it’s in special service or oversight.

Additionally, I wanted to provide an update on our acquisition of Lincoln Place in Miami, Florida. Based on what we know today, we now expect this transaction to close by the end of November. We continue to believe that this is an attractive investment opportunity and we look forward to expanding our presence in the south Florida market.

We also continued to dispose of non-core assets in the third quarter with sales of our Waterstone and marine assets in Atlanta and Bank of America Plaza in Nashville. These three assets combine for 626,000 square feet of space and sold for total net proceeds of approximately $50.3 million.

Subsequent to the end of the quarter, we completed the sale of Lakewood 2, a 123,000 square foot asset in Atlanta for a gross purchase price of $10.6 million, and we are under contract to sell Carmel Crossing, a 326,000 square foot asset in Charlotte for a gross purchase price of $37.5 million subject to customary closing conditions. Both of these assets are held in our Fund II portfolio with Parkway owning a 30% interest in each, and we expect these sales to generate unlevered returns in excess of 20%. These recent asset sales are expected to provide total net proceeds of approximately $10 million, which will be used to pay down amounts outstanding under our revolving credit facility.

I will now turn the call over to Jason to give an update on operations.

Jason Lipsey

Thanks David. The current office fundamentals in our core markets generally continue to show improvement as we continue to have positive net absorption, increased rental rates, and declining vacancy levels. I’m very pleased with how this continued recovery has facilitated our third quarter operational performance. I believe we were able to continue to create value in the portfolio. We had a lot going on in the third quarter and there are two topics which characterize our performance and are worth discussing in detail. The first topic is two large vacancies at 400 North Belt in Houston and at Hearst Tower in Charlotte, which we proactively created. The second topic is the significant amount of leasing activity that we achieved during the quarter. Let’s first discuss the proactive vacancies.

As previously announced, we decided to sign an early termination with Helix Energy for 94,000 square feet at 400 North Belt, and an early renewal and contraction of 49,000 square feet with K&L Gates at Hearst Tower as part of a strategy to increase the value potential of each of these assets. Both of these vacancies took effect in the third quarter. If you recall, Helix’s in-place rental rate was at a $9 per square foot discount to what we believe the current market rate should be 400 North Belt. While we have not signed any new leases to backfill this space yet, we have good prospects for the space and there are currently minimal large blocks of contiguous space available in that submarket. Additionally, during the year we have signed 60,000 square feet of renewals at the property, all of which confirmed and exceeded our expectations for market rents at the building.

We’d also previously announced that we’d decided to execute an early renewal of 109,000 square feet and a contraction of 49,000 square feet with K&L Gates at Hearst Tower in Charlotte. We saw an opportunity to remove a large near term expiration exposure and stabilize a significant portion of the property for the next 14 years. Additionally, we believed it was highly likely that PWC, which is another customer in the building with a near-term expiration, wanted to move from its current configuration within the building and was unwilling to live through construction within its space. Our conversations with them indicated that they liked the location of Hearst Tower, but at the time we did not have any other space available in the building to accommodate their desire to relocate. The early renewal and contraction of K&L Gates allowed us to also renew PWC. The two leases solidify nearly 18% of the building through at least 2024.

These two vacancies at 400 North Belt and at Hearst Tower total approximately 143,000 square feet or approximately 1% of our overall portfolio. However, portfolio occupancy at the end of the third quarter was 89.2%, only a 70 basis point decline from last quarter. Further, the portfolio’s lease percentage at the end of the third quarter increased quarter-over-quarter to 91.1% despite these move-outs, indicating that our leasing activity during the quarter outpaced the loss of space from these two leases.

The second topic I’d like to discuss is quarterly leasing activity. During the third quarter, we signed a total of 759,000 square feet of leases at an average rental rate of $25.87. The overall rate for this leasing is down from the prior quarter, which is a direct result of the mixture of markets and buildings where this leasing activity took place, not the result of a diminution in lease economics at our buildings. Specifically, over 50% of our leasing activity for the quarter was in Atlanta, where we were able to complete leases to backfill large material vacancies. Portions of this leasing took place in legacy Parkway buildings such as Lakewood 2 and Peachtree Dunwoody Pavilion where the lease economics are lower than many of our newly acquired buildings.

Let me provide some specific detail on our new expansion and renewal leasing activities. With respect to new leases, we completed 153,000 square feet of new leasing at an average rate of $27.19. This represents a $3.80 per foot increase from our new leasing rental rates last quarter and a $7 premium to year-over-year results. These rental rates for new leases are the highest we’ve ever achieved in the history of the company. It is also important to note that these rates are for a weighted average lease term of 12.6 years.

Third quarter new leasing activity was completed at a cost of $6.91 per square foot. While this is higher than our recent averages, the cost increase was largely attributed to tenant improvements on the 100,000 square foot new lease with Pulte Homes at Capital City Plaza in Atlanta. As we mentioned last quarter, this lease has a 16-year term with no termination options, and it increases the lease percentage at the property to over 95%. This lease, which is transformative for Cap City, practically removes any vacancy exposure at that asset for a number of years and eliminates a material portfolio vacancy.

With respect to expansion leasing, we completed 219,000 square feet of expansion leasing which is a significantly higher volume than prior quarters and we believe is a very positive indicator of the recovery in our markets. While the average rates for this activity was lower than prior quarters, it was largely driven by a couple of key transformative leases. This activity included a 47,000 square foot lease expansion for Devry at Peachtree Dunwoody Pavilion in Atlanta. While rental rates at PDP are not at the same level as what we could achieve at some of our more recent acquisitions, the renewal rate for Devry represented a 15% increase over the in-place rate and we were able to increase the lease percentage at the property from 56% last quarter to over 69% today.

With respect to renewal leasing, we signed 387,000 square feet of renewal leases at an average rental rate of $26.34. Recent activity has solidified occupancy levels at a number of our assets. This includes the previously mentioned PWC renewal of 64,000 square feet with a 15-year term at Hearst Tower. Another material renewal completed during the quarter was a 30,000 square feet renewal with Colgate Palmolive at Lakewood 2 in Atlanta. While the rental rate on this renewal was only $16 full service and negatively impacted the weighted average rental rate for our renewal activity, this lease enabled us to provide the stability needed to complete the sale of Lakewood 2, which David previously discussed.

Our renewal rates were approximately 80 basis points below expiring rates, driven mostly by the PWC renewal which with contractual rent bumps and expense pass-throughs has escalated to a rate significantly above market. The good news, as Jim previously mentioned, is that our mark-to-market on expiring leases is now a positive 3.2%, a significant increase from last quarter.

Customer retention during the period was 59.4%, which we believe is outstanding given the losses of Helix and the K&L Gates space during the quarter. Our customer retention year-to-date has been 72.2%. Excluding the vacancies at Hearst Tower and 400 North Belt, customer retention would have been 75.2% for the third quarter and 79.2% year-to-date.

Parkway’s recurring same store GAAP net operating income declined 6% compared to the prior year and fell 5.6 year-over-year on a cash basis. Again, this was primarily driven by the vacancies at Hearst Tower and 400 North Belt. Excluding these two properties from the same store pool of assets, recurring same store net operating income would have increased 1.6% on a GAAP basis and would have increased 0.6% on a cash basis. Further, as of the end of this quarter the embedded growth for our in-place leases has a positive mark-to-market of 3.2%.

Given the continued progress of our leasing efforts during the third quarter, we are increasing the low end of our occupancy guidance range by 50 basis points to a revised range of 89% to 89.5% for the end of the year.

I’ll now turn the call back over to David to discuss our financial results.

David O’Reilly

Thank you, Jason. We completed the third quarter with FFO of $0.24 per share. Our third quarter results included the negative impact of one-time charges totaling $4.8 million or $0.07 per share related to the closing of the company’s Jackson, Mississippi office and acquisition costs, including costs related to the pending merger with Thomas Properties totaling $1.1 million or approximately $0.02 per share. Excluding these charges and other one-time items, our recurring FFO was $0.30 per share.

We also completed the quarter with FAD of $0.20 per share. We have provided a reconciliation of FFO, recurring FFO, and FAD to net income on Page 9 of the supplemental report.

During the quarter, we recorded a $5.6 million impairment charge in connection with our estimated value of Mesa Corporate Center, which is a 106,000 square foot office property located in the Mesa submarket of Phoenix. This is a non-core asset that does not fit within our current investment strategy and could be a potential near-term sale if the appropriate market valuation can be achieved.

We ended the quarter with net debt to EBITDA of 7.5 times. This metric increased during the third quarter as a result of the $80 million bridge loan at Thomas Properties, the proceeds of which were used to fund in part the liquidation of their venture with CalSTRS. Parkway funded the bridge loan with borrowings under its unsecured revolving credit facility. The bridge loan is expected to be fully repaid at the closing of the merger using proceeds from the asset sales to Brandywine.

Additionally, there were one-time charges totally $3.6 million that are associated with the closing of the company’s Jackson, Mississippi office. Excluding the impact of these non-recurring charges, our net debt to EBITDA multiple would have been 6.6 times.

After considering our year-to-date performance and expected results for the remainder of the year, as well as the recently announced investment activity and the pending merger with Thomas Properties, we are revising our 2013 FFO outlook to a range of $0.79 to $0.84 per share. Our guidance has been modified lower primarily as a result of the transaction expenses associated with the pending merger with Thomas Properties and the announced disposition of several assets partially offset by projected core operating performance for the year. Given the uncertainty of timing related to the pending merger with Thomas Properties and the significant impact such timing can have on these metrics, the updated guidance only takes into account the estimated transaction expenses associated with the merger that will impact our financials, but does not take into account the potential impact of revenue or expenses from the assets being acquired nor the impact to diluted outstanding shares.

To give an apples to apples comparison of the adjusted FFO range we provided last quarter which excluded significant non-recurring charges that occurred or will occur during the year, we have again provided an adjusted FFO range which excludes three one-time items. Excluding the impact of, one, the previously announced redemption of our preferred stock in the second quarter of 2013; two, the previously announced expenses related to the transition of our Jackson office operations; and three, the acquisition costs related to the recently announced pending merger with Thomas Properties, all three of these total approximately $25 million to $26 million, our FFO outlook would be revised to a range of $1.17 to $1.24 per share. We have provided the detailed underlying assumptions for our outlook range in our earnings press release, and I’d like to highlight a few of these changes.

First of all, our recurring cash NOI range was revised down due primarily to the recently announced asset sales as well as the delayed closing of Lincoln Place in Miami. However, please note that our equity in Lincoln Place is to be funded by issuing OP units to the seller and the loss of income is being offset by a reduction in our weighted average outstanding shares for the year. Also, you will notice that our G&A, including acquisition costs, will increase significantly to reflect the anticipated costs related to the Thomas Properties merger. If you will recall from our announcement of the merger, the total estimated costs of the transaction are estimated to be approximately $48 million, but we estimate that only $14 million to $15 million of these costs will impact Parkway’s financials. The remaining costs will flow through Thomas Properties’ financials prior to the merger closing. Also please note that we are reducing our guidance range for estimated capital expenditures while raising the low end of our occupancy range for the end of the year.

While there have been a number of one-time charges as we complete the transformation of our company, we look forward to starting 2014 with a significantly upgraded portfolio of assets that are well positioned to benefit from the continued recovery in our markets.

That concludes our prepared remarks and we’re now happy to open the call up for questions. Operator?

Question and Answer Session

Operator

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question and answer session. [Operator instructions]

Our first question comes from Josh Attie with Citi. Please proceed with your question.

Kevin Varin – Citi

Good morning. This is Kevin Varin with Josh. First off, why was the timing of the Lincoln Place acquisition pushed to the end of the fourth quarter instead of the end of the third quarter?

Jason Lipsey

The timing had to do with a number of different factors, including loan assumption and also some local government approval processes within the South Beach area.

Kevin Varin – Citi

Okay, thanks. And then is there any update on the potential build-to-suit office development on the land at Hayden Ferry in Tempe? Last quarter you mentioned you were speaking with tenants. Maybe what are the tone of those conversations, and are there any close to lease?

James Heistand

Well I think it’s not going to be a build-to-suit. The four buildings we have in that location are very full, so we’re looking at some nominal preleasing in the 25 to 30% range before we start, and some of which are expansion of tenants that we have on the property, so it will be a function of when those things come together.

Kevin Varin – Citi

Okay, thanks.

Operator

Our next question comes from Craig Mailman with Keybanc Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

Good morning, guys. Jordan Sadler is on with me as well. David, could we maybe talk about the mortgage investment and pending foreclosure? Just give us a sense – is this a single asset JV or could you guys do more with this partner, and is there anything more in the pipeline with the partner?

David O’Reilly

Sure. This is a single asset joint venture for now. I don’t think that we would have pursued this as aggressively as we did if this was just kind of a one-off opportunity and we wouldn’t get the chance to do it again. Our partner here is what I would characterize as a well known domestic private equity fund that had an inside track on acquiring this mortgage and needed local operating and leasing expertise to execute on the transaction. They approached us and we saw a tremendous amount of value in the opportunity, so pursued it aggressively. We’re hopeful that we’ll be able to do future business with this partner. Obviously no promises, but it’s a unique situation, especially given that it’s in Georgia that we can follow that roadmap from note holders to fee simple owner in a fairly short period of time with nominal expenses, which is what made this opportunity so attractive.

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

So you guys are going in at 136, the building is 77.5% occupied. What do you think your all-in basis is going to be here, and how does that compare to replacement cost for this type of asset?

David O’Reilly

It’s about 77.5% leased. The basis is 136 going in. That translates to a mid-5 cap at close, and that’s something that over the term of our business plan we think we’re going to drive north of an 8% yield based on the ingoing cost at that point, and something that we can exit at that point in time still at a discount to replacement cost and achieve an unlevered return north of 10, in the double digits.

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

Okay. How much capital would you guys be on the hook for to kind of stabilize the building?

David O’Reilly

It’s going to depend on the leasing velocity, so it’s real difficult to say. I think in general, we expect the leasing there to be consistent with what we’ve seen at our (Robinia) asset, which is not far away; and in general, the leasing that we’ve done there has been around for new leases $5 to $6 TINLC and capital per year of lease term, so we’d expect something very similar to that. Again, we’d love to fill it all up tomorrow, but we know it takes time so it’s real difficult to project how much capital will hit in any particular quarter or year when you’re taking a building from the mid-70s occupancy hopefully into the low to mid-90s.

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

I guess what are you guys budgeting overall?

David O’Reilly

The total capital number that we’ve budgeted is something that—you know, it depends on which cash we’re running, because we have a number of different cases and it’s not a number that we’ve disclosed.

Craig Mailman – Keybanc Capital

Okay, great. Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O’Neill. Please proceed with your question.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Hey, good morning down there. Two questions for me – first is, listen, you guys have been very busy. You’ve been delivering, but with everything going on, closing the Thomas deal, getting everything squared away to make that CalSTRS and Brandywine, those transactions occur when they’re supposed to, buying—entering new JVs with special services, et cetera, do you guys feel that you have enough, especially at the senior ranks, or do you feel that you may need to bolster the ranks as you go forward with all this activity?

James Heistand

Well we have been through this process—we’ve obviously been adding, okay? But one thing you forgot to add in terms of the workload was the accounting transition as well. So you’re right – there’s been an awful lot of work. You’ve had the accounting transition, you’ve had the TPGI merger, you’ve had the acquisition of 7,000 and the sale of five assets. But we have—I think in terms of the transition of accounting, we’ve really kind of expanded and solidified the team, the back of the house, so from a senior level I think we’re good to go but I think we’ve expanded and added to kind of the level below that, so I think once this transition is done and once the merger with Thomas is complete, I think we’ve got a very, very well rounded and scalable platform to go forward.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Okay, so as we think about next year, you’re not—we shouldn’t be thinking about a major increase in G&A.

James Heistand

No, absolutely not.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Okay.

David O’Reilly

I think the increase in G&A, Alex, would be consistent with the $1.5 million to $2 million that we discussed with the announcement of the Thomas Properties merger.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Okay, okay. The second question is as you guys look at buying mortgages at discount to face and doing these special servicer situations, as you run the IRRs and the returns, is most of the discount, is that sort of offset by the deferred CAPEX and the leasing cost that you need to do, or on an apples-to-apples basis do you see a genuine difference in returns of doing this perimeter-type deal versus just straight up acquisition deals?

James Heistand

Well no. This has a more significant discount than if you had bought—you know, the property values around our markets have increased, okay, so we saw this as a way to get a much bigger discount than you would normally get if the property was just sold in the open market. And if you look at the numbers and take all the leasing, tenant improvements, capital improvements, leasing costs, you add about $10 a foot to the overall 421,000 square feet to stabilize the asset. So at that point, given when you’ve completed it, I think we’re still at a very significant discount to replacement cost, and it also is right—we have two other assets in that same location. We already have the infrastructure in place. It doesn’t add any additional people to handle that process, and I think more importantly we’ve got a very good relationship with a number of special servicers, this being just one; and to the extent we can use those to get some off-market transactions that create that kind of incremental value, we’re going to do it. I think as we look at the risk-return on this, this has to have a double-digit unlevered return for us to go forward and consider it.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Okay, so Jim, what you’re saying is the deferred CAPEX, the deferred leasing that comes with some of these special servicer situations, you’re saying here it’s only adding an extra $10 a foot to your—

James Heistand

On the whole cost of the building.

David O’Reilly

No, no, Alex – it’s not an extra $10 a foot in deferred capital and maintenance to bring it up to a level that’s appropriate. It’s a $10 a foot investment to execute the business plan, which includes the lease up, the tenant improvements, the leasing commissions, and the deferred capital maintenance.

Now, this is a cash flowing asset – like I said, it’s a 5.5 cap going in, and given that it was in special servicing, that cash flow has been swept and used appropriately. So I don’t want to say that this asset has significant deferred maintenance but it didn’t have enough cash flow in capital to execute on the leasing that it otherwise would have been able to do.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill

Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from John Guinee with Stifel. Please proceed with your question.

John Guinee – Stifel

Hey guys. Just refresh my memory on TPG. I have it down here as a 6 cap on cash and 8.1 on GAAP, which means there’s probably a lot of 1,141 accounting in there, and I have it in at 3.25 million square feet – I’m not sure if that’s your share or the seven assets at full 100%. And then when does it close?

David O’Reilly

John, your numbers are very accurate. Fixed cash, 8.1 GAAP, and you are correct that there are a number of expected mark-to-market of rents given that the asset’s in use in or about $20 market in-place rate and 25 at San Felipe and 29 at CityWest, and Austin also has about a $6 in-place to market adjustment.

The total portfolio, the seven assets are 4.9 million feet and our share is 3.3 million, so the number you quoted of 3.25 is our share. We expect the closing to be in the fourth quarter. It is very difficult, and we don’t have a specific date at this point, which is why we’ve hesitated to include the revenues, expenses or share count in our adjusted guidance because we’re just not sure if we’re going to get three weeks, one week, three days or one day of the benefit and detriment of the shares in the fourth quarter, so it’s real tough to guide there.

John Guinee – Stifel

And when you allocate your purchase price on the 3.25 or 3.3 million square feet, what’s it on a per-square foot basis again?

David O’Reilly

The overall implied price per square foot was $266 a foot.

John Guinee – Stifel

Okay, okay. So essentially, just kind of clarify us – what you’re basically doing is you’re buying assets, good, best business address assets in these markets, kind of 250 plus or minus a square foot on average. You’re selling, I guess, pretty much commodity assets at about 100 to 120 a square foot. My guess is on a GAAP basis they might be neutral, on a cash basis they’re probably a little bit dilutive. And then what you’re doing is you’re leasing up pretty aggressively, pretty big TI leasing commission packages in order to get some good, healthy gross rents. Is that a good way to look at the strategy, or what are we missing here?

David O’Reilly

I would say that you for the most part accurately characterize what we’ve done. I would hesitate to agree with you on the leasing front.

Jason Lipsey

John, this is Jason. I think what I would say as it relates to our leasing strategy is that our goal is to create value at the assets, and so to use this quarter as an example, we ran more Argus runs to analyze these leases than probably ever before in the history of the company because they were big, they were material, and we wanted to make sure that we were creating a lot of value, and our view is that all these leases do.

So in the leasing process, we pull a lot of different levers. It’s rate, TI, concessions, all these different things; and I have to make the trade of a little bit more capital to get a lot more in gross rents, I’ll make that trade all day long. I think that if that’s what we see this quarter, is that our new rents are up pretty significantly, capital is up a little bit, but our view is that this leasing created a lot of value in our buildings.

James Heistand

Hey John, this is Jim. I think a couple of points on the assets in Thomas. One, those rents that we’re quoting are obviously net rents, okay, so on a gross basis, that 25 to 29, you’d probably be adding $12 a square foot to that as well. And I think in our stated remarks and announcement, the Statoil lease with 581,000 square feet in our view confirms the underwriting that we had on these assets as to what the new market rents would be, and it also de-risks the trade.

John Guinee – Stifel

Got you, okay. Thank you. Have a good quarter.

Operator

Our next question comes from Jamie Feldman with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

Jamie Feldman – Bank of America

Great, thank you. I was hoping you could talk about more digging into some of the fundamentals in your markets, maybe talk about some of the major submarkets in Charlotte, Tampa, Orlando. I think we’re pretty comfortable Houston is doing all right. And then I guess also Phoenix.

Jason Lipsey

Sure, yeah. Well, let me start with Atlanta because I think—you know, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we had a lot of leasing activity in Atlanta in the quarter. We had seen a very significant acceleration of leasing activity in Atlanta over the last probably two quarters, and I think that we were able to take advantage of it. Specifically in Atlanta, we were able to fill some really large vacancies that had aged for a while, specifically in Buckhead and the central perimeter. And so as we look at Atlanta and where the recovery is really taking shape, we’re seeing really the best fundamentals in Buckhead and the central perimeter in Atlanta. Those submarkets continue to have positive net absorption, vacancies are declining, and there’s really no construction on the horizon.

I think in Charlotte, uptown Charlotte or the TBD of Charlotte continues to have marginal positive recovery. I think it’s been a little bit slower in the last quarter or so than we were expecting, but when we look at the pipeline and we look at the new leases that are out on the horizon, it’s our expectation that Charlotte will continue the rather robust recovery that it’s had so far.

In Phoenix, really our assets are concentrated in Tempe and I think Tempe has clearly led the recovery in Phoenix. We’ve seen vacancies in Tempe go from north of 20% to well under 10% at this point in time over probably the last 18 months or so. Specifically, we’ve been able to push rates in our buildings from 25, $26, we’ve got Hayden Ferry, Lakeside 1 to 32, $33 today. So the recovery in Phoenix has been strong.

What’s been interesting to me is we’ve really seen the recovery take hold in Jacksonville, specifically in our Deerwood submarkets over the last quarter or two. We bought Deerwood Park North and South. Those buildings are very stable and we sort of expected to maintain that level of occupancy. In the last quarter alone, we were able to execute a couple of significant expansions, probably approximately 25 or 30,000 square feet of expansions in Deerwood alone last quarter, all to household name financial service firms that are increasing their footprints in Jacksonville.

In Tampa, Tampa continues to recover as well. We’re concentrated in West Shore, which has been the best submarket from a performance standpoint since the onset of the recovery, and we continue to see that taking place. We’re approximately sort of low to mid-90s in Tampa right now.

And then finally Orlando—Orlando, as I think we’ve said before, remains sort of the most sluggish market in terms of the recovery. We’ve actually done some very good deals. We were able to renew Bank of America during the quarter, which was a significant expiration for us. We’re very pleased with that renewal. We’ve got pretty good leasing activity taking place in Orlando right now, and so I’m optimistic that the recovery is accelerating; but admittedly, it’s been a little bit slower than some of our other markets.

Does that kind of cover the fundamentals?

Jamie Feldman – Bank of America

Yes, definitely. That’s great. And then I guess a follow-up on that is just some thoughts on net effective rents. How much have they grown over the last year or so or are they growing, and what’s your expectation?

Jason Lipsey

Yes, our view is that they are growing selectively, and what I mean by that is if you were to look at a market report for Phoenix or Atlanta or Charlotte, or really any of our markets, you wouldn’t see reported rates growing dramatically in the U.S. markets. You’d probably see flat to maybe a slight growth in rates, but what we’re seeing is that rate growth is very submarket and building-specific. So again, I mentioned in Tempe we’ve seen really significant rate growth as a result of being able to control scale in that submarket, the interest that we’re seeing our customers have in our buildings, and so as a result of really good economic fundamentals in our submarkets, we’re able to push rates.

The same has been true of Buckhead. You know, as we’ve seen large blocks of vacancies mitigated in Buckhead, we’ve seen rate growth specifically at the higher quality buildings like Tower Place 200, 3344, and Cap City where we’ve raised our asking rate for those buildings really significantly over the last quarter. Of course, Houston, I think has expected rate growth and has seen rate growth there, but I think our Phoenix Tower building is a very good example of how we’ve been able to grow rates even in a relatively short period of time since we’ve acquired that building.

So again, I think that rate growth and translating into net effective rate growth has been submarket specific and asset specific, and we’re pleased with how our strategy has positioned us to take advantage of that in our markets.

Jamie Feldman – Bank of America

Okay. And then finally, can you talk about your 2014 expirations and maybe any uncovered ones that you think you may see some move-out, and then also what you think your mark-to-market might be on expirations in ’14?

Jason Lipsey

Well, the good news for ’14 is that our expirations are really only 7.7% of the portfolio, and so I think that that’s the lowest expirations we’ve had in a year in a very, very long period of time. So as we think about those expirations, we’re already working on the vast majority of the significant expirations, the most notable of which is Neighbors, which is at One Commerce Green in Houston. We’re engaged in that lease, we’re working on it, and things seem to be going well.

As we think about the mark on those, it’s about 3% positive, and so I think we’re well positioned to take advantage of those expirations.

James Heistand

I think that’s an important part, Jamie. I think it wasn’t that long ago for us it was a negative 5%, and now it’s a positive 3% on that mark-to-market, so I think we’ve told everybody we thought by the end of this year we’d be turning the corner in that regard, and it’s obviously happened.

Jamie Feldman – Bank of America

Great. All right, great. Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Rich Anderson with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Hey, good morning everybody. So just want to make sure I got it right – the $19 million of incremental cost, is that roughly $15 million Thomas, $4 million Jackson? Is that about right?

David O’Reilly

Yes, that’s right. We—yes, you’ve got it.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I had the numbers. And then I know you don’t have the new shares in the guidance right now, but will it be—I just quickly looked to remind myself at the press release. Will it be about 18 million incremental shares, something along those lines?

David O’Reilly

Yes, the diluted share count—well actually, it should be a little bit more than that. We think it’s going from about 66 to about 92 million shares.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Sixty-six to 92 – okay. Maybe I just looked at it too quickly. I’ll take a closer look. And then Jim, you made a comment earlier about being in the early stage of the transition of the company. I’m wondering, though, do you think that the process of the transition will take on a different form, such as redirecting attention to more internal functions like how you puzzled together some space at Hearst Tower, or do you think you could still be doing some large, bulky-type deals on a go-forward basis? Just curious what you think the transaction market is looking like and if there is still stuff out there for you to continue to be such an aggressive, or active I should say, external investor.

James Heistand

Well I think first of all, I think just general transformation of the company in terms of obviously strategy, people, location of our accounting, disposing of all the non-core assets that we’ve done, we are largely through all of that. So from that standpoint, I think our focus will continue to be both on—you know, we don’t talk in terms of just kind of getting our portfolio to the low 90s. We want to get this portfolio to the mid-90s – I mean, we’re going to focus on that. But we’re also going to be out looking, just as we continue to do, for opportunities if we believe those opportunities can create value.

Now, the Thomas transaction is a great indicator of that. It was a very complex and difficult transaction to get done, but we believe it adds substantial value. But to the extent we can find either one-off assets like 7000 that we’re buying, Central Park that we’re buying, or larger portfolios that because of some of the complexities and they have to sell off some assets, we can get the appropriate valuation for what we want, we’re going to continue to do that as well.

But one thing I must say – everybody’s been very patient and we’ve had a lot of moving parts. We’ve had severance of people, we’ve had relocation of offices, we’ve sold non-core assets, we’ve took impairments. That component of the company will be over by the end of this year, so our focus will be—you know, it won’t be multiple focuses as we’ve had to deal with. One of the jokes is we’ve got to leave (indiscernible) here for some of the people because they’re working around the clock to get all this stuff done. So I think it will relieve some of the pressure from that component, but our focus has and remains on trying to either create value with the assets we own or find assets that are going to create value.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Do you feel like the company needs to be bigger just from a market cap perspective, or do you think you can have a run of success over the next couple of years and not necessarily grow much bigger?

James Heistand

Well, I don’t sit and think about that I have to be a certain size. I really think about it in terms of if I can find assets that are going to create value. If I can buy something for $1 and I believe in the next three to five years we can make it worth $1.50, that’s what we’ll focus on. If that gets us larger as a result of finding a number of those, then we will; but I think in terms of where we were to where we are now, we’re at least relevant, Rich, so it’s not like I’ve got to get to another mark that I’ve set in my head. So I think we’re really just focused on finding opportunities that create value, and to the extent that we’ve got assets that we feel have maximized their value, we will take advantage of that as well, too.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

I’m trying to become relevant myself.

James Heistand

Hey, listen – I remember these first calls two years ago, and I was ready to jump off (indiscernible). So it takes time to be relevant.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

So have you seen banks become more active in your market as lenders?

James Heistand

Well I think the lending market in the sun belt market is wide open. I mean, I think there is an abundance of debt. There really is, and there’s abundance of capital as well too in our markets. Universally, the perception is the recovery has occurred here in our markets, and we’re seeing it firsthand, so both debt and equity are in abundance here. There hasn’t been, though, a large amount of product coming to market, so I think the perception is most people that have good assets want to hold onto them.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Okay, and then lastly you mentioned the cap rate on Thomas, 6 on a cash basis. Is that basically—just remind me, is that basically kind of a flat number from an AFFO perspective for next year? You mentioned 13, 18%--$0.18 of FFO accretion.

David O’Reilly

Correct, yes.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

So it’s about flattish?

David O’Reilly

Yes.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Okay.

David O’Reilly

And that’s the 8-1-6 of delta, Rich. You have that exactly right.

Rich Anderson – BMO Capital Markets

Okay, great. Thanks guys.

Operator

Our next question comes from Young Ku with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

Great, thank you. My first question is for David. Just for modeling and guidance purposes, it looks like Q4 kind of (indiscernible) of those come out to $0.28 per share. Is that right?

David O’Reilly

I think if you took the midpoint of our adjusted guidance range and backed out the first three quarters, that’s about the number you would get to.

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

So if I kind of annualize that, it’s about $1.12, and you said $0.13 accretion from TPGI and a couple cents for Lincoln Place. So I’m getting that it’s kind of a little less than $1.30 per share. Is that a good kind of full run rate to work out of for 2014?

David O’Reilly

You know, we haven’t provided any ’14 guidance and we expect to do it on our fourth quarter call. I’d hesitate to try to cement down anything along those lines because what this fourth quarter on a run rate basis doesn’t take into account is the significant amount of leasing that was executed last quarter and this quarter. As many of those leases, as you probably noted in the back of our supplemental, really don’t commence until the fourth and first quarter, so we are going to get very nominal benefit of the over a million square foot lease over the past second and third quarter within this calendar year as most of that benefit will really pick up starting at the end of the fourth quarter this year and in the first quarter next year.

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

No, I’m understanding that. I was just trying to get a good baseline to work out of, because there is a lot of kind of moving parts. I just wanted to make sure that I got the base number correct.

Okay, so in terms of CAPEX then, it came down pretty meaningful, about $1 million; but CAPEX kind of on a per-square foot basis was up this quarter and the concession cost was a little bit higher than we expected. So I’m just wondering how much of the CAPEX guidance reduction is due to delayed timing of the CAPEX spending and how much of that’s the better leasing economics.

David O’Reilly

I would say that the majority of it is better leasing economics, and while the cost per square foot went up sequentially from last quarter to this quarter, the economics that we were able to achieve the amount of square footage that we were able to do was only $5.33 a foot. We’re really excited about that, and when you think about $25 rental rates on an average and $27 on new leases, and only giving away $5 and $6 respectively, those are great net effective rents and we were really able to, I think increase, as Jason said, the value of our building based on that leasing and really just lease more with less gross dollars, and that’s why our guidance came down.

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

Got it. Great, that’s helpful. One last question – in the Helix space down in Houston, we’re actually hearing that the activity has been good down there. How close are you guys in terms of backfilling some of the 94,000 square feet that moved out?

Jason Lipsey

Well as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we had great renewal activity at 400 North Belt. We’ve done 60,000 square feet. We’ve really solidified the existing occupancy within the building, which is part of our strategy to really go from there with a very strong position to do new leasing. We’ve got good activity and we’ve got good prospects for the building. I wouldn’t say that we’re getting close to inking any deals by any chance, but I think that in terms of where we are relative to where I expected or hoped we’d be at this point, I think we’re on track.

David O’Reilly

Also too, I think the renewals that Jason spoke about, the face rates on those renewals have confirmed what we believed to the market rents, and that $9 difference on what they were paying before has been confirmed by the leases that we’ve done, so we feel pretty good about the decision to do that.

Young Ku – Wells Fargo

Great, thank you guys.

Operator

Our next question comes from Dave Rodgers with Robert W. Baird. Please proceed with your question.

Matt Spencer – Robert W. Baird

Hey, good morning. This is Matt here with Dave. In the quarter, you realized a pretty nice increase in lease terms, higher than the previous four quarters for the three statistics you provide. Are you starting to see tenants feel more comfortable with making longer term commitments due to an improving economy, or is it more of a function of building location and quality?

Jason Lipsey

I would characterize it as a few things. First would be the quality of our assets and the type of buildings that attract customers who want to be there for a long time. These are headquarter-type locations, like Pulte for example relocated its headquarters from Detroit to Atlanta as a long-term decision for them. These are good credit users who want to be in the buildings for a long time, so it’s definitely a function of asset quality. It’s also a function, I think, of market timing. I think that people feel like they are in growth mode at this point, that the worst of the recession is behind us, that things are in recovery, and they are making long-term decisions and commitments to grow and run their businesses. So I think that lease terms are really a function of those two things.

Matt Spencer – Robert W. Baird

Great, thanks for the color. Then last question from me – can you maybe talk about which markets you think offer the most attractive opportunity for investment, and where you think pricing might be a bit aggressive?

James Heistand

Well, I think one area that we’re seeing pricing to be quite aggressive is the CBD in Houston. I mean, the price per pound on some of the sales in there have been north of $450 a square foot, so in my view you’ve now gotten to a point in that particular submarket that is at or above replacement cost. The rest of our markets have basically literally no development, a little bit of development occurring in downtown Austin, but I think the vast majority of our markets are such that there is still recovery going on, the rents are beginning to increase, concessions are coming down, and there is little to no construction.

So what we’re looking to do is continuing to add in the submarkets that we think are going to outperform. There are a couple of other submarkets we’d like to get into, but generally if we could add two or three buildings of the same kind of quality and the same proximity to some of the assets we already own, we’d love to do so.

Matt Spencer – Robert W. Baird

Thanks guys.

Operator

Our last question is from Michael Salinsky with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Hey, good morning guys. David, just on the mortgage note investment, what is your preferred return economics?

David O’Reilly

The preferred return economics are just really meant to replicate a market instrument debt there. It’s set up as a preferred equity, but it’s only a temporary funding instrument until we foreclose and put permanent financing on the asset. Once the permanent financing comes in, that vast majority of that preferred will get repaid and it will be kind of a regular weight equity JV. It was just the way that we really bridged the acquisition of the note, knowing that there really isn’t yet return to an efficient marketplace to finance note purchases.

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Okay. And your partner on that, did you disclose who that is?

David O’Reilly

No, we did not, and I cannot.

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Okay, fair enough. Second of all, with obviously recycling stepping up in the last two quarters, as we think about ’14 with the Thomas Property closing transaction, how much is left to recycle and how much should we really be thinking about ’14?

Jason Lipsey

Well look, I think we’ll always have assets to recycle because as we’ve mentioned, Mike, we go through every asset in the portfolio at least a couple times a year to see where we’ve maximized value, and I would say that there’s a couple of assets that are on the radar now. I mean there’s one where we took an impairment in Mesa, and there’s a couple in Houston that, while in core markets, they’re either in non-core submarkets or they’ve just achieved a valuation that we think will be hard to replicate or improve upon in the coming years. In those situations, we’re going to look to continue to recycle that capital and reinvest it into higher return opportunities.

James Heistand

But I think it’s fair to say that in terms of size-wise, this is not a very large component versus on the values and things as we look at it going forward. It’s a relatively small—these still one-offs that we would do on a going forward basis would be relatively small.

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Okay, that’s helpful. Then just finally, can you touch a little bit just upon the acquisition market? I think you talked a little bit about pricing, but with the movement we’ve seen in interest rates, are you seeing more product on the market? Are you getting more incoming calls? Can you just touch upon the climate we’re seeing there?

James Heistand

Well, you haven’t seen a lot of product on the market. The building we’re buying in Atlanta was not on the market, or the note wasn’t on the market for sale. The interest rate movement up, and it’s come back down a bit, I think the spreads have come down. I mean, the interest rates today relative to historical standards are still very low, so I would tell you that there’s still an awful lot of capital looking to buy in our assets, and one of those things we’ve been trying to do is be very proactive, as we have been, in calling sellers of buildings that we’d like to own. We don’t always get a benefit from it, but we have been able to get some benefit from it. Also too, if it’s a building for sale that’s going to have other interest and it’s in our submarket, we’ll do a lot of the work in advance and try to provide a seller certainty. But on a marketed deal of a high quality asset, there’s an awful lot of interest.

Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets

Thank you much.

Operator

At this time, I would like to turn the call back over to management for closing comments.

James Heistand

Well again, thank you all for the call, and we appreciate the understanding some of the moving parts of the company as we continue to transform it, and hopefully we look forward as the next year comes upon us to make things a bit simpler for everybody. But we do thin we’re on the right track at creating value and we’ll continue to work hard on this. I think the whole team within Parkway, since we’ve started this, has worked extremely hard, and I want to thank them all for the work that they’ve done and thank you all for your participation today.

Operator

This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and thank you for your participation.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Parkway Properties' CEO Discusses Q3 2013 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts