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

BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE:BMR)

Q3 2012 Earnings Call

November 2, 2012 1:00 PM ET

Executives

Rick Howe - Director, Corporate Communications

Alan Gold - CEO

Matt McDevitt - EVP, Real Estate

Kent Griffin - President and COO

Greg Lubushkin - CFO

Analysts

Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies

Brendan Maiorana – Wells Fargo

Chris Katen - Morgan Stanley

David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald

Rich Anderson - BMO Capital Markets

Jordan Sadler - KeyBanc Capital Market

Philip Martin - Morningstar

Daniel Bernstein - Stifel Nicolaus

Gabriel Hilmoe - UBS

Operator

Welcome to the Q3 2012 BioMed Realty Trust Inc. Earnings Conference Call. My name is Anthony and I will be your operator for today’s call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Please note that this conference is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

I would now like to turn the call over to Rick Howe. Mr. Howe you may begin.

Rick Howe

Thank you, Anthony, and welcome, everyone. Today’s third quarter 2012 earnings call includes a slide presentation to accompany our prepared remarks. If you are not currently viewing the slides and would like to, please go to www.biomedrealty.com, click on the Investor Relations tab on the left and then click the Q3 2012 BioMed Realty Trust Inc. Earnings Conference Call link. We have also posted these slides on the Investor Relations tab of our website under the title “Investor Presentation Third Quarter 2012.” Presenting today are Alan Gold, Chief Executive Officer; Kent Griffin, President, Matt McDevitt, Executive Vice President of Real Estate and Greg Lubushkin, Chief Financial Officer.

Before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone of the Safe Harbor statement included in yesterday’s news release. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a Safe Harbor for certain forward-looking statements, including statements made today during the course of today’s conference call. These forward-looking statements are based on the company’s current expectations and involve significant risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond the control of the company and are subject to change based on various factors.

Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. For a detailed discussion of some of the ongoing risks and uncertainties of the company’s business, I refer you to the news release issued yesterday and filed with the SEC on form 8-K, as well as the company’s other SEC filings, including its most recent Annual Report on form 10-K and quarterly reports on form 10-Q. The company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

I will now turn the call over to Alan Gold. Alan?

Alan Gold

Thanks, Rick. And welcome everyone. First, let me begin by saying from all of us at BioMed Royalty to all of you who have suffered and are suffering with storm damage, that you are in our prayers for a speedy recovery and better times. I also want to say thanks to our teams on the ground who acted with unstoppable dedication and professionalism.

And moving forward with our third quarter results, we are pleased with another quarter of strong execution and for our proven business model. With a continued stream of positive news in the Life Science industry, advances in innovation in capital flows to the Life Science sector and healthy operating and financial results driven by the talented professionals in our fully integrated operating platform at BioMed Realty.

Our consistent strong leasing momentum has produced increasing occupancy, increasing NOI and most importantly, increasing bottom line results, with a 13% increase in FFO per share and 10% increase in AFFO per share year-over-year.

Even with such positive momentum, we are concerned about the global macroeconomic environment, lack luster domestic GDP growth and even in the burgeoning federal and state budget deficits. And there are still important issues facing the Life Science industry, including uncertainties surrounding the NIH budget which will not necessarily be made any more clear after next week’s selection, (inaudible) facing pharma and substantial uncertainties around healthcare reform to name a few.

Yet despite all these challenges, the Life Science industry continues to march on and the third quarter was no exception. The FDA has approved 25 drugs year-to-date, which puts 2012 approvals on page to exceed the 30 approvals in 2011, which was highest number since 2004.

Our tenants have been at the forefront of this approval activity. During the quarter, Sanofi Genzyme received approval for a multiple sclerosis treatment. Ironwood Pharmaceuticals received its much anticipated approval for Linzess, a treatment of gastrointestinal disorders.

Five years in development with Forest laboratories, Linzess has a potential to improve the lives of up to 48 million highly symptomatic patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Ironwood and Forest hold the U.S. patent until 2025 and will co-promote Linzess in the United States.

Sanofi and Ironwood join Amylin, Vertex, Genentech and Arena as tenants having received FDA approvals just this year. In turn, the Amex Biotech index was up 28% as of the end of October and continues to dramatically outpace the broader market indices.

Not surprisingly, as innovation succeeds, capital flows increase in the industry, which in turn drives our sustained success in leasing space. Capital flows for the industry have grown annually, since 2008 from $36 billion to reach $70 billion in 2011, a 94% increase. 2012 has continued to attract well with an aggregate of $58 billion raised in just the first nine months of the year.

Many of our tenants have been active in this capital raising environment. Regulus Therapeutics, a (inaudible) based tenant of ours successfully completed an IPO, which raised approximate $45 million. Regulus is developing advanced microRNA therapeutics towards clinical development in Oncology, Fibrosis, Hepatitis-C and metabolic diseases.

Regulus was formed in September of 2007 to a collaboration between our tenants Isis Pharmaceuticals and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Recall that we have had a long standing relationship with Isis and completed their corporate headquarters (inaudible). Regulus benefits from the collective therapeutic RNA expertise of its founding companies as well as their proven senior leadership team headed by Kleanthis Xanthopoulos and Garry Menzel. Together they have demonstrated an ability to build their company by clearing obstacles and consistently hitting milestones. While the company is only five years old, Regulus has formed strategic alliances with some of the most prominent names in big pharma including AstraZeneca, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline.

Also, Ardalex a tenant at our Ardenwood property next to our San Francisco Bay Area Pacific Research Center announced a partnering transaction with AstraZeneca, which includes a $35 million upfront payment and over $237 million of milestone payments. Now as you can see by our most recent quarter results our recent leasing announcements regarding Regeneron and Ironwood and our leasing guidance outlook for 2013 to be discussed later on this call; we find ourselves well positioned with the right assets, in terms of both of our properties and our people, to capture the opportunities provided by the strength and resilience of the Life Science sector. Our team's ability to understand the business of our tenants and to develop real estate solutions to support their business continues to serve as a critical distinguishing factor in our success.

And with that I'm going to turn the call over to Matt, to get into specifics of leasing. Matt?

Matt McDevitt

Thanks, Alan. The strong pace of leasing activity continued in the third quarter as we generated 367,000 square feet of gross leasing from 22 transactions. The contribution from new and renewal were almost evenly split with the new leasing volume at 190,000 square feet from 16 transactions and renewal volume at 176,000 square feet from six transactions.

Now think deeper. We saw solid, steady activity across our core markets, especially in San Diego and Cambridge, Massachusetts, continuing to drive positive net absorption. The largest transaction was in San Diego, where we signed an 81,000 square foot renewal with Vertex Pharmaceuticals at our Torreyana Road property through 2018. Now you remember this is the second extension we have done with Vertex in San Diego, since we acquired the property in March 2007.

We also executed a new 24,000 square foot lease with NovaRx, a bio-pharmaceutical company working on cell-based therapeutic vaccines for the treatment of cancer at our Nancy Ridge property. We continue to see a strong piece of leasing in the Cambridge Massachusetts market and, in fact, have enjoyed a lot of activity at our Roger Street property.

During the third quarter, we signed a new 46,000 square foot lease with Idenix pharmaceuticals at 320 Bent. Idenix will be relocating and expanding from approximately 39,000 square feet at Cambridge place, which will allow us to accelerate our repositioning efforts there. Idenix’s primary focus is on discovering and developing anti-viral pharmaceuticals for the treatment of viral infections.

They had been successful in discovering and developing treatments for Hepatitis B and HIV AIDS, as well as entering into development and commercialization agreements for these treatments with Novartis and GSK respectively.

During the third quarter we received an $8.7 million termination payment from Merck on a lease of a 145,000 square feet at 320 Bent Street. The termination is effective August 2013, during which period Merck will continue to pay their rent and OpEx as expected.

Important to note, Merck has already subleased roughly half of the space to a couple of tenants, including Momenta Pharmaceuticals another successful Cambridge based biotech and announced earlier this week, Ironwood pharmaceuticals signed on for an additional 93,000 square feet at 301 Binney. This is Ironwood’s second significant expansion within the last two years and now occupies over 300,000 square feet of lab and office space through 2018.

Finally, the approval of Lizness as Alan mentioned earlier, is the first approval from a platform dedicated to commercializing differentiated medicines for patients suffering from gastrointestinal disease, central nervous system disorders and respiratory disease. We are of course very excited about their decision to stay in Cambridge, a testimony to the strength of MIT Heavy Research Community and the quality and location of 301 Binney.

As you may recall we purchased remaining interest 301 Binney and 320 Bent from Prudential roughly a year ago and at that time with approximately 76% leased and now collectively 97%. Based on our successful history at Roger Street, including not just Ironwood but also The Broad Institute, Living Proof and now Idenix, we feel very good about our opportunity to backfill the Merck space before their lease terminates, effectively double dipping with the benefit of lease termination payment.

Now at elsewhere in Cambridge, we signed a new 24,000 square foot lease with Hydra Biosciences at our Fresh Pond Research Center. Our fifth lease this year and on this site in 2012, bringing this property from 18% leased a year ago to over 98% leased today. And we’re not done yet. Subsequent to quarter-end, in addition to Ironwood, we announced that Regeneron has signed on for an additional 80,000 square feet at the Landmark at East View in Westchester County, New York.

As many of you know, Regeneron has been among our longest, most valuable relationship and this transaction represents our 12th expansion with Regeneron, since we originally acquired the property in 2004. Their success and growth is truly remarkable and now employ approximately 1,300 people at the campus. They maintain research teams that focus on a wide range of therapeutics and include oncology, ophthalmology and cardiovascular disease.

With three FDA approved drugs in the past four years, they continue develop a deep pipeline of therapies with eight now in clinical trials. All along the way, Leon Schleifer, Murray Goldberg and the team of Regeneron have forged successful partnerships with large biopharmaceutical companies including Bayer Healthcare, Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.

All of this scientific success has translated into remarkable financial achievement. Since our relationship began, Regeneron stock has risen over 15 times with a current market cap of $14 billion, compared to a little over $500 million in 2004. We are honored to have played a part in their success and are eager to support their continued successes in many years to come.

Now, as a result of this activity, including what we have just announced subsequent to quarter end, we have reached 1,800,000 million square feet of gross leasing, a full 150% of our target with the balance of the fourth quarter still to go. As of Q3, our positive net absorption was up 579,000 square feet, exceeding our five quarter net absorption goal of 400,000 square feet.

Now let’s take a look ahead. We’re introducing our five quarter leasing targets which take us through the end of 2013. We’re projecting 1.5 million square feet starting October 1st of this year, through December 31, 2013, which is expected to generate positive net absorption of approximately 300,000 square feet.

Now, we’re currently anticipating main leasing of 850,000 square feet, the majority of which would be related to first generation space. We’re anticipating renewals and extensions totaling 650,000 square feet with roughly 60% coming from 2013 lease explorations and the balance coming from early renewals associated with the explorations out in 2014 and beyond.

Now this is obviously higher than the goals we set in previous years, but we believe its achievable based on the current piece of capital funding for our tenants and the general healthy level of activity and demand in the marketplace. So in terms of market by market contribution to the projective leasing volume, we see continued strength across our portfolio with our most vibrant markets being Boston Cambridge, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego.

We’re projecting average rents per square foot of approximately $30 with specific actual rents, obviously a function of the market and the specific property. We’re forecasting an average capital cost of 70% per square foot for the gross leasing target of 1.5 million square feet. Now, specific capital costs will again be a function of the new leases versus renewals.

So this strong sustained momentum of our leasing program and positive net absorption over the past few years is no accident. These achievements are direct and deliberate results of high quality assets, located in premiere Life Science markets and submarkets, executing a strong leasing program which leverages a team with deep expertise in the Life Science real estate and uniquely offering coordinated service delivery with our internal and external partners. We don’t anticipate these factors to change in 2013 and beyond.

And with that I’ll now turn the call over to Kent.

Kent Griffin

Thanks, Matt. Now, considering Alan’s comments regarding the strength and resilience of the Life Science industry, coupled with the continued leasing velocity Matt discussed, I’d like to briefly go over how we are approaching the opportunities in front of us for 2013 and then beyond.

BioMed Realty’s business model is built on the strength, the resilience of the Life Science industry and our niche expertise in serving the unique real estate needs of the sector. We apply our core strengths, our fully integrated operating platform with the depth and breadth of domain expertise necessary to meet the unique needs of the Life Science industry, along with disciplined investment acumen that promotes an active acquisition and development program designed to generate above average risk adjusted returns and a highly strategic approach to managing our capital structure and our liquidity position.

By bringing together these critical success factors, we have been delivering on our mission to create value for our shareholders from the ground up. The quality and importance of having a fully integrated operating platform is on display this past week as a result of this storm event.

Despite the majority of our assets being situated on the east coast between Maryland and Boston, we fortunately experienced relatively minor damage to a few properties and we do not expect to incur any material incremental cost as a result and all of our tenants today have power.

We were ultimately fortunate as our properties avoided the brunt of the storm. Nevertheless, our facilities and property management teams were prepared in accordance with best practices, starting with proper planning; ensuring buildings were ready for the storm’s impact, generators full, drainage systems working, premises and equipment secured.

Our team facilitated the strategic alignment of internal staff and third party vendors, ensuring communications with tenants, employees and vendors were established to maintain throughout in order to identify issues early and respond quickly. We want to thank and acknowledge our property management facility’s team, as well as our vendor partners and tenant partners for the dedication and commitment to serving our tenants and protecting our assets.

Moving on to our feature opportunities, our primary needs of creating value for shareholders, stems from maximizing the cash flow and value of our operating properties. We have steadily and significantly increased our lease percentage and accordingly our cash flow per share over the last three years and we expect to do so again in 2013. So it won’t surprise most of you, that our focus remains leasing.

We expect to generate approximately 300,000 square feet of positive net absorption from now through the year-end 2013, which would bring our total operating portfolio lease percentage to approximately 93%. In addition to positive net absorption, we expect to see increasing cash flows, associated with our contractual rent escalations which are approximately 2.5% annually, and we are starting to see pockets of rent growth, both reduced concessions and incentives, as well as positive upward pressure on face rents in some places around San Francisco and Cambridge, which conveniently are our two largest markets.

Supplementing the opportunity from our current operating portfolio, we have additional growth opportunities both near term and long term associated with our development pipeline. We are in the active pre-development process on several projects across our core markets, which we believe are well positioned to capture increasing tenant demand, particularly in our heavily supply constrained markets, where almost no new product has been delivered over the last four or five years.

The near term opportunities include our Landside at Kendall Square, the 500 Fairview Project in Seattle, our Innovation Center Project in San Diego, as well as our development opportunity in South San Francisco where we are now anticipating, demoing to approximately 100,000 square feet at our 800 and 1000 buildings at Gateway in South San Francisco, in order to allow us the opportunity to develop up to 400,000 square feet of Class A product on the best site in south San Francisco.

Now we do not anticipate breaking ground on these projects on a speculative basis, but rather are positioning these opportunities as built-to-suits or for preleased projects for anchor (ph) tenants. In addition, we have an additional 3 million square feet of development potential adjacent to current properties across our core markets. Now we'll spend more time addressing these development opportunities at our upcoming Investor Day in a couple of weeks.

Also we continue to believe there are and will be compelling new acquisition opportunities over time, with an addressable market size in excess of 100 million square feet and a growing industry which increasingly is focusing on our core markets, generally urban locations in close proximity to academia with access to critical scientific talent.

And finally on the capital front, we've worked very hard strategically and tactically over the last eight years to position ourselves for today. This has included consistently managing our capital structure, our leverage ratios, our maturity schedules and our liquidity position to best capture the next opportunity.

Today, we enjoy arguably our strongest liquidity position in our company's history and consider ourselves very properly capitalized based on the strength of our business model and a stabilized portfolio with long-term leases to top tier tenants in the pharma, research and biotech sector. Our 2013, base case contemplates debt-to-EBITDA ratio in the mid sixes, with an overall leverage in the low 40s and no consolidated debt maturities.

Looking further ahead in 2014, we eagerly await the opportunity to replace the $350 million secured loan, which currently bears interest at 7.75%, which is at least 400 basis points above our current rate expectation.

Looking further ahead in 2015, we see the potential conversion of our convertible notes which are currently, effectively serving as equity in terms of FFO dilution, yet are considered debt for leverage calculation purposes. We are very excited about 2013 and the opportunities in front of us.

Now it’s Greg’s turn to walk you through the third quarter financial results and guidance. Greg?

Greg Lubushkin

Thanks a lot Kent. Turning to the financial results in the third quarter, our sustained leasing momentum in strategic new investments provided the catalyst for double digit top line and cash flow growth for the quarter. As FFO per diluted share increased 13.3% year-over-year to $0.34 in the third quarter, a second consecutive quarter of double digit growth, AFFO per share increased 10% to $0.33.

Once again total and rental revenues set new company records at a $134.5 million and a $101.5 million respectively. Total revenues were up 17.4% year-over-year while rental revenues jumped 21.4% over the third quarter of 2011.

Other revenue includes the effect of the $8.7 million termination fee we received from Merck in August. The amount of the termination income included in other revenue for the third quarter was approximately $725,000. The balance of the related termination income, approximately $8 million will be recognized randomly over the remaining term of the lease, in the fourth quarter 2012 through August 2013.

Same-property cash NOI rose 7.7%, compared to the same quarter last year while the same property lease percentage jumped to 86.8%, a 510 basis point improvement year-over-year. We expect same property cash NOI to continue to grow through the end of 2012.

Moving into 2013, we expect same property NOI to be relatively flat through the third quarter of the year, as a result of the partial lease expiration with a loan in December of this year; after which time we expect to return to our current healthy pace of increases.

Excluding the impact of the loan, our same property cash NOI is expected to increase approximately 3% to 4% through the first half of 2013. As a reminder, annul cash rents associated with the December expiration is at 800 and a 1000 in South San Francisco represent approximately $11.5 million and annual GAAP rents represent approximately $6.5 million. This revenue is more than offset by our revenue backlog which now totals $24 million and $15 million on a cash and GAAP basis respectively, as of September 30th and this does not include our JV income, our recently announced leases with Regeneron and Ironwood, which only add to our backlog.

On the expense front, G&A expenses were $10.2 million, up versus Q2, primarily because of higher staffing levels and compensation associated with the company’s above planed operating and financial performance for the year. Acquisition costs for the quarter were minimal. Our quarterly common dividend remains at $21.5 per share or $0.86 per share annualized with an AFFO payout ratio of 65.2%.

On capital front, as we noted last quarter, we did close on the amendment to our unsecured term loan facility to hedge the majority of our foreign currency exposure from the Granta Park UK investment by converting $156.4 million borrowings to £100 million. In addition, we swapped the same amount of borrowings from floating rate to fixed, which resulted in an effective rate inside of 2.4% on this portion of the term loan.

Also during the quarter, we assumed two loans on the Belward Campus Drive acquisition. These loans are secured by mortgages on two buildings with an aggregate principal balance of approximately $24.1 million, a weighted-average interest rate of 5.64% and maturity dates in July 2017.

As for our credit and liquidity profile, we ended the quarter the way we came into it with the same solid flexible financial position and over $650 million in capacity on our unsecured line of credit as of September 30.

Key metrics include a fixed charge coverage ratio of 2.9 times, debt as a percentage of total gross assets, remaining below 40% at 39.7%, debt-to-adjusted EBITDA declining to 6.2 times, secured debt as a percentage of total gross assets of 10.7% and unencumbered rents of 79.1%.

Now, as for guidance for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013, we have increased full year 2012 guidance for core FFO to a $1.30 per diluted share. This reflects an increase of $0.03 per share from our previous midpoint, partially attributable to the $0.02 of termination income.

And yesterday, we introduced our initial FFO guidance for 2013, with a range of $1.33 to $1.43 per diluted share. At the $1.38 per share midpoint, our 2013 FFO guidance represents a 6% increase over our 2012 core FFO guidance.

Matt already reviewed the leasing assumptions earlier, so I’m going to cover the other assumptions embedded in our 2013 guidance. We expect income from our Fan Pier Construction Loan investment of between $6.5 million to $7 million for the year depending upon the amounts and timing of draws. Our forecast includes other revenue from the remainder of $8.7 million deferred termination fees, related to the Merck termination of $5.8 million or approximately $0.03 per share to be amortized through August 2013.

We expect the capitalized interest will continue to average between $1.5 million to $2 million per quarter, related primarily to the completion of our two redevelopment projects, as well as the active predevelopment activities we will undertake in 2013. As we continue to grow, G&A is expected to run just over $10 million per quarter beginning in the first quarter of 2013, running approximately 7.5% to 8% of revenues.

Looking at our capital requirements for 2013, we have no immediate financing requirements in 2013, as we have no consolidated debt maturities. We are responsible for our portion of the loan associated with our joint venture with Prudential totaling $27.8 million, that’s our share of the maturity, which matures in August 2013. We anticipate that the joint venture will continue to borrow on a secured basis at the asset level and either exercise the extension available to it under the terms of the loan agreement or roll alone over into a new borrowing.

On the investment front, we have approximately $15 million of capital associated with the completion of the two redevelopment projects Research Boulevard and Medical Center Drive both in Maryland and you can see these projects detailed on page 24 of the supplemental.

We expect to spend approximately $60 million associated with previously signed leases. This generally relates to the revenue backlog we highlighted earlier. We would expect to spend these amounts over the next five quarters.

We expect to spend approximately $40 million to $60 million this year associated with our forward looking leasing activity, including leasing commissions, tenant improvements and the like, though the timing and actual amounts will obviously vary, subject to our actual leasing results, including the mix of the space types, locations, first versus second generation leasing et cetera.

We expect to fund a substantial portion of our investment in the Fan Pier Construction Loan by year end 2013 and the Company’s 2012 and 2013 estimates do not reflect the impact of any future new investments, acquisitions or new development. So putting the aggregate projections together, from a capital position you can see we continue to operate with a very attractive capital position with more than ample liquidity.

Before turning the call back over to Alan for your questions, I want to remind you that our Investor Day for 2012 will be held at the Marriott Marquis in San Diego on Monday November 12, which is next door to the (inaudible) conference venue which starts the next day. Space is limited. So, if you would like to attend and have not RSVPed, please contact either Rick Howe or me and we’ll get you added to the list. We look forward in seeing many of you in San Diego in 10 days.

And Alan, I’m going to turn it back to you.

Alan Gold

Thanks, Greg. And before we take your questions, we want to thank the entire BioMed Realty team who continue to serve the unique real estate needs of the Life Science industry by creating optimal environments that support transformational research and groundbreaking scientists. Now operator, we are ready for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions). Our first question come from Tayo Okusanya from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies

Just one quick question. The redevelopment activity that you were talking about kind of piqued my curiosity. Two quick questions; how large exactly are all those initiatives in regards to square footage and possible investment dollars? And then second is any of that going to be happening or could potentially happen in Europe, given your recent acquisition in the UK?

Alan Gold

I guess, going in reverse order, I think we did not highlight the additional landsites in Cambridge, UK as part of the near term opportunities. We really view that as more growth potential to support the existing tenancy there; although we have had some indications from prospects over there. So, I wouldn’t rule it out. We’re certainly having some conversations but we really think the more near term focus would be more likely to come from the projects we highlighted in terms of the space in Cambridge, the space in South San Francisco, San Diego and Seattle. So I think those are the more likely near term prospects.

And in terms of the aggregate, the near term projects, I think, if you add it all up, it would be close to a million square feet but I think that might be misleading to take it as we’re launching out on a million square foot development campaign. That’s not what we’re trying to communicate. Each one of these sites is case specific and really driven by the tenant requirements in the marketplace and so I think in each of these cases, our capital commitment and capital plan would be completely dependent on the timing of the tenant needs.

Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies

And then the Merck space, what are the longer term plans for that? I apologize if I missed that earlier on in the call.

Alan Gold

Sure, I'll touch on it, but that space has already; in the past year Merck has already subleased just over half of that space and so we are in discussions with some of those tenants about potentially going direct on a longer term basis but as Matt alluded to, we had really strong demand in Cambridge in general but specifically at the Roger Street assets and so we're very confident that we will fill that space relatively quickly, whether it’s existing tenants or other tenants.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Brendan Maiorana of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

Greg, I have a question for you on guidance. If I strip out that term fee out of next year and I strip it out of the fourth quarter, it looks like your fourth quarter run rate is probably $0.33 a share, maybe $0.325 (ph) to $0.33 per your guidance and if we can kind of strip the term fee out of next year and we strip out the other income from the Fan Pier loan, it kind of suggests that the lost income from a non-GAAP income is probably going to be made up from lease up. Is that kind of a fair way to look at what the NOI progression is likely to be?

Greg Lubushkin

Yes. The NOI projection includes the cash NOI. The NOI projection includes the million square feet that we have in our so called backlog that will commence rents as we move through 2013, even through the fourth quarter of '12. That, coupled with leasing that is yet to be done, that we'll be doing as we finish off this year and move through 2013, particularly the first half, that will contribute to NOI growth as well.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

But your same store number includes the lost Elan, even though that's effectively a redevelopment property now.

Alan Gold

The same store, the same store number through the end of the year includes Elan, because the redevelopment will not commence obviously until, Elan moves out. If you move the Gateway properties in the same store calculations, into the early part of 2013, that’s what I meant when I was saying that the same-store cash NOI growth pretty much goes flat through the first half of the year, really through the first three quarters of the year. Take Elan out, which is actually how we’re going to report it when it goes into redevelopment and you will be looking at same-store growth, that’s going to be in the 3% to 4% range.

And again the portion of the NOI that’s going to come out, the portion of the loan leases that’s going to come out of the same-store numbers come January 1 is the only that related to the properties at 800 and a 1000. We still have and are collecting rents from Elan and then Janssen, who go direct on these 700 and 750 buildings, as well as the continuing leases that they have through the end of -- into the early 20’s at 180 and 200.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

Okay. And then I wanted to ask about the development and the decision to think about doing the development there. My recollection is the cost basis on the Gateway stuff was, give or take 550 a square foot and you can do a kind of 3:1 FAR to the existing square footage. So what’s kind of your basis in the new development that you’re looking at and how is that all in basis including the land and how does that compare with where rents are and what’s the decision about going to do new build versus trying to re-let the old space?

Alan Gold

A couple of things. I guess to go to the math; first, our basis is going to be around $100 a foot there, just in terms of the way it’s worked out. We have done a few things with the site in terms of, a little bit different from what the original development plan was. As some of you may recall, we actually extended the leases with FedEx and Genentech and we’re able to shift some of the FAR to the balance of the site, which frankly is really beneficial to the value preposition of the site because it shifts more the FAR to that key corner.

And so that’s really a part of what our plan is. Ultimately you end up with the basis in the land of just over $100 a foot. And so our basis, we would expect, it really depends on the exact nature of a built-to-suit requirement, what the programing it would look like, but somewhere in the 600 to slightly north of that basis and so for that to make sense, for us to get a yield in the 7.5% to 8% range we would need a high 40s type triple net rent and I think considering the location and if you look at the neighboring Elan space, it is the best space in South San Francisco and the only space that really could compete with the Elan space next door is the space that we could deliver. And so that’s really what’s driving our motivation here. When we look at the availability of Class A product in San Francisco, there really are great options other than what we can produce.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

I am sorry Kent, maybe I'm just, I don’t understand how the math works, but wasn’t your basis in the original Gateway around 550? And doing a 3:1 kind of FAR, how do you get down to $100 a square foot basis and where you are land foot now?

Alan Gold

So, it’s a little over $500 a foot on that smaller square footage, but we have increased the square footage a little more than 3:1, specifically on that site in addition to the fact that we had some nominal amount of excess cash flow built for accounting purposes as treated as a reduction and basis because it’s the above the market rent piece. So effectively it burnt down, what it could have been almost $135 per square foot basis which has burnt that down to $100.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Chris Katen from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Chris Katen - Morgan Stanley

I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the forecast for leasing. I think I heard 850,000 square feet of new leasing and in Torreyana (ph), I think Alan, I heard in your prepared remarks that you were talking about just being a little cautious in the environment around fiscal cliffs, et cetera, some of the challenges of the economy faces. What are you seeing in your markets that makes you construct around doing that volume of new leases yet also being cautious?

Alan Gold

Well, first you start with the success that we have seen over the last couple of years; a very strong 2010, a very strong 2011 and now again another strong 2012, with the same sort of general macroeconomic environments around those years also. On top of that the fact that all of these markets have benefited from the lack of new supply and when you add that lack of new supply and the additional capital that continues to flow into the Life Science sector, we can see continuing demand and continued demand specifically for all type of products in our markets.

Chris Katen - Morgan Stanley

That’s helpful. And as part of that 850, do you include any new leasing in your redevelopment projects that, I think Kent was going through.

Kent Griffin

So that leasing could come from there as well as our operating properties, although our emphasis is more on the operating portfolio. So I think our ability to attract leasing for built-to-suits would help push us further.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from David Toti of Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.

David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald

Just quickly on some of the expansions; just for my own education. Part of these terms work if we think Ironwood for example. You guys signed typically kind of below market. Are there deals cut because of the expansion for new negotiation, pretty hard relative to market consideration?

Alan Gold

Well, I think our each asset is, obviously unique. I think there is a balance. We clearly are really excited to attract and retain Ironwood. I know there’s lot of attention on Ironwood. I think a lot of folks wanted them in their portfolio. They’re clearly one of the superstars in the industry today and Peter Hecht and his team are highly sought after. So yes, it’s competitive.

On the other side, when you look at the property that we have and it is right in the heart of East Cambridge and it really meets their specific needs and it’s got great amenities and great building infrastructure. So I think there’s a fairly natural kind of balance tension if you will. If your question is, where is the balance of power in the negotiation, then I think it’s sort of reasonably balanced.

David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald

I guess it’s just a little bit different in terms of dynamics because if you feel quite a bit of this in terms of expanding existing kind of, and I’m just curious about the dynamic. My other question is in reference to Europe and I know you’ve been looking there for a while. We hear from our broker network that a lot of U.S. investors are looking outside of London in markets like Paris and other cities. Are you guys looking outside of London at this point or are you pretty much focused on the on UK?

Kent Griffin

Well, it’s a fair question. This is Kent again. Our real primary focus is in the U.S. and it always has been, I think our step into Cambridge was a bit opportunistic. We are really excited about that asset and it’s very early days but so far things are going very, very well, but I think the decision to move to other markets beyond the UK is something we could do, but I would probably caution expectations on that front because those markets are don’t have quite the depth that the U.S. Life Science market has.

Operator

Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Rich Anderson of BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Rich Anderson - BMO Capital Markets

When was the last time you missed your leasing to more cash or even just met them and why did that happen?

Alan Gold

It’s a good question and I guess it is a good answer that I can’t recall. It’s probably been number of years. I think where we may be headed is that we are coming off of now two years in a row of really outperforming our leasing expectations. Although, I do think if you go back to two years ago and three years ago and even a little bit last year, I think there are a lot of raised eyebrows about the leasing expectations particularly, the net absorption targets that we are setting for ourselves. And so while in hindsight today they look like they were targets that we were able to blow through, that’s not how it looked when you set those targets for us. We are setting it even today; I would say pushing for another 300,000 square feet of positive net absorption, in an environment that is, as Alan mentioned it’s a challenge out there. We are fighting, blocking and tackling for every square footage space. So I hope, I would -- it would be great if we could sit here a year from now and we say, gosh that was a low target, but we have a hard time sitting here today seeing how 1.5 million square feet and getting the portfolio to 93% leased is an easy target.

Rich Anderson - BMO Capital Markets

Is the main issue really the capital raising environment that’s driving this or what other factors could disrupt the outperformance that you have achieved over the last couple of years?

Alan Gold

Well, I think you hit the nail in the head. It’s really about the environment for our tenants in their ability to access capital. And if that changes, that will change our tune in terms of our leasing expectation, and naturally what’s driving it. If you look at the capital raising that’s going on for the Life Science sector, 2012 is on pace now to eclipse 2011 and ‘11 felt like a blockbuster year last year. And the ‘11 obviously, well offseted ’10 and ‘10 was well ahead of ‘09. So, yes, we would like to credit for it and we’re proud of our team and the assets we have and we are certainly capturing more than our fair share or market share. But the macro picture in terms of demand is really driven by the capital flows from the sector.

Rich Anderson - BMO Capital Markets

Right. And then just a quick question on your slide 14. I kind of missed this commentary. I’m just trying to decide for this backlog issue, but why would revenue already being recognized, cash rent be a part of your backlog? Are you saying it’s just starting but you haven’t tapped into that $9 million?

Alan Gold

No. The FFO impact of the GAAP revenue commencements is occurring, but there's a period that we'll be straight lining rent until the cash rents kick in. So it's the cash rents on the, where the revenue recognition has begun that is in what we’ll call the cash backlog.

Rich Anderson - BMO Capital Markets

Okay. So is that $9.4 million, is that effectively, mostly straight line right now, non-cash?

Alan Gold

The difference between the two would be straight lined, yes.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Jordan Sadler of KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Jordan Sadler - KeyBanc Capital Market

Just, can you give the expectation on the releasing spreads on the Merck, either renewals? Any expansions with existing customers or new leasing that you do?

Kent Griffin

Sure, this is Kent again. The in-place leases are well below market as is typical for subleased type space; particularly short term subleases like this was. In terms of our expectation, we would expect, the market rent in that east Cambridge market are in the mid-50s which is pretty close to where their expiring ones are.

Alan Gold

Co-incidentally that's generally true. You didn't ask this question but it's probably something people want to know. The market rent expectations we have for our expiring space over the five quarter leasing plan is generally right around market, within a few pennies across on average.

Jordan Sadler - KeyBanc Capital Market

And could you, maybe you did provide this and I missed it, but can you offer some additional details surrounding the terms of the Ironwood and Regeneron expansion? Was it purely the expansion space that was included in the lease? Was there additional term on existing leases and what happened to rates on existing leases versus the expansion?

Matt McDevitt

Hey Jordan, it’s Matt. Let me run you through Regeneron. So Regeneron essentially went out to their co-terminus terms. So that's about a 12 year transaction. Rent, we’re in two different buildings, 777 and 765. Those are two different buildings. Roughly it's about a $20 triple net rent blended between those two buildings and then, again a blend of about $40 in TI for them and essentially the space for Regeneron was office. Ironwood again focused more of their space on the office side of the equation. So that last phase is essentially all office for Ironwood. It gets phased in four phases and roughly it’s about a $40 triple med number and again, probably a blend of about $40 from Shell in a TI. So essentially we try to back the TI down accordingly to the office. And then again they then took all of the 300,000 square feet and essentially went out to 2018. Does that answer everything for you? Operator?

Operator

Yes. Our next question comes from Philip Martin of Morningstar. Please go ahead.

Philip Martin - Morningstar

Staying with leasing for just a minute, when you look at incremental new leasing, can you give us a bit of insight into the types of tenants or specific uses that this new leasing may entail?

Kent Griffin

Yes, this is Kent. I think it does come from a broad, very broad set of institutions and organizations. I would say that it’s very much consistent with our historical pipeline. The nature of the types of tenants we’re pursuing hasn’t changed. The nature of the space we’re trying to lease hasn’t really changed. So we have one project, the Pacific Research Center that continues to have more office opportunity than most of our space would support, but by and large, it’s primarily lab and office use, kind of across the portfolio.

Philip Martin - Morningstar

Okay. So primarily lab and office as opposed to commercialization, marketing, manufacturing, that sort of thing?

Kent Griffin

Yes. Maybe -- we don’t have a lot of manufacturing space in the portfolio, so we’re almost -- we have a little bit retail, ground (ph) for retail in some of our urban products, but it doesn’t need a needle. It’s really a lab and office.

Philip Martin - Morningstar

Yes. Okay. And again it sounds like leasing as solid, if not strong, based on your commentary. Are you hearing anything and again, all of you touched on this in your opening remarks, but in terms of development and re-development demand, do you expect that to be increasing a bit over the next 12 months to 18 months based on just lot of leasing talk, and what appears to be a lot of activity and maybe a potential growth?

Kent Griffin

I think the answer that is yes. I mean each of our markets, certainly the core markets anyway, Cambridge, San Francisco, San Diego and so forth are tightening and well, there is a lot of activities, some of it is musical chairs and relocations and so forth but the net effect is positive net absorption and we’re getting into that single digit vacancy area which has the opportunity to push rents, which in turn has the opportunity to attract development as well. And clearly there has been a dearth of new development for a while now and even before that, this is in industry that hasn’t in general suffered from extensive overbuilding. So we don’t have lot of new product and so a lot of tenants who might naturally want class A space, don’t have lot of options.

Philip Martin - Morningstar

Okay. And my last question just relates to, looking out a little further to 2014, there is a significant amount of space in Pennsylvania up for re-leases. Are there any insides that you can provide us into talks or discussions around that space and that’s it?

Alan Gold

Good question that is Synacor (ph), and I think the market expectation is they will be consolidating into own or occupied space, but that decision has not been made and obviously when that decision is made, we will certainly make that known, but that decision hasn’t been made.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Daniel Bernstein of Stifel Nicolaus. Please go ahead.

Daniel Bernstein - Stifel Nicolaus

I wanted to talk a little bit more about the San Diego market in particular. Obviously, Cambridge and San Francisco are firming but when I look at your annualized base rent that could expire in the 40s, it seems to me that the asking rent in San Diego might have been in the little 30s. Can you a little bit more about the lease expirations in San Diego in the next couple of years, how you feel about the market rents there and also that market seems to be bottoming to me. The office market seems to be bottoming there. Do you think rent in San Diego are going to start to firm up a little bit more as they are in Cambridge and San Francisco?

Alan Gold

Yes, this is Alan speaking. In general, the San Diego market does have some signs of strengthening and some rent growth, perhaps some reduction in concessions being offered. Rents range in San Diego anywhere from the high 20s to the high 30s and we are seeing some positive signs in the San Diego market. We are currently; I think over 92% or 91% leased in that market and continue to see tremendous activity at our available spaces where we have available space.

Daniel Bernstein - Stifel Nicolaus

Okay. And I think Rich asked earlier about your leave momentum, somewhat tied to the capital funding were certainly with your public tenants, publically traded tenants. When I think about the university related tenants and NIH funding, if there is 1% cut in NIH funding, is there lot of flex in demand from university related tenants? Would it cut that small? How sensitive are they to the NIH funding?

Alan Gold

So the fair question. The NIH funding, obviously we’re all focused on what the budget deficits due to various portions of government and the NIH funding certainly a catalyst for the strength of U.S. R&D market. That said the NIH dollars typically would go to the universities and the universities, so the NIH funding that goes to the universities, that’s a relatively small portion of our tenant base. So it’s less than 15% of our rents come from the university market, including those organizations and institutions do have capital, whether they are endowments who are state funded or not. So, from our perspective, we don’t perceive the NIH funding as a material mover in terms of our leasing requirements for next year. It can certainly impact the opportunity for some of those research institutions to expand, but the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of the leasing activity occurs with full profit companies who are generally not NIH funding dependent.

Daniel Bernstein - Stifel Nicolaus

Yes, that was the point, I was hoping you would make. And then in terms of the Pacific Research Center in San Francisco, obviously you’re going to primary look for biomedical related tenants. Do you have demand from non-biomedical related tenants, Google, Microsoft somebody who is in traditional tack and would you fill that space with some of that traditional tack or not?

Alan Gold

That’s a good question. When we acquired the campus, it was formerly Sun Microsystems and so our opportunity there was to convert space to use for the Life Science industry. But from the beginning we recognized part of the attractiveness of that site, that campus is that its proximity to Silicon Valley and Palo Alto and Menlo Park. And clearly a significant portion of the demand comes from non-Life Science, the technology and other sectors. And so from the beginning we even, with the name, the name, the Pacific Research Center, we did not attach a Life Science name to it exclusively, because we knew that it would attract and be compelling for a broader array of tenancy. That has held true to form and so we actually specifically held off the south side of the campus for potential use for non-Life Science for an extended period of time and that is now a larger tack which is obviously non-Life Science. And on the north side of the campus where we are generally pushing the Life Science seeders, we’re about half and half, about half Life Science, half non-Life Science.

Daniel Bernstein - Stifel Nicolaus

Okay. And it does seem like there is demand for both sides, north and the south on that campus?

Alan Gold

Absolutely.

Operator

Thank you. Our question comes from Gabriel Hilmoe from UBS. Please go ahead.

Gabriel Hilmoe - UBS

Just going back to the leasing guidance, the net absorption number for next five quarters; I think its 300,000 square feet and I think just in October you’ve already done 173. I’m just trying to get a sense and obviously know about Elan and Merck move outs, but what is the stabilized lease number versus the leased out portfolio, lease number look like another five quarters?

Alan Gold

At the end of the quarter I think we expect to be close to 93%, end of 2013.

Gabriel Hilmoe - UBS

Right. But do have kind of the break between what the stabilized portfolio would look like versus the leased up portfolio?

Alan Gold

Yes. That really depends on the mix of the assets and it’s partly because the way we define our leased up portfolio is the assets that are not stabilized. So it’s going to be difficult to predetermine. It will really depend if a 10,000 square feet lease in one building versus the other can move the needle from 88% to 92% lease. So, it’s really in our definition of leased up properties, which is properties that are 90% leased or less.

Gabriel Hilmoe - UBS

I am just trying to get a sense of if there is potential move outs baked into that leased up number at the end of the five quarters at 2013?

Alan Gold

Well, I think our 93% contemplates the move outs that are scheduled at least, at our potential move outs related to the scheduled expirations.

Greg Lubushkin

Yes. The Scheduled expirations plus, Elan is scheduled and now Merck is scheduled as well.

Operator

Thank you. We have Jordan Sadler online from KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Jordan Sadler - KeyBanc Capital Markets

My questions have been answered, thank you.

Operator

Thank you. We have Brendan Maiorana online from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

A couple of follow-ups. So I did want to follow up on the leasing, the net absorption discussion on the 300,000 square feet. Kent, if you get to 93% in the operating portfolio by the end of the year, I guess is that suggestive that none of that 300,000 square feet is likely at the 675 Kendall B?

Kent Griffin

No I wouldn't split it that finely no. I definitely would not say that none of our leasing is going to happen at 650.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

But just mathematically, due to 300,000 square feet of positive net absorption and to get to 93% leased on that portfolio, you've got to, that's kind of all got to go into the operating portfolio? No?

Kent Griffin

With 92% to 93% it really depends on, yes, that's a base line expectation.

Alan Gold

And that's weighted average based on basis not square footage. The square footage occupancy or lease percentage, just the way the portfolio setup would be something less in there.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

Okay. Second question for Matt McDevitt; the Ironwood deal. Is there a reason why they didn't want to go out longer than 2018? I know that that's a relatively long lease, but I would think if they are really locking down, their space needs, maybe a longer term lease, it could have been in order?

Alan Gold

I think, like a lot of these companies that we deal with, their growth path is really not certain. So they need to basically kind of hedge the growth of the company. I think you can look at a lot of our tenants, whether it's Regeneron or Vertex or a lot of those guys, they really don't know what their growth is going to be and the success of the drug.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

In conversations with them, would it be attractive to them if they were to expand to look at 320 Bent as an adjacent property to 301 Binney or is that not something that’s in the cards?

Alan Gold

I'm not going to answer for them but we obviously talk to them constantly about their real estate solutions and we're going to try to provide as much flexibility as possible and a lot of it is, are we providing the right space. Clearly you have to provide the mix of research space, the mix of office space that's right for that company. So our crystal ball is probably as clear as theirs.

Kent Griffin

I would say that the (inaudible) projects, consider Roger Street, it is one collective project, its one parcel; there's a strong ability to integrate a use across both of those properties.

Alan Gold

And remember that they started in 320 Bent as well. They were their original tenant on the fourth floor.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

Sure, okay. And then, I don’t know if this question's appropriate for Kent or Greg, but Kent, hearing your comments about the balance sheet, it struck me as a little bit of a change and maybe I'm splitting hairs a little bit too much, but if we go back to the equity raise that you guys did last year around this time, I think you mentioned that there were $600 million of new investment capacity and I think by our numbers you guys have done a little over $700 million of investments since that time. You have spent probably about $40 million of, kind of, leasing CapEx. By your own numbers, you got about a $110 million of leasing CapEx that you’re going to spend for next year, but you’re suggesting that that leverage, I think moves up as we go through 2013, as contemplated on the business plan. Have you adjusted what your balance sheet metrics are on a long term basis?

Kent Griffin

Well I think we have always looked at a variety of metrics and we have sometimes focused on more simplistic easier to communicate metrics like 40% debt-to-total asset, and I think that metric still remains a good general benchmark. But we are looking at and we do have, continue to have excess cash flow. We can pay a dividend out that’s in the mid-60s percentage of our AFFO, which is creating some additional cash flow. And while we do expect to have a nominal pickup in leverage relate to the financing on the Fan Pier Construction Loan, we expect to get all of that capital back in a fairly short period of time.

So we look at it both; what our leverage looks like along the way, but also where we’re going to end up at the end of that. And so when you put all those things together, as in last quarter, we were at debt-to-EBITDA in mid-sixes and now our debt-to-EBITDA is down to 6:2 (ph). So you really have to consider all of the relevant metrics, including liquidity positions and use of proceeds. I mean like today we have less than $100 million of borrowings outstanding on our credit facility. So I think when we raised capital last year, we did have an eye towards some fairly sizable new investment opportunities and yes, we deployed that capital. And today, as we look at opportunities, if there are going to be more manageable bite sized transactions, I think they are more match funded on a real time basis.

Brendan Maiorana - Wells Fargo

Okay. Fair enough. But you are saying that you guys haven't changed what your long term balance sheet targets are? Is that correct?

Kent Griffin

I think that’s fair.

Greg Lubushkin

I think that’s fair.

Operator

Thank you. At this time I’d like to turn the call back over to Alan Gold for final comments.

Alan Gold

Thank you. And I would like to thank everybody for joining us here on this third quarter call. And with that we’re going to sign off. Thank you everybody.

Operator

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

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: BioMed Realty Trust CEO Discusses Q3 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts