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

Executives

Andrew Joa – VP, IR

Sandeep Mathrani – CEO

Steve Douglas – CFO

Analysts

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Michael Bilerman – Citi

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Christy McElroy – UBS

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Andrew Rosivach – Credit Suisse

General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP) Q2 2011 Earnings Call August 2, 2011 1:00 PM ET

Operator

Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the General Growth Properties’ second quarter 2011 earnings conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder today’s conference call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to your host Mr. Andrew Joa, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead sir.

Andrew Joa

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining the General Growth Properties’ second quarter 2011 earnings conference call. The conference call could contain forward-looking statements about General Growth Properties. Such forward-looking statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of GGP management and is subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause the actual results to differ from the forward-looking statements. Such risks are more fully discussed in GGP’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the information said forth herein should be considered in light of that risk. GGP does not assume any obligation to update the information contained in this conference call.

And with that I’d like to turn the call over to Sandeep Mathrani, Chief Executive Officer.

Sandeep Mathrani

Thanks Andrew and good afternoon, everyone. Before we get into the review of the quarter you are likely aware of the press release we issued last night announcing that our Board of Directors has approved a plan to spin-off a 30-mall portfolio to GGP shareholders to the distribution of taxable special dividend. The company will be named Rouse Properties Inc and the distribution will be made to GGP stock holders as of the dividend record date, which we anticipate to occur during the fourth quarter. Rouse is expected to qualify as a REIT and be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Over the course of the year, we have articulated this as one potential execution of our plan to streamline GGP’s portfolio. So we are pleased to report we now have a tangible plan towards achieving this objective. This transaction is certainly a giant step in the right direction as you work to solidify GGP’s position as one of the nation’s top tier mall owners. Two quarters into the year, I’m very pleased with the progress our organization has made on a variety of key objectives. While we knew 2011 would be a transition year for GGP on a variety of levels I’m heartened by the progress we have made towards refinancing and lathering [ph] our debt, streamlining the portfolio, developing strategic business plans, reinvigorating our leasing efforts and rightsizing the organization.

As we look at our portfolio today, we have 166 malls with about 67 million square feet of non-anchor mall space. Tenant sales for the second quarter was $465 per square foot, which is up 8.4% over the prior year. Our top 20 malls by productivity represents 15% of our G&A, contributes 26% of the company’s NOI and generates sales of $775 per square foot, which is up 12.6% from a year ago. We’ve expected a performance of the various merchandize categories within our portfolio the growth is fairly broad based with every category registering year-over-year sales growth. In fact, the top 25 tenants ranked by year-over-year sales growth in our portfolio is generating sales growth of almost 22%.

Turning to rent spreads, our leasing activity that commenced versus expired during the quarter we achieved an uplift of 1.9% for the quarter and 2% for the year. While this metric is helpful in partially determining the NOI impact of current quarter leasing activity it typically represents leasing rates that were approved several quarters ago. As a matter of fact almost 60% of the leasing activity for 2011 was signed prior to the beginning of 2011 i.e., in 2010. So it is somewhat of a lagging indicator for rent spreads.

From the perspective of deals signed during the quarter the average signed rents were 8.6% higher than the average rents on expiring leases during the same period last year. On a year-to-date basis that spread is 9.1%. With respect to the portfolio occupancy cost it is roughly flat from the prior quarter at 13.5%. But this is primarily a function of tenant sales growing faster than rents. If you strip out the effect of increasing sales by comparing current in place rent to second quarter 2010 sales the occupancy cost would be almost 15%. So we are in fact moving rent upward and benefiting from a positive sales growth environment. With that portfolio 92.5% leased and considering the approved deals we have in the pipeline, which we believe will get signed we should be able to achieve an additional 100 basis points of occupancy by year end but the actual magnitude will depend on what actually gets signed and the timing.

So this is still my view of GGP’s mall platform I simply say that we have a very high quality portfolio with significant embedded offsite potential we are working to capture every day. Given the nature of our business the fruits of our labor will be manifested over the coming quarters. As one example, while we are currently 92.5% leased typical occupancy is at 89.3%, so this means we have signed leases for about 3.2% of our GLA that is yet to contribute to occupancy and rent. As viewing an average rent of $55 this represents roughly $100 million of rental revenue that is contracted but yet not in our reported income as the tenants have to yet to occupy the space.

Brazil

Brazil is a little jewel in our portfolio. We own 31% of a public company called Aliansce. Aliansce own 16 malls totaling 5.5 million square feet and they have two malls under development. GGP invested about $126 million in Aliansce since 2004 and our share of this publicly listed company is now valued at over $500 million almost three times our investment. Aliansce is consistently delivering very strong results, occupancy is at 97.4% and same store sales average over $700 per square foot, which is up over 10% from the prior year. We do not include any of these statistics in our GGP consolidated or non-consolidated numbers. This is truly a high growth business in a high growth market and we think we have opportunity to grow further in Brazil.

So with that, let me turn to our results. Core FFO for the second quarter was $0.20 per diluted share or $199.6 million, compared to $206.1 million in the prior year. This change is primarily due to lower lease termination income and other non-profitable adjustments, which Steve will get into further. On a year-to-date basis FFO totals $0.42 per diluted share but the second half of the year will be stronger as a consequence of accelerating volume of leases taking occupancy and from increased tenant retail sales during the back-to-school and Christmas season. Hence, we are very optimistic that we will achieve the full year results that we anticipated at the end of the first quarter.

With respect to our progress on dispositions excluding special consideration properties by year-to-date non-core asset sales totaled $382 million comprised of seven strip shopping centers, two malls and one mixed-use shopping. These sales resulted in the elimination of $69 million in property debt from our balance sheet. Of this total $193.3 million was completed during the second quarter and included the sale of our third, one-third ownership interest in Arrowhead Towne Center and Superstition Springs Mall to Macerich in exchange for six big box anchor locations located at our malls and $75 million in net cash proceeds to GGP. This was a fantastic deal as we were both able to gain control a strategic real estate and add value to our existing investments.

A further $282 million in asset sales is under contract. These properties have approximately $100 million of associated debt. A particular note is the Westlake office property in Seattle, which is under contract to an institutional all cash buyer for well over $110 million. Also during the quarter, we sold one special consideration property to a third party pursuant to a lender directed sale eliminating $113 million of associated debt. During this year, our total divestitures including special consideration properties have resulted in approximately $470 million in debt reduction.

On the acquisition front, we are under contract to buy Plaza Frontenac in St. Louis and potentially joint venture this property along with another GGP mall in the area Saint Louis Galleria with a large institutional partner. This transaction is consistent with our philosophy to own the best malls in the market. We already own Saint Louis Galleria so acquiring Plaza Frontenac enables us to control the best malls in this market. There are only nine malls in the country in both have (Inaudible) markets with this acquisition we will own three of them.

These deals are structured to be cash neutral for GGP with no tax impact and at the same cap rate. The other acquisition that is under contract is the Neiman Marcus box at Fashion Show Mall. Again this is in keeping with our desire to own and control key anchors in our best malls. While our primary focus is on mining the opportunities within our existing portfolio we have stated that we will selectively pursue acquisitions that are strategically accreted to our existing portfolio.

The Rouse spin-off, now before I hand it over to Steve I would like to talk about the planned spin-off of Rouse I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. In addition to the press release announcing Rouse spin-off announced last night, we also posted a Rouse information package under the investor relation section of our website, that outlines the transaction the rational and some key metrics of the Rouse portfolio.

As noted in the published materials the spin-off of Rouse to stock holders is routed in our strategic objective to focus the company’s attention and resources towards a core mall portfolio. Rouse represents 7% of our overall NOI and requires a different asset management approach than our tall mall portfolio.

As you reviewed our overall portfolio earlier this year, we ultimately determine the Rouse portfolio based on a blend of key quantitative and qualitative considerations. Including, asset management focus and human capital requirements, capital structure and capital needs, geographic location and tenant mix. But more important than each of these considerations individually is the objective to ensure Rouse has the scale, quality, performance and growth potential to succeed and thrive.

Another point I would like to emphasize is that while the Rouse portfolio is comprised of malls that generally have different operating characteristics capital and geographic focus than GGP’s core mall portfolio, we believe the potential income growth contemplated in the Rouse business plans would ultimately be more valuable to the Rouse as a standalone entity with incremental growth but actually move (Inaudible).

Post spin-off our core mall portfolios to key metrics will become more representative of the premium mall portfolio it really is and substantially all of GGP’s malls will be among the top 600 in the country with sales approaching $500 per square foot.

With that, I will turn the call over to Steve to discuss our financial results and further details about the Rouse transaction.

Steve Douglas

Thank you, Sandeep and thanks to all for joining us on this call today. As Sandeep mentioned we issued a press release and Rouse information package in our website last night regarding the planned Rouse distribution through a taxable spin-off of GGP shareholders. We believe this is a sarcastic [ph] transaction for GGP and its stock holders and we are delighted to have the board approval and pursue this distribution to shareholders. As it gives them the opportunity to participate in what we think is the significant upside potential in Rouse.

We’ve got over this transaction remains into regulatory approval and other considerations so the transaction of the composition of the portfolio and its associated debt could change. I also want to remind you that there are some constrains on what we can discuss given the fact we expect to form a file a Form 10-K registration statement within our next few weeks and I hope our information package gives you a bit context to address the house (Inaudible). But as Sandeep alluded to we will obviously try to address those in Q&A later on. I will come back to start with the Rouse transaction in a minute. So let me turn our results for the quarter, which I will focus on what we call the core results that they start to normalize the effects of emergency counting and other related to the core in a new organization.

Turning to our second quarter core NOI versus the prior year, core NOI for the second quarter was $527 million compared to $541.4 million was the period previously in 2010. The largest contributor to this change were $5 million of reduced lease termination income in the first of the prior year, a $5 million favorable adjustment, which was realized in the second quarter of last year that is 2010 it was not related primarily to the adjustments as a result of our Brazilian audit and finally several other small sort of non-comparable operating items summing to $6 million. You adjust to these aggregate adjustments, which come up to about $15 million. Core NOI is adjusted was actually up 0.5% versus last year.

Turning to on a sequential basis, which is the second quarter core NOI versus first quarter core NOI of 2011. Sequentially Q2 NOI was $527 million versus $544 million in the first quarter after adjusting for discontinued operations there was a small amount, there was roughly about $4 million of NOI, which was transferred out of discontinued operation, sorry out of normal operations, which would have been included in the reported first quarter NOI, which you have to extract in order to get a comparable number for Q1 versus Q2.

Unfortunately, there is some noise contributing to this $17 million change from the 544 to the 527 I enumerated with the key items being as follows

we had lower termination fees and lower (Inaudible) rents totaling $9 million, we also had again knowing to the fact that we divide on some of the adjustments primarily for our Brazilian audit was totaling $5.8 million into the quarter, we did have severance as a part of almost $2 million in excess of the first quarter of 2011, which is charged to the NOI because it does relate to the operating assets and not to G&A and finally a few other smaller adjustments related to accruals and the like, which totaled $3 million. If you take these out we would sum to approximately $20 million a quarter over comparative the quarter-over-quarter comparison of Q1 versus Q2 is roughly flat albeit slight up.

Year-to-date on a year-to-date basis core NOI totaled $1.072 billion compared to $1.076 billion last year. Excluding lease termination item, which was due $12 million for the comparable period core NOI was up almost 1%. Core FFO in the second quarter was $199.6 million or $0.20 a share this is a $6.5 million decrease versus the prior year and it is again primarily due to the various impact, the impacts of the items I noted in the core NOI discussion would sum to $16 million or roughly $1.05 per share. This is also offset by somewhat lower interest expense.

Turning to our net income item, to complete my review of the financials GAAP net loss attributable to net common stock holders totaled $203 million or 22% per diluted share, which a includes a $57.8 million charge for default interest writing it from a claim initiated by certain creditors as consequence of GGP’s bankruptcy filed. This amount is incremental to what GGP had previously provided for, offsetting this was a $44.8 million gain on the disposal of debt, which for those of you who will recall when we merged with bankruptcy we marked our assets and liabilities to market and when we paid this debt off it faced it had the effect of recurring a non-cash gain.

Refinancing, turning to our refinancing activities the team here was extremely active during the quarter, we placed $2.2 billion of new fixed rate mortgages on 11 malls in an average of 5.31% down 55 basis points from (Inaudible) debt and extended the terms of maturity by six years to an average of 10 years. The 10 year average includes almost $300 million with eight year terms and $270 million of 12 year terms we pursued this by the sign to effectively de-risk the balance sheet by excluding our maturity ladder to ensure that from 10 years from now we do not hit a massive wall on the surge.

This January of this year we refinanced 13 malls totaling $2.5 billion generating $570 million proceeds in excess of the in place financing. A further $1.75 billion is in the pipeline to be done this year, which should generate $200 million of excess proceeds. These results demonstrate the significant progress we are making with our objective to refinance as much of our debt as possible you know what to take advantage of the current rate environment and despite the recent volatility it’s still very attractive from our long-term trend perspective to extend maturity as long as we can while still being mindful of the ladder. I would like to extend my thanks for the support of the lending community that we’ve seen in this process.

Another source of liquidity for us has been our non-core disposition program. Here at June 30, 2011 we have divested over $765 million of non-core properties generating $300 million in net proceeds. I want to include, I want to clarify that this number does include the sale or transfer of special consideration property. And just the other day we went out a contract for our Westlake office property in downtown Seattle for pricing decision with a high quality product in a highly desirable market. With $870 million of liquidity generated from refinancing and asset divestitures we paid down $255 million of property tax at an average rate of 6.52%. As well as $245 million or corporate tax in advance of this contractual maturity which carry in average an interest rate of 5.95%. We also will recall we did use that excess liquidity to buy back $488 million of our common stock, which was previously announced all of these uses of capital are well within the capacity of organization and frankly we are able to do the buyback because we generated more liquidity more quickly than we thought we would.

As I noted in the last call we continue to see balance between reducing debt and investing to build long-term net asset value. As of June 30, we had $1.3 billion of liquidity comprised of cash on hand and available capacity on our lines. So between this and our free recurring cash flow we are very comfortable with our ability to fund our business plan. To sum it up to the immense efforts of many across the organization where we gain a momentum and at the leading edge of our efforts are beginning to flow into the results.

Now I would like to end my remarks with the discussion about the planned spin-off of Rouse strategic stock holders. Transaction is very much keeping with what we’ve articulated before and that just streamlines GGP as one of the largest premium mall companies in the industry. Upon completion of this planned distribution we are going to benefit from the immediate elimination of the $1.1 billion of associated debt that will be eliminated from our balance sheet. Including the shift in the overall portfolio approved improved key metrics and lower debt we believe there is room for GGP evaluation to continue to prove this consequence. I said (Inaudible) tenant sales would increase from $465 per square foot to almost $500 million and our percentage lease will increase by 80 basis points.

With respect to Rouse, we think you could invest it for the better opportunity is to realize value from this portfolio in the standalone entity. With Rouse being relatively small part of our portfolio the NOI and NAV growth we think we are going to achieve with highly accretive capital investment we are simply not moved the needle in a meaningful way as a standalone clearly will not be the case. We ultimately decided to (Inaudible) to a spin-off because it enables stock holders participate in Rouse it’s efficient in terms of execution and being able to run on a single transaction and does obviously provide a greater degree of certainty.

Now they mentioned we are limited in terms of what we can talk about going to the fact we are filing a form 10 what do we think of Rouse’s 2010 full year core NOI of roughly $160 million we have like a potential impact in the portfolio of our supplemental and giving you a range of values that have been on the cap rate.

General growth we think is an extremely high quality franchise at a significant and better growth particularly the benefit of moving tenant sales and I think the spin-off will only serve to highlight that. So with that I think I will turn it back to Sandeep.

Sandeep Mathrani

Thank you, Steve. I think we can open it up now to Q&A.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions) our first question comes from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

Good afternoon. Just want to get a little more color on the Rouse portfolio. Just want to get a sense for how sales are trending and with the average sales productivity of 280 a square foot just want to get a sense of the range sort of at the low end and at the high end.

Sandeep Mathrani

So, given the Rouse portfolio has trended on the sales going up at this year of 3%. So we actually see sales growth at every level of the portfolio whether it be the dimension the top 20 malls or 12.6%, the portfolio was up 8.4% and the Rouse portfolio was up 3%.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

And what about NOI? And then also a range if 280 is the portfolio average at the low end productivity and at the high end productivity?

Sandeep Mathrani

I think you are going to see a lot of the information on the NOI as we posted so and to show the growth. As we talked about it earlier it requires tremendous capital investment and we actually see tremendous growth and again that will be shown in our filings when we do that in the next few weeks. And as it relates to I think your question has to do with the high and the low end of the sales and I believe it ranges from, give me a second. Why don’t I look that up while you ask me the next question?

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

Okay, Steve in the quarter there was another $10 million bankruptcy reversal in the TNA. Just want to know if there is anything else going forward and then just sort of curious why this reversal wasn’t done at the emergence?

Steve Douglas

Well it was done for better information. You remember at emergence what we could do was that the time made estimates as to what we thought all of our accruals were and where all our obligations work were what all of our tenant obligations were and except the reflective of it just takes Bob to be able to chip away at that. I would say we were inherently conservatively I mean we were looking at0 our provisions as it relates to that and we’ve removed it from the core and so it doesn’t’ artificially inflate that. Can you expect any why I think the vast majority of that stuff has been chewed away yet but I can’t guarantee it because there are (Inaudible) as it relates to getting one of these sales as you could imagine, you know not to believe or the process, but there is the (Inaudible) every claim you can against me, against the situation and it’s just prudent to reserve for those I think it’s reflective more of a very active management of liabilities and that credit a lot of the folks in the organization in terms of making those go away. There is a lot of this to reverse it and nothing more.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

So can you give us a framework or how much more potential.

Steve Douglas

You know I can’t give you an exact dollar figure, because a lot of it depends on the outcome of the lot of these how we dispense with them. But I would say the lion share of them will likely be only by the end of the year.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

Okay, I’m done but any luck finding the sales range.

Steve Douglas

Yes, $200 to $350.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O'Neill

Okay, thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Jay Haberman of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

Good afternoon Sandeep you reiterated the I guess the full year guidance assumption you talked about can you give sense of what sort of pick up you see in terms of same store NOI growth versus the 80 basis points you got in the first of the year.

Sandeep Mathrani

Let me do it maybe a little different way and you know it’s sort of the way to sort of held you understand why we feel incredibly optimistic as to where we will be at the end of the year. And let me try to see if I can help ridge where we are today to where we will be. So there is three sort of drivers as we see guiding this growth. Okay. One being as I mentioned in my remarks earlier that we have least about 3.2% of our portfolio, which will be about $100 million or incremental revenue that’s not recognized today that shows up in the occupancy numbers as the least numbers but it doesn’t show up in the rental numbers because we haven’t deliver possession. And if you just assume all of it happens in the fourth quarter that will help you do some math.

Second is very much like our peers who’ve also increased there, they will increase their guidance for the fourth quarter by viewing the increase in sales growth and we are the beneficiary of the sales growth as well, is that the traditionally and 2010 being a indicator that the two aspects which is percentage rent in the first six months is about 35% of the total, we are tracking exactly in that format. And the business development income which is temporary income, which is not the 365s but everything else usually is about 40% in the first half of the year and 60% in the second half of the year. And we are tracking exactly in that manner.

So if we just stick to where it what happened last year, we should be able, that’s what gives us the optimism to achieve our results by the end of the year and we feel very comfortable and as a matter of fact most of it was set for the percentage rent is deals that have been virtually all executed. In addition, when we just reemphasize just like last year at the end of last year we were 60% leased from the activities for 2011, if I look at the aspirations in 2012 we are about 35% to 38% least for 2012 and we again see very healthy rental spreads of what stuff has been done for 2012.

So the results if you see them today are very well expected because we obviously knew the leases that are assigned and so are the trends. And when we gave our comments at the end of the first quarter and we are incredibly optimistic to achieve it by year end. We’ve built the bridge and there’s nothing that we really need to do except for hope the economy stays the way it is themselves proceed the way it is because it’s the only, I use the word the numbers that can sort of flow with art the percentage rent in sales stop growing at a place that they are growing. And we had to stop growing from and it had to be left and that they were in 2010, take to where there were 2010 we are well ahead of 2010 will be fine.

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

And I guess it’s sort of the base run rate for the year-to-date assumption as you are assuming you are more at that $0.44, $0.45 versus the $0.42 you posted thus far I guess. I’m just trying to gauge the run rate because you are essentially; I guess you are backing out the items that Steve talked about earlier?

Sandeep Mathrani

Right, as I said not twice before it’s unfit to ask for guidance, we are getting our arms around the portfolio, we’ve seen in the last six months we have performed on all matrix which is leasing, occupancy, spreads, conversions, refinancing. And as we said over and over again that the end of the third quarter we will provide guidance for 2012 but I’m going to stay with that.

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

Okay. And maybe just switching to Rouse for a second, can you talk about perhaps some of the pricing you are seeing for B Malls; I know others have been out there selling or looking to sell assets. Can you talk about the experience that you went through in the first half of the year?

Sandeep Mathrani

Well, the B Malls is that we are seeing, I haven’t seen the final execution on the large portfolio that’s out there. But I’m being told it will get done in the low 7s, but I think that the portfolio that we have in Spinco, I feel that, I think it was have given a range between 7.5 and 8.5 and I can’t tell you where it comes out depending on how the economy goes from this point on. But from what we sold, we haven’t sold already a B Mall in the market, so hard to determine what the market is, what we sold so far has been strip shopping centers and office buildings, which have obviously traded very well.

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

Okay, and you mentioned the Saint Louis acquisition and the roughly can you talk about this going in yield and I guess why buy at this point in the cycle. I mean, I know you talked about potential synergies but what so attractive just given the potential, I mean the low return there going in?

Sandeep Mathrani

Well, as I mentioned again, I mean our idea was to control the best real estate in the market that we are in and even in some cases that if we are not in those markets and the real estate is of a high quality we would pursue it. We are very cognizant of the yields that we are buying at which is why we took Saint Louis Galleria and actually didn’t deal with a institutional partner where we sold them an exact percentage to realize the cash needs to buy Plaza Frontenac and both were done at exactly the same cap rate. So from our perspective it was cash neutral but we were able to control both assets in a market Plaza Frontenac is well over a 500000-square-foot mall it is an A mall [ph] and as a matter of fact I think the benefits to both Saint Louis Galleria and Plaza Frontenac being under one ownership will able to drive one sales and tenants rents in the market place, so I think it’s a win-win.

Jay Haberman – Goldman Sachs

Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Steve Sakwa of the ISI group. Please go ahead.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Thanks. Good afternoon. Just a couple of questions on the plan spin-off. One, Sandeep as a full management team then I identify for that company?

Sandeep Mathrani

We have been managing the assets within the company separately for quite some time because it requires a tremendous amount of human capital and obviously capital needs as well. And so we have identified all the players barring I would say two key players yet it would be announced, which is the CEO and the CFO. But Mike McNaughton who is the EVP of Asset Management and many of you know because he was part of the Road Show that Steve and I were part of as well, is going to go over a Chief Operating Officer of Rouse and of course we have a dedicated team whether it’s the leasing people, asset management developing people that have been either recruited or that will be transformed within GGP. So we haven’t identified yet the CEO and the CFO but barring that for team discipline.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, secondly can you just talk about maybe potential capital that business will need, I mean clearly it’s going to have free cash flow given the NOI it throws off and the $55 million or so of interest expense. So even with CapEx there’s still money left over, do you think you need to raise capital for this enterprise or it kind of stand alone with the current capital structure?

Steve Douglas

Yes, that is what I added, the spin-off from GGP has been designed to allow Rouse now, the flourish in the context of its own process and that sounds cryptic. But we are spinning this off with a pathway to add value and it will have the capital necessary to suite the business plan, which you need to beer in mind is the a lot of the capital is relational to leasing an issue sort of we tend to get leasing dime you will spend the capital this is some of it is obviously is a refresh capital. But that is really going to be ultimately up in the decision of the Spinco board and Spinco management team. So, that you aren’t under selling and doing things upfront then necessarily under sell with the value of the portfolio particularly when the spin is going to come saying in the next two to three years.

Sandeep Mathrani

Correct. And we will add and basically we are, when the company is spun out and again you will see this more in the Form 10 is it has enough, more than enough capital to meet its capital need requirements to realize the growth as we see in each one of the assets. I’ve actually visited actually I have seen all the malls now as I said I will before this call and there is a specific business plan to each asset and we’ve made sure that obviously the capital needs are there in the business.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, maybe you will provide this going forward; have you just kind of looked at the same store NOI growth of these assets looking back historically just to kind of compare it as a delta between kind of the remaining assets in these 30?

Steve Douglas

We have but clearly it’s trough in the sense that you look at what it was achieving back in those and again was ’07 ’08 and again these numbers we have to be look circumspect because of what we are doing out with the Form 10. There is clearly a trough on the earning side as you could well imagine. And as in the EBITDA I believe it on more than one occasion when we talk to shareholders, these assets just did not get the attention for a variety of reasons within they can’t with GGP that they will now. And I think that reflective of what was there in the past is not likely reflective of what could be there in the future given the renewed sense of focus that these assets will see.

Sandeep Mathrani

But if I may also add to that Steve, that when we looked at this and we looked at the growth of the portfolio, okay we have actually modeled it based upon in achieving what it had achieved in 2007, okay. But with the capital infusion to make sure our business plans are met. So if your question is, what was it in the past and are you trying to get there or right above that, you will see that we are trying to get just about what it was in 2007. So it’s a tremendous amount of growth what we did with achieved in 2007.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, just two other questions. I just wanted to make sure I understood Sandeep, so when you talk about this spaced at lease but not yet occupied and that will contribute kind of $100 million on a run rate basis. I just want to make sure I understand that you are saying, you think at least $25 million of that are it’s going to start all flow in by Q4 of this year, was that as I hear that correctly?

Sandeep Mathrani

I think that will be the math.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay. And then Steve just on page 19 of the supplemental, just want to make sure I understand the differences in some of the rental rates that are provided. In the top section you got numbers that are in the 60s for new and renewal. And I realize some are signed versus expired and open versus expired. And in sort of the down below you talk about the new and renewals being 55 there’s one of those cash versus GAAP is that the difference?

Steve Douglas

No, I think the universe that we are looking at. In that one is the top one is less than 10,000 feet, the other is basically evident it’s also the larger boxes.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, I guess it’s says excluding…

Sandeep Mathrani

So it excludes anchors, which is only the ones that are owned by us but it includes like 15,000 square feet and into 20,000 square feet and but they are not defined as anchors.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, so it’s not comparable space?

Sandeep Mathrani

Correct, and actually there’s no I don’t know, that’s correct it’s not comparable.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, and sorry just one last question, on the specialty leasing I know you guys have talked a lot about converting a lot of the short-term leasing into more permanent leasing. And I’m just curious as you kind of look of look at this fine leasing activity there still seem to be a lot in the specialty leasing category. Is that something you feel like you are making attraction on or is that something that’s taking a bit longer?

Sandeep Mathrani

The matter of fact I think I said this in the last call and I will repeat myself is that we are making the conversions that we are also keeping special leasing higher. So we are actually benefitting both ways that what we normally would have seen is that there would be a conversion but our total occupancy would not have been as high as we are projecting it to be and that’s because as much as the leases that we are converting form temporary to permanent obviously there’s still vacancy in the malls, which is being filled up with new temporary leasing.

Steve Sakwa – ISI Group

Okay, thanks.

Operator

Our next question comes from Michael Bilerman of Citi. Please go ahead.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

Yeah, good afternoon. Quinton Villalay is on the phone with me as well. In terms of spin-off, is there any intension for GGP Corporate to buy into the spin-off or own any of the shares?

Sandeep Mathrani

None.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

And when you talk in the presentation about the sponsorship, is that just related to Brookfield or is there other investors that have stepped up to the entity?

Steve Douglas

It has been Michael, so everyone get their proportionate share, so when you say stepped up I think what you are talking about perhaps is the not to put words in your mouth but you are talking about any sort of back stop regime that may be put into place. And I think what we will do is we are going to make sure that it’s adequate capitalized to be able to move on should have had any consideration around back stop or writes off or anything else that the company may be pursue will be the decision of the board.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

Right, there’s a sentence in the presentation for strong key investor sponsorship with deep roots in the real estate industry and I assume that was Brookfield, but I didn’t know, maybe Blackstone or someone else was, somehow involved in the entity.

Steve Douglas

Well, I think by definition with their share ownership they are going to be involved. And then to be more about the governance Mike, there is also discussions around the potential of the line of credit support to be put into place with prior to the companies deciding ultimately what kind of capital structure it’s going to have.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

And then just in terms of, I guess name on the real side versus, lot of these assets, at least almost a third of them are all JP Realty assets rather than any old Rouse assets, what made you to use Rouse I don’t know, would you do want to have the sprinkle I guess, I just, what made you to use that versus something else?

Steve Douglas

I got no comment, that’s a good a name as any.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

That’s a good as name as any. In terms of how this is, you talked about of being a taxable event. How this work in terms of adjusting the warrants of the shareholders are participated in the recapitalization at the bankruptcy, how do those get adjusted, is it like a book value adjustment or is it effectively what market value is at the time in terms of dean value for adjusting those warrants?

Steve Douglas

I would, you would have to specifically reference the terms of the warrants, but there are anti-dilution provisions in there obviously, that would be, I believe are relational to the market value of the spin.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

Whatever market value the spin is?

Steve Douglas

That’s correct.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

And this is, you obviously put out a value range of 7.5 to 8.5 for, I guess a reason to have some guide and obviously that’s your view of sort of value. But I guess if you are to look at the publicly traded comps in that space, they’re all sort of in the eight to nine cap rate range, with sales productivity numbers greatly in excess of size and scale of excess of that of management team have been tenured in the public domain. And of leverage ratio that are effectively similar eight times that’s EBITDA, high 50s low 60s leverage, what gives you comfort to put 7.5 to 8.5 cap rate range out there on this entity?

Sandeep Mathrani

And then I think about doing it in the form of a bit of a spin is and there’s no capital rate at the same time when it is spun out the market will determined what it would be. So at this point in time, you could, look at the assets that are in the market that was created at 7 or you could look at the peer group and say it will be 8.5 or you could say it’s between 8 and 9.

And I think the aspect here being that, the market will have a chance to determine what the pricing would be when it sells. And so we are not doing a capital raise at the same time and that’s all give it; it will give it (Inaudible).

Michael Bilerman – Citi

Just going back to Saint Louis, you bought, if you bought all of Plaza Frontenac, you’re saying, you sold an effective share just in Saint Louis Galleria.

Sandeep Mathrani

No, no, no, no, but what we did was, okay, to be quite specific, okay? We bought Plaza Frontenac in a partnership, where we would own 55% and the institutional partner will own 45%. We sold 26% of Saint Louis Galleria, took those proceeds for our 55% interest in Plaza Frontenac.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

In the effect within on the same cap rates, so there’s no earnings effect and there is no cash delusion whatsoever?

Sandeep Mathrani

Correct, correct.

Michael Bilerman – Citi

It makes a complete sense. Okay, thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Kevin Kim of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Thanks. I just follow-up in that previous question on the two Saint Louis asset trades, you said the capitals were the same going in, but the sales force activities for the two malls are same as well?

Steve Douglas

(Inaudible) $500 a square foot mall.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Well, yeah, but is that, I mean that could mean a lot of things. It is still, I mean, might be pretty close to absolute dollar term?

Sandeep Mathrani

These absolute dollar terms…

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Meaning like, you said that they’re both or $500 per square foot every malls, but is that both like $550 or it’s one $551 to $600?

Sandeep Mathrani

No, they are both fairly similar.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Okay, just want to make sure.

Sandeep Mathrani

Fairly similar, I mean they, if you keep it in the market, I am not sure, and the half the people will tell you Galleria is number one and Frontenac, number two and the other half will tell you Frontenac, number one and Galleria is number two. So it’s pretty even.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Okay. And on the 30 spinoff, I’m just curious about, would there be any cross G&A, cost shared by GGP and Rouse not at the corporate executive level of maybe as the personal level, down in the market?

Sandeep Mathrani

So when we do the spinoff, there will be a services agreement like we did with HHC, which would burn off as Rouse builds its team. So we may have services for accounting and alike, but over a period of time rapidly, it will build its own team and separate.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Okay and for those of the assets are doing it on the square foot what are the lenders applying a cap rate at when they are lending for mortgages?

Steve Douglas

Well, obviously that is specific and CapEx can be somewhat material depending on and they are probably more cash flow driven, I think you look a lot of these from a lenders perspective, we think there is great, some of them are stable and some of them have, they have sight story. And I think it would be relational to the degree of understanding, our acceptance of the up sight plan.

These assets are evidently financeable in various stages, some could be CMBS, some could be more appropriate, in the bank market, that they would be more of a transitional asset. So they generalize around a specific cap rate would be very difficult.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Even in terms of speaking on averages?

Steve Douglas

Yeah, only because some of them have, some of them will have lower cap rates than you might expect and they might relate to some of the questions previously because of the upsize, these are really the reevaluating opportunity or releasing opportunity. So I think at this point it would be, if we, we think we can stay in the debt load in this organization at the cap rates and analyze that we put into place. And I think there is a great up sight story as it relates to a lot of these.

Some of them, if you just looked at them at the context of today through what sits in GGP, some of them might be slightly remembered with the market may expect, some of them maybe over levered more significantly to what the market may expect. But again there’s a transitional went up sight story to each one of these, so they generalize with one sort of blended average would be difficult.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Okay, got you. And just following that last comment, how many of the 30 assets have, I guess redevelopment plans, attached to it?

Sandeep Mathrani

Repeat the question again, please.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

So of the 30 assets that are being spun off, how many of them have you identified for redevelopment?

Sandeep Mathrani

Oh, how many of them are defined for redevelopment. Again, I think you’ll see a lot of bit in the Form 10, I think we will add them up to see which one, when you say read I mean I wanted to redevelop a complete redevelopment. So I think you’d have to just wait until we get the Form 10 out because it will have the business plans attached.

Kevin Kim – Macquarie

Okay, thank you guys.

Operator

Our next question comes from Nathan Isbee of Stifel Nicolaus. Please go ahead.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Hi, good afternoon. I’m just focusing again on the spin off, as you look at the 30 malls in the up sight opportunity to pathway the value for intense focus. However this is to understand this is in the context to the mall industry where, you creating a smaller company and malls unlike any other asset class there is so many benefits to the size and scale which is an advantage? And doesn’t it make it harder for as much as the focus is different to realize that value as a smaller entity versus under the GGP umbrella.

Sandeep Mathrani

Again, I think we said over and over again, we manage our asset, asset by asset, okay? We don’t one of the mistakes made in the prior regime in our opinion was that we tried to influence because of the size of the company. I think each one has a different business plan and then different focus, the tenant mix that goes into some of the malls that are very different and that were goes into the higher performing assets.

I mean, I can point to many entrepreneurs in this country who have B mall portfolios who do actually a better job than the, in the larger mall operators and the mining the B malls than the larger companies have. So we had the feel that if it’s done to it, a specific group, they can asset manage it far superior than if it stayed within larger confinement of GGP.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Even leaving it as a specific group in GGP and just benefiting from the size?

Sandeep Mathrani

I would say yes, because what happens in a two aspect, I think that we’ve talked about earlier, both Steve and I mentioned in our remarks, is that one, if the human capital drain and would I rather use my human capital to my core assets, like enhancing the value of Ala Moana, a Fashion Show Mall or any one of the others or would I rather spend my time, okay, on these assets, wanted to capital needs where would I rather allocate my capital.

And let me take it one step further, if we do focus on these assets and we are able to accomplish, which we will accomplish, the same goals, it doesn’t really move GGPs needle of gateway, it can have a tremendous impact as a standalone company because it have tremendous growth. So I think all reasons, we feel really different, I believe in two main reasons was human capital focus and capital need and if it does it would work better as a standalone company.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Okay, thank you. And just another question on this, as you look at this portfolio and there’s been a lot chatter in the market about (Inaudible) B mall, would you call this a B mall portfolio or a C mall portfolio?

Sandeep Mathrani

I’d very much call it a B mall portfolio.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Even giving where the sales are?

Sandeep Mathrani

Again, like I said over and over again, I’m saying that you know the sales productivity is not the only criteria to define the mall, many of these malls sit in one astound with no competition for a 100 mile. I would, very much in many cases like to own a mall with no competition in the 100 miles then own multiple malls in a retail environment.

So with either get the lowest performing mall, okay, on this portfolio, okay, from a sales productivity is White Mountain, it’s in Rock Springs, Wyoming, okay? It’s on the lowest end of numbers I gave you, okay? There is no competition for 100s of miles, okay? The mall is almost 97% leased, okay? And it performs and it does stiff shopping center mall if you will, okay?

There is no competition in 100s of miles in every direction. The demographic itself, okay, in a having 70, 80 miles of 50,000 people. So the amount of penetration you’re getting is much greater, okay? Then you will in the traditional sense because you’re penetrating a larger percentage of the market, you’re getting a higher percentage of the disposable income, but it’s no more juice left in the people to spend, if you will. So that doesn’t mean that White Mountain should be considered as C Mall, in this market it’s the only place to go.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Okay, I understood. And then just finally, Steve, do you have the same space leasing spreads?

Steve Douglas

The same space leasing spreads, the comps I gave you in my remarks were same store.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Okay, the way of reason in the press release is that the lease is signed versus leases expiring during that same period not necessarily same space.

Steve Douglas

We’ll double check.

Nathan Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus

Okay. Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Christy McElroy of UBS. Please go ahead.

Christy McElroy – UBS

Hey, good afternoon. Just wanted to follow-up on Kevin’s [ph] question, can you actually quantify the initial G&A savings for GGP post been and how that changes overtime with the burn off of the services agreement? So what would be a good pro forma annual G&A?

Steve Douglas

Again, first a comment given that is going into when the process of creating the Form 10. But I would say, ultimately it’s going to be relational to malls of the two companies of that sort. To give you a definitive number at this point, based upon history it wouldn’t be necessary rational as we do it going forward because we can’t find a larger company. But again I will go to the Form 10 discussion on that.

Christy McElroy – UBS

Could you potentially comment on how much of the dividend would you expect Rouse to pay, giving the taxable income of the entity that you are aware?

Steve Douglas

Again it’s difficult to comment, the initial stated, without giving some sort of projection is to earnings, the initial state of objective would be pay dividend consistent with to maintaining its REIT status so at that end the yield commence with we are kind of looking at today with respect to GGP may not be unreasonable but again I don’t want to speak for the board or the management team of Rouse Properties going forward because it is going to be our relational to how it’s debut the investment opportunities within the confines of that company.

Christy McElroy – UBS

Okay, and then just regarding the $2 billion resize that you did in Q2 with 5.3%, where do you think the cost would be if you resize those loans today, so what would be the difference in all in debt cost on average given what’s happened with treasuries and spreads? And you probably can’t look much further beyond one quarter, but how much that do you think you could end up refining at third quarter, and has the recent weakness in the CMBS market had any impact on the pace in which you are looking to resize?

Steve Douglas

Given the events of the last couple of weeks, it would be difficult to comment, although I think it is probably better today than it was last week in terms of the ability to get financings done. We have been most heartened by the most recent ones in fact are going the CMBS market did have its dislocation last couple of weeks, many are more qualified than I to comment as to why or what happened there. But I think, the only thing I can reflect upon is our experience to date and really we have seen no cessation in offers as it relates to finances. Definitely the CMBS players are being outpaced with the kind of chaos in their market by the Life Coast [ph]. But I don’t think that anything has changed with the high quality asset pool like we are financing. Life Coast [ph], if they want the asset, we are always going to be CMBS players.

So, if you said what we will be getting spreads on today you got to ask yourself is it Life Coast market and CMBS market, because in our case, on a micro basis for our organization it just said we’ve done a lot of work on continuing to talk to lenders to diversify our lending bases to penetrate more, the more traditional kind of all lenders as suppose to the CMBS origination lenders. That’s not to say we won’t be using both I just think it’s been the folks of the past and we said this many times on the CMBS side of the shop and not necessarily standing the delightful, so we are most heartened by that transition and that change for our borrowing base. But clearly with I haven’t had a chance today to see what spreads have done or rates have done but when rates were falling, its spreads were blowing out, we were still financing at a spot where from an historical perspective, I am not going to complain whether it is by spread or by rate. And we need to beer in mind, we are still financing at historical lows even yet 50 basis points on to the spread or 50 basis points on to the rate.

As to what we are going to do for the balance of the year, we anticipate talking, I mentioned, I sort of eluded to my remarks in the process of refinancing few other asset which we hope to announce in the short-term, once we get them passed the line of being simply expressions and interests and offers. And we have been most heartened by again our lending relationship is being quite committed to the deals that they struck with us. And we are quite committed to get in the close rates are phenomenal, at this point in terms of what we are able get, what we are able to achieve and we are basically out of inventory of what we have to do these will be refinancing. And we are still at the point where we can take strategic hard looks that what it is we want to do because of the flexibility of our capital stat.

But we have got essentially once we are done this last round that we are talking about hopefully releasing the next in a while. We have got one loan of no real consequence that we absolutely have to do and the balance we could be optimistic.

Sandeep Mathrani

We just to be again specific, I mean as Steve mentioned to answer your question, we are in the process of numerous loans right now, then again very heartened that we are working towards mainly life codes on those. And the rates the fallen rates are well inside or inside will be accomplished to date. So as long as the make it to the finish line, we will all be pleased with actually the proceeds, the amount and who the provider is. So we are very heartened that because of the size and the quality of the portfolio, we are able to attract lenders in our, the delight companies and not to be dependent upon the CMBS market.

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

Guys it’s Ross Nussbaum here with Christie, just a couple of follow-ups. First, what’s the timing for putting the CEO and CFO in place at Rouse?

Sandeep Mathrani

Pre getting it done by the fourth quarter.

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

Okay, second on Frontenac, I thought that there was another bidder ahead of you guys where this thing wrapped up, was that not the case?

Sandeep Mathrani

We signed the contract.

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

No, did this come back to you or did you decide that you had a bigger appetite for it than you had originally thought.

Sandeep Mathrani

I don’t want to comment. I think that we, it was a good competitor and we came out ahead that’s it.

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

Final question, Sandeep, the spin-off was this your concept and you got the board to buy in or was this something that it had been percolating with the board and Steve before you arrived and you bought into the idea. Where did this idea sort of originate?

Sandeep Mathrani

The idea of trying to figure out what to do with these assets was mine when I came, it was part of the business plan, and as we thought about the various options, we actually felt that the shareholder should benefit the most if we did a spin-off and created a focused group to take advantage of the upside potential as we see, so it was completely my thought process on where this would head. Obviously, it’s the form 10 file so if there is a buyer who wants to come in and buy the assets, if (Inaudible) once the filing is done and the projections of the plans are in place, we will be all ears to listen we are going to do what’s best for the GGP shareholders.

Ross Nussbaum – UBS

Thank you very much.

Operator

Our next question comes from Sukumar Mukherjee of Barclays Capital. Please go ahead.

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

Hi, this is Sukumar Mukherjee here. My question relates to what conversation you guys have been having with rating agencies, and all the investment grade rating, if you can just give some color on that?

Steve Douglas

We have ongoing dialogue; I don’t think we are under any illusion that we didn’t have some particular to get there. We did something that rate portfolio that was posted by S&P a long ago. And we got some very constructive and absolutely correct comments from both rating agencies as to what it is we need to focus on. Primarily, related upon execution on the plan and looking at operating metrics and the things that we are spending the vast majority of our time upon there has been no specific discussions, it remains an aspiration for us. But I think obviously we need to satisfy agencies they were executing on our plan and we will continue to do that.

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

The second question I had relates to the physical occupancy as of 31st March 2011. Could you just give some color on what the difference that has been allotted to end of the recently concluded quarter?

Sandeep Mathrani

Sorry, you want clarity on the physical occupancy on March 31st?

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

That’s right, that’s right.

Sandeep Mathrani

What are you looking for? Is it a delta 92% to 89% that we have today? What is it going to be? What was it in March 31st?

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

That’s right.

Sandeep Mathrani

We don’t have that answer right now.

Steve Douglas

I don’t think it changed tremendously, but yeah we don’t have an actual number at top our head at this point.

Sukumar Mukherjee – Barclays Capital

Okay, thanks.

Operator

Our next questions comes from Rich Moore of RBC Capital Markets, please go ahead.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Yeah, hello guys. Good afternoon. You have 68 malls that you classify as other and another 13 that you just classify as special consideration, and of the 30 that you are putting in there, 29 fall into that category, just putting into Rouse, 29 fall into those two categories and one is a Tier-II mall according to your tiering structure and I am curious why not put all 81 assets or whatever is left over that you haven’t sold into Rouse at this put.

Sandeep Mathrani

No, I glad you asked that question. I was hoping someone would ask that question. It’s because what that you intent here and is to create a company that actually has growth, okay. To create because it is not to create in theory I read someone who said we are trying to create the (Inaudible) absolutely incorrect. So the assets which selected they require a business plan that requires human capital and cash needs so that the company can actually have a growth plans that’s meaningful. And so it was selected to create real opportunity to the fully shareholders as a separate entity.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

And Sandeep the other remaining 50 assets that are in the other and special consideration, what happens to those exactly.

Sandeep Mathrani

Special consideration are already, they were part of the agreement kind of emerging assets where they would go back to the lender while going through a process of getting it back to the lenders. So that was a agreed to, it’s part of emergent and still the plan for those. And the other assets that left back in GGP we will find either one off solutions for them or we will continue to work then within the portfolio.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Okay, I think a few of the 30 identified for the Rouse transaction are special consideration or they were in that category at least in the perspectives. So are some of those going over to Rouse as well.

Sandeep Mathrani

Actually, I think we said this is the last quarter that two of the assets that were part of the special consideration we bought back had a discount into GGP. And so those two assets, which we believed in which was in South Lake in Michigan and (Inaudible) it was in Louisville it was come to me in a second. So we actually bought them back into GGP at a discount. It was the leverage that they just all of the assets that were decided to go into special consideration was the leverage on the asset not the quality of the asset. So we were able to buy them back at a discount, and put them back into our portfolio, I think we disclosed that in the last month.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Okay, so you don’t think the rest of this other malls category that you have would be a fit for Rouse at this point?

Sandeep Mathrani

Correct, it does not have the same characteristics as we talk about which is upside potentials, developing plan, growth…

Steve Douglas

(Inaudible) residual portfolio.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Okay, alright, good thank you guys. And then Steve on the operating expense recovery ratio this quarter, itself from the first quarter it took a pretty good drop. Is there any particular reason behind that?

Steve Douglas

Not at the top of my head other than some of the information I gave you on the small puts and dates on the adjustments. But outside of that, no.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Oh good, thank you. And then you’ve done a good job by the way on the supplemental, I think you put a lot of good stuff in there, however, we couldn’t find the maintenance CapEx kind of section and I think it used to be in there, is that gone or is that just been moved, and we can certainly follow up and try to find that if it is just?

Steve Douglas

We could follow up, that is something that people want, I mean, that’s something we can consider, but I don’t think we bifurcated the CapEx going to that degree. I think maintenance in sort of non-recurring capital $75 million is roughly what we budgeted across the border which may decline somewhat once we complete Rouse.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

Okay and then last thing. Did you disclose the price you bought the shares back during the quarter?

Steve Douglas

We absolutely did, we did math it’s 1595.

Rich Moore – RBC Capital Markets

1595, great, thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Cedrik Lachance of Green Street Advisors. Please go ahead.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Great, thank you. Just a couple of questions to start on Rouse, Steve you were talking about the ability to finance these assets, I am kind of curious as to how we need these actually finance a $250 a foot property at this point, and what do you do is it CMBS, is it bank loan?

Steve Douglas

You know Cedrik, it’s a good question, because I don’t think the CMBS 2.0 rose that topic yet. The reality is we do have financing on the vast majority of that assets but a couple of will be encumbered once they are transferred. What I think there is every reason to believe that the refocusing of the energies on this particular assets, the remaining sponsorship in this strong operating team, there is every reason to believe that a lot of the financing we have got in there today will be just simply transferred to Rouse. That’s all; we see a process that we are marking upon now. Because different conditions in the like and that one we are allude to require approvals, a lot of that relates to that as well.

But we think there is a great story for the assets individually and collectively and it should allow us to transfer a lot of that financing. To the extent the other assets might be more efficiently financed in the bank market, absolutely there is varying degree of bank financing available, and they incredibly contingent on the individual plans for each assets to the extent of repositioning story you have to surrender a recourse or not. A lot of that are debates, individuals one of those assets. Could you go out and do the job of today, the individual CMBS of $250 a foot I’m the first really acknowledge it would be a challenge, but again it is always dependent upon what the outside story is in the individual asset.

Sandeep Mathrani

But also, where the location of the asset and how it sits in the competitive environment, I mean if it sits in an environment when there is no competition, it is gathering, it has got high occupancy, low occupancy cost, I think that could be a different flavor altogether.

Steve Douglas

And I think the Sandeep’s point, you got to look at each one of the individual malls and get pass the fact the 250 foot mall and you look at the occupancy stability and their operating issue for that each individual mall.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Good and just to clarify, did you market, I mean for sale in the private market, did you market any of those 30 properties that are now being spun off in to rest?

Sandeep Mathrani

No, we didn’t go through any formal marketing process.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Okay. In regards to the taxable components of that spin-off is there anything that might require cash taxes to be paid by the investors at the time of spin-off, or what is the structure there that makes this a taxable event?

Steve Douglas

Well the past of the company and the election of the company and make it a taxable dividend. Again I look at it in this respect, it’s not that we are taking the company and splitting it into half and giving shareholders $8 dividend. At the end of the day, we look at the table that we provided, it’s anywhere between $0.75 and $0.85 if you, are depending on what cap rate you wish to choose. In which case to the extent to that share values is accepted in the values of the spin-off then I guess shareholders who are taxable and again we can’t necessarily plan on the tax status of each shareholder those that are taxable could potentially face depending on their revenue circumstance taxable, but I’m not sure it’s consequential enough to really engage the value of what we think we created a residual GGP as a consequence of doing this nor the outside potential in the company.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Okay, just a big away from Rouse and looking at the current business, Sandeep you talked about the current gap between occupied space physically occupied and the lease space. What is the historical gap between the two? If you look back over the last 5 years or so?

Sandeep Mathrani

I don’t have the answer to that question Cedrik, so I haven’t got back to research what it’s been.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Good. And then in regards to the temp leasing, it seems fractionally that you have actually increased the amount of temp leasing. But earlier you mentioned that you would actually you made a certain amount number of conversion from temp or specialty leasing into longer term leases. Are you able to share the releasing spreads on those conversion from short-term to long-term?

Sandeep Mathrani

Again, I think we have said this before and I think it is pretty consistent that the 365 tenants pay about a third, of what a permanent tenant pays. So I think that’s been about that was our original projection and that’s been what we have experienced.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Okay, and what percentage of the (Inaudible) temporarily thing at the beginning of the year has been converted to those $45 of footprints on average?

Sandeep Mathrani

I don’t really have that in my fingertip either Cedrik.

Cedrik Lachance – Green Street Advisors

Okay, alright, that’s it from me. Thank you.

Sandeep Mathrani

Thanks Cedrik.

Operator

Our next question comes from Ben Yang of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Please go ahead.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Yeah, hi, thanks. Going back to Richard’s question on how you chose the Rouse assets, you mentioned the growth outside of those assets that you are spinning off on that not all assets have this growth profile, I mean, can w in front of that the other assets that you are holding on to but non-special consideration malls have basically no embedded growth in them.

Sandeep Mathrani

I would say they are a lot more challenged from an embedded growth perspective but it probably we can’t hope less than 1% of our annual.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

I mean so longer time you are just going to hold on them because they are pretty immaterial to the overall portfolio, is that a fair statement or maybe we could potentially see another spin-off as Rouse been successful?

Sandeep Mathrani

You might see one off sales but not another spin-off.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

No, not the third one?

Steve Douglas

I think that’s what you need to look at is at currently when we went to the process of shifting this small portfolio, we wanted to set our Rouse Properties for success. And that can’t democrat the malls that were residual or left behind is just they didn’t have that kind of upside that we identified in these 30 and frankly our better left to our devices because there may be in such dramatic repositioning that the patience behind it in the new company might be, it might be less and there being enormous focus on that. It really does represent a miniscule mode of NOI and the residual to GGP and something that you know but at the same time it won’t represent a distraction.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Okay, fair enough. And then Steve, in your prepared remark you mentioned several items in the Core NOI which maybe could lead to some faulty comparisons and so, when you do the math maybe the second quarter 2.6% decline is not entirely reflective of the true growth rate. I don’t think you mentioned it, but what was the core growth for the second quarter, maybe excluding a lease term fees and some of the other nonrecurring noise that hit during the quarter.

Steve Douglas

Well, actually I think I did mention it. I think if you take out the nonrecurring noise in my prepared remarks I believe I made a reference to about 0.8%.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

I thought that was a year-to-date number and not necessarily just for the second quarter.

Steve Douglas

I am sorry, year-to-date; yeah it was 0.8% if you take out all the other items that, in fact I’ll read my prepared remarks core NOI totaled at $1.72 billion versus $1.76 billion last year. If you take out the lease termination income, which is included core NOI was actually up the other associated noise that we talked about earlier on. So let me take our all those puts and takes that actually does grow began because of the sort of one-time nature of the adjustments we went through.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Is it fair to assume that for the second quarter alone that the core NOI actually fell.

Steve Douglas

No. You asked about six months, the core NOI for the three months that we are talking about again I went on a serial basis, we talked about Q2 NOI was $527.6 versus $544 and there I eluded to about $17 million of core noise, which is represented by lower termination fees, lower over trends the adjustments on the Aliansce investment by virtue of the audits in lighting those inputs severance built in the properties of what $2 million and then other small accrual reversals, unfortunately all the negative totaling $3 million and that gives us above the $20 million or the $0.02 change that we are talking about. If you add all those back, we in fact did grow NOI or be it by recognizing by a small margin.

But again I will go back to Sandeep’s remarks when we are talking about as we continue to watch through all of these old leasing we are now at the point where that in turn looking outwards we do have confidence that given what we are seeing in the vast majority of the industry, people are talking a lot about increasing guidance we are seeing in the same sort of tailwinds in our side and we have seen historically trends on obviously over ridge rents, percentage rent going forward gives us confidence that we are going to continue to grow NOI. And that when you talk about a serial decline of 2.6% being something that’s going to be sustained and the answer is no, and that really is a relation of those anomalies we talked about.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Okay, okay that’s helpful I appreciate that, and just final question. Back in March you mentioned about $50 million of G&A savings by first half of this year which I assume before you consider the Rouse spin-off and the resulting G&A savings from that, it doesn’t look like you necessarily on track to meet this particularly when you maybe consider some of the recent new hires, maybe even the office space taking in Midtown Manhattan, is that G&A savings goal still reasonable. Can you maybe comment on how you get there in the coming year?

Sandeep Mathrani

As a matter of fact, we have actually reviewed this and now again with the board very recently as on the outside, we are completely on track to achieve our run rate for 2012. We will be between the $40 million to $50 million that we have indicated, pre any spin-off of Rouse and so we are completely on track to be recognize that on a run rate basis in 2012.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Okay, so that’s a 2012 event, not a second half of 2011.

Sandeep Mathrani

It happens in the first half and the people actually (Inaudible) severance and things like that and not going to really see the impact of 2012 and that’s what I maintained all long.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Okay, perfect. And then can you just comment on what will be based in your causes because I don’t recall you guys having any meaningful scale of properties in Manhattan on even in New York. Is that going to be working on that space or is that a signal that maybe you are going to try to increase maybe your footprint in New York at some point.

Sandeep Mathrani

Well, I say it again as I have said previously, we have had 11 regional offices our goal was to bring that down to three main regional offices in New York metro area, Chicago and Los Angeles. And so this really consolidates all our New York, our East Coast operations, okay to be consolidated at the regional office in the New York metro area. So it’s - and likely have them in Chicago and likely we will in LA.

Ben Yang – Keefe, Bruyette & Woods

Great, thank you very much.

Operator

Our next question comes from Michael Mueller at JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Michael Mueller – JPMorgan

Great, hi, quick question on page 19 of the supplemental of leasing spreads. Are those cash or GAAP numbers?

Sandeep Mathrani

The top would be GAAP numbers, the bottom would be cash. And I think earlier we had said that they are not apples-to-apples we have gotten the clarification they are once cash, once GAAP.

Michael Mueller – JPMorgan

Okay, so up top the releasing spreads are GAAP numbers. Do you have those numbers on a cash basis for both the 1.9% and the 8.6%?

Steve Douglas

No we don’t. We haven’t put them in the supplemental we will consider releasing them in the future.

Michael Mueller – JPMorgan

Okay, and then post spin-out can you just talk about what’s left to be sold then? I guess dollar-wise roughly for strips office and then how should we think about other mall assets sales?

Sandeep Mathrani

I think, as we have said, the beginning of the year it had been consistent that we are not going to sell our non-core assets as many as we can this year, we have give a target which we fell pretty comfortable at this year, all the transactions that happened today. We are left with few non-core assets going into 2012, some spreads in the office and some in Columbia Park and as the markets turn those will also be sold and that’s our goal, our goal is to get rid of had an opportune time the non-core asset but most of it as I said in the beginning of the year will be accomplished in 2011 and I think we have made a tremendous headway in that direction and we have accomplish what we set out to accomplish I think we actually exceeded our goals for this year. So there isn’t that much left now going into 2012.

Michael Mueller – JPMorgan

Okay, and then what about on the mall side post spin-off, should we think about additional sales coming on the mall side or not really?

Sandeep Mathrani

I think we haven’t sort that out that probably I think not really.

Michael Mueller – JPMorgan

Okay, thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Howard Wise [ph] of (Inaudible), please go ahead.

Unidentified Participant

Hi there, thanks for taking my question. I know that you’ve gone through elements of this, the other questions that have come before me, but I am still unclear on a couple of points. So I think you mention that isn’t the purpose of creating Rouse isn’t to create bad kill effectively but you did say that it is part of the resolution process on these assets that were marked for special consideration, and part of that process maybe in getting them back to the ones that you expect it as the 19 properties that are being spun out into this new energy but that’s going to result in several of these assets actually, I guess, the faulting the lack of a better word and actually going back to the lenders for liquidation.

Sandeep Mathrani

Not at all. Let me be clear, I think there may be a misunderstanding. I don’t want to mix apples-to-oranges for a minute. Okay, we had identified emergence numerous assets that were called special consideration assets, which were to be given back to the lenders. Only two of those assets we bought back into GGP as a completely separate in part transactions. Okay. Now that we have a portfolio of asset to GGP, we have taken 30 of those, okay and created Rouse.

Absolutely no intent of taking any of those to reports on that and return them to a lender. That was not the plan because the plan is to create a company. Okay that is viable B mall operating company.

Steve Douglas

In fact quite the contrary again back to the point of we belabored in that it’s getting not necessary to focus; it could otherwise in a different platform. It is going to be contrary it’s all open eye to adding value to both the equity and not by extension adding value to the debt holders. Because we really do have a plan in a debt to reach one of these assets, it’s a no way shaper form some sort of stealth move to put into the position return it back to the lender.

Unidentified Participant

Okay, alright the second question is just in terms of the opportunities associated with the assets that are being spun out. I think you mentioned that there are redevelopment and expansion opportunities that fit this particular growth profile. Is there a capital that GGP is going to be contributing to the Rouse to facilitate that redevelopment activity and so can you give some color on what that looks like as well.

Sandeep Mathrani

I think we said little earlier that we are not contributing or any cash into Rouse again there is a form tending file, the capital needs are going to be met with either through the financing that is going to be put on the assets, the cash flow of the assets and any line of credit that is provided to support the business plan of Rouse. GGP will not own any interest in Rouse no provide any capital support to Rouse once it’s spun out.

Unidentified Participant

Okay, thank you.

Operator

Our next question is a follow-up from Alexander Goldfarb of Sandler O’Neil. Please go ahead.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

Thank you for taking it, just a few quick follow-ups here. You guys spoke a lot about how the Rouse spin-off would be creating value for shareholders. So far it does not seem like and you were clear that you are not going to own any stock, you are not contributing any capital to it. Just curious now that shareholders are larger familiar with this, if there’s enough that you know say hey we don’t want to do this, we think those assets are better within the larger GGP portfolio, would you guys consider changing your plans?

Steve Douglas

I think this is, there was some discussion at length and in fact we read about Navy to June an article came in the paper discussing the possibility of this, our positioning of the time remains unchanged. I don’t know if anyone would be surprised that the company that has done this in the past would consider this as a viable execution in the future. Very clear that there is conditions, something to be fulfill the allowance to spin it out or not, but I think from a conviction perspective, if you look at how we feel about the assets within the hands of other shareholders we obviously by definition believe that it is an opportunity to more finding price capital.

I think there is a lot of focus now on Rouse and what it looks like on a spin-off basis but I think you got to balance that with what GGP residual looks like on a post Rouse basis and really how both been at the diversion to separation any opportunity in our view to more finding price capital and get more transparency and refinement as a raise to pricing in the capital is always a good thing, so taking these 30 asset out giving them the platform and the presence that they will get the consequences that is going allow people to what they understand the upside and they know that’s in relationally with respect to GGP residual, you have an expansion in sales per foot you eliminated $1.1 billion of debt off of the liability side of the table, which I think is a good thing as well, given a lot of discussion around (Inaudible) GGP that we have heard. So I think we are convinced that the best execution is that, in the discussions that we’ve had with shareholders in regard to this has validated that perspective, I don’t know Sandeep you have anything to add.

Sandeep Mathrani

No, I can agree with you more because we did have discussions at length and this was deemed to be the best execution for all the reasons that Steve has enumerated.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

The benefit to GGP seems clear but when you walk through the numbers and you guys have laid out a bunch of stuff that’s helpful, it’s trying to understand as a potential Rouse shareholder, how it is going play out subsequent to the spin. Second question is, are you guys planning any more stock buybacks in the second half of the year? I don’t know if you can be in the market today, but are you guys planning any more stock buybacks?

Steve Douglas

At the current time as none have contemplated, I just want to believe you should always be in a position to buyback your stocks so at some point we will entertain a normal (Inaudible) a bit. But just like we have done in the past to the extent we have got opportunities will measure.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

But you have a board approved by that program.

Steve Douglas

Not this time.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

Okay, and the final question is…

Steve Douglas

We didn’t have one before.

Sandeep Mathrani

Okay, but again, we might have the reason we did what we did before was we had accelerated our disposition in financing activity to give us the capital needs and we need to obviously balance that to our business plan going forward to make sure we have sufficient and more than sufficient liquidity to execute our plan going forward even on the remaining GGP assets. So we have always going to keep balance, we always going to make sure that we have the right amount of liquidity to run our business.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

Oh great. Just a final question. Sandeep, you had mentioned the 89% occupy versus 92% leased but then you also said that there is a potential to increase occupancy by 100 basis points by year end pending signing of some leases, so I guess the question is from modeling purposes where should we have our occupancy by year end? If you are right now 89% occupied, by year end where would you have that occupancy for our models?

Sandeep Mathrani

Again, I don’t want to again provide guidance. I think I basically said to you that we think we are going to get to 92.5% total occupancy, okay? That’s leased, okay? 93.5% total leased and we have also said that we have got 3 points of occupancy that signal lead to sign tenants and have it commence being rent. And that will provide the $100 million or so, on a run rate basis, so beyond that I am not going to provide any additional guidance.

Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neil

Okay, thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes from Andrew Rosivach of Credits Suisse. Please go ahead.

Andrew Rosivach – Credit Suisse

Hey guys, it’s late so a real quick one, we are 32 days into the quarter can you please tell us what the third quarter is going to be. As if you look at your stock today, you are down 8%, the main reason why is you put out the core number 23. I am just trying to emphasize the close moment here that’s the kind of stuff that makes the stocks react poorly. Can we put you in a position where the street doesn’t end up, setting you up with the enormous number that you can’t make.

Steve Douglas

Andrew, I think we are trying to get color as it relates to the inputs in the quarter that caused the decline from a serial quarter-to-quarter basis. The focused that we tried to emphasize and perhaps, emphasize enough but this point is looking out at the balance of the year, first of all as we have said many times, we can’t get guidance and we won’t get guidance until third quarter. But having said that, looking out and we are confident that the balance of the year will grow reflecting on historical trends and sales figures that we have seen as it relates to percentage rent and sort of business development site revenues associated with temporary occupancies on a seasonal basis that will drive our numbers higher in the second half than it did in the first.

We are obviously not going to give you a number for what it is, if we are not getting guidance for the third quarter, I mean begins with third quarter, but I think that confidence combined with the elimination of nonrecurring items are the extraneous items that we talked above, I think set us, we have the ability to say if you look back on our comment where we say 23% of our quarter is driven by the first quarter, 22% to 23% of it is we are not backing away from that.

Andrew Rosivach – Credit Suisse

That was about $0.96 cents to $1 if you use the same (Inaudible) on the first quarter. You are still comfortable with that because that is why and a lot of my entrepreneurs have been working with this kind of a soft range.

Sandeep Mathrani

Again, we are not going to provide guidance. Again, we have given you enough percentages to bridge the gap. This is exactly why we didn’t ever want to provide any sort of guidance because the business is half the (Inaudible) the metrics looks fantastic, whether it be same still leasing, leasing spreads, occupancy, sales per square foot and like any business, okay when we came over when people asked the question over and over again, how long before we start to see the positive impact and my answer was always 12 to 24 months. But into this 6 months, every matrix is positive, okay and if one feels one is going to run the business quarter-to-quarter, okay, we are not going to do that. We are going to do what’s right for the business and we are proven with the statistics that we have that the accomplishment in the last 6 months in direction of the company.

We have also said over and over again that our peers started this 12 months ago. Okay, and they see the impacts earlier than we see, so if you actually take all the noise out, the fact that we are flat should say something, the fact that we are showing that we are actually got growth in the third and fourth quarter should say something as well. The spreads that we over and over and over I can emphasize on my remark I should say something. The sales per square foot that we are achieving to say something, our top 20 assets being at $775 a foot and up 12.5% to pay something.

So I think that we feel comfortable and at the end of the day, the numbers will improve themselves and if you ask me 18 months of today and we think we (Inaudible) I can see it today and I have enough transparency to see it and visibility that we are going to get that. This was always a conservatively an 18 to 24 month play before we started to see numbers effective we have seen them even earlier should say a lot about the portfolio and moving on.

Andrew Rosivach – Credit Suisse

Sandeep, I am totally there and I think there are lot of people who can see the forward numbers that are part of the story but you don’t want to get that ruined by a day like today where there is just a random number that you can see day like today is diluting that forward story because you don’t have a guidance estimate that’s at least 90 days out.

Sandeep Mathrani

Okay. What will happen is the numbers would prove themselves and things would reverse themselves, okay. And I think we have to take that position, fill any position we are not going drive in a guidance and once we get the visibility the numbers will prove themselves out and you know what if it takes 18 months to prove it all out it will be a balance back and market always neutralizes and it is we are highly efficient.

Steve Douglas

But also going to add it would definitely encumber upon us. Have we seen some sort of, and we recognize well that there is guidance that’s pinned by analyst out there to have a certain degree of expectations. But in looking out to words the balance of the year, we do see loss these are the operating numbers as a consequence of the things we discussed and that simply was been retrospect looking back on our historical trends on those other types of seasonal numbers that will come true, and that as that coupled with the extraneous numbers that held down the perceived growth NOI this quarter gives us confidence that we are going to see it better back half of 2011.

Sandeep Mathrani

And more so, we have actually been quite clear how we are approaching it to show that. So again we made a comment that we feel comfortable and optimistic and we wouldn’t have done that unless we felt, we see the visibility at where the next two quarters are going to head, but of course it is dependent upon retail sales staying at the levels they are.

Andrew Rosivach – Credit Suisse

All right, thanks for the time guys.

Operator

And that was our last question, and I would now like to turn the call back over to management for any closing remarks.

Sandeep Mathrani

Thank you all for all the questions, for staying with us for an hour and 45 minutes and I think we’ve encumbered upon us to stay as long as the questions kept coming. Because we wanted to obviously provide as much visibility as the investment community shall fit. Once again, we are incredibly heartened at all the momentum that’s behind us and we look forward to the next quarterly call and I’m sure you do to because you will actually get your guidance then. And I will talk to you soon. Thank you.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s conference. You may all disconnect and have a wonderful day.

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: General Growth Properties CEO Discusses Q2 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts