e10vk
Table of Contents

 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
Form 10-K
 
     
(Mark One)    
þ
  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
    For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
or
o
  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
    For the transition period from          to          
 
Commission file number 1-10524 (UDR, Inc.)
Commission file number 333-156002-01 (United Dominion Realty, L.P.)
 
UDR, INC.
United Dominion Realty, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
     
Maryland (UDR, Inc.)
Delaware (United Dominion Realty, L.P.)
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
  54-0857512
54-1776887
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 
1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200, Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
 
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (720) 283-6120
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
     
Title of Each Class   Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
     
Common Stock, $0.01 par value (UDR, Inc.)   New York Stock Exchange
6.75% Series G Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (UDR, Inc.)   New York Stock Exchange
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
(Title of Class)
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
     
UDR, Inc. 
  Yes þ  No o
United Dominion Realty, L.P. 
  Yes o  No þ
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
     
UDR, Inc. 
  Yes o  No þ
United Dominion Realty, L.P. 
  Yes o  No þ
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
     
UDR, Inc. 
  Yes þ  No o
United Dominion Realty, L.P. 
  Yes þ  No o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
     
UDR, Inc. 
  Yes þ  No o
United Dominion Realty, L.P. 
  Yes o  No o
 
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
             
UDR, Inc.:
           
Large accelerated filer þ
  Accelerated filer o   Non-accelerated filer o   Smaller reporting company o
        (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)    
             
United Dominion Realty, L.P.:
       
Large accelerated filer o
  Accelerated filer o   Non-accelerated filer þ   Smaller reporting company o
        (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)    
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
     
UDR, Inc. 
  Yes o  No þ
United Dominion Realty, L.P. 
  Yes o  No þ
 
The aggregate market value of the shares of common stock of UDR, Inc. held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2010 was approximately $1.9 billion. This calculation excludes shares of common stock held by the registrant’s officers and directors and each person known by the registrant to beneficially own more than 5% of the registrant’s outstanding shares, as such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status should not be deemed conclusive for any other purpose. As of February 17, 2011 there were 182,496,330 shares of UDR, Inc’s common stock outstanding.
 
There is no public trading market for the partnership units of United Dominion Realty, L.P. As a result, an aggregate market value of the partnership units of United Dominion Realty, L.P. cannot be determined.
 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 
The information required by Part III of this Report, to the extent not set forth herein, is incorporated by reference from UDR, Inc.’s definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 12, 2011.


 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
                 
        PAGE
 
PART I
  Item 1.     Business     2  
  Item 1A.     Risk Factors     14  
  Item 1B.     Unresolved Staff Comments     27  
  Item 2.     Properties     28  
  Item 3.     Legal Proceedings     29  
  Item 4.     (Removed and Reserved)     29  
 
PART II
  Item 5.     Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities     30  
  Item 6.     Selected Financial Data     35  
  Item 7.     Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations     37  
  Item 7A.     Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk     67  
  Item 8.     Financial Statements and Supplementary Data     67  
  Item 9.     Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure     67  
  Item 9A.     Controls and Procedures     67  
  Item 9B.     Other Information     68  
 
PART III
  Item 10.     Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance     69  
  Item 11.     Executive Compensation     69  
  Item 12.     Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters     69  
  Item 13.     Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence     69  
  Item 14.     Principal Accountant Fees and Services     69  
 
PART IV
  Item 15.     Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules     70  
 EX-12.1
 EX-12.2
 EX-21
 EX-23.1
 EX-23.2
 EX-31.1
 EX-31.2
 EX-31.3
 EX-31.4
 EX-32.1
 EX-32.2
 EX-32.3
 EX-32.4
 EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
 EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT


Table of Contents

 
EXPLANATORY NOTE
 
This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 of UDR, Inc. a Maryland corporation, and United Dominion Realty, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, of which UDR is the parent company and sole general partner. Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this Report to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company”, “UDR” or UDR, Inc. refer collectively to UDR, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries and joint ventures, including the Operating Partnership. Unless the context otherwise requires, the references in this Report to the “Operating Partnership” refer to United Dominion Realty, L.P. together with its consolidated subsidiaries. “Common stock” refers to the common stock of UDR and “stockholders” means the holders of shares of UDR’s common stock and preferred stock. The limited partnership interests of the Operating Partnership are referred to as “OP Units” and the holders of the OP Units are referred to as “unitholders”. This combined Form 10-K is being filed separately by UDR and the Operating Partnership.
 
There are a number of differences between our company and our operating partnership, which are reflected in our disclosure in this report. UDR is a real estate investment trust (a “REIT”), whose most significant asset is its ownership interest in the Operating Partnership. UDR also conducts business through other subsidiaries and operating partnerships, including its subsidiary RE3, which focuses on development, land entitlement and short-term hold investments. UDR does not conduct business itself, other than by acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, holding interests in other operating partnerships, subsidiaries and joint ventures, issuing securities from time to time and guaranteeing debt of certain of our subsidiaries. The Operating Partnership conducts the operations of a substantial portion of the business and is structured as a partnership with no publicly traded equity securities. The Operating Partnership has guaranteed certain outstanding securities of UDR.
 
As of December 31, 2010, UDR owned 110,883 units of the general partnership interests of the Operating Partnership and 174,736,557 units (or approximately 97.2%) of the limited partnership interests of the Operating Partnership (the “OP Units”). UDR conducts a substantial amount of its business and holds a substantial amount of its assets through the Operating Partnership, and, by virtue of its ownership of the OP Units and being the Operating Partnership’s sole general partner, UDR has the ability to control all of the day-to-day operations of the Operating Partnership. Separate financial statements and accompanying notes, as well as separate discussions under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchasers of Equity Securities” and “Controls and Procedures” are provided for each of UDR and the Operating Partnership. In addition, certain disclosures in “Business” are separated by entity to the extent that the discussion relates to UDR’s business outside of the Operating Partnership.


Table of Contents

 
PART I
 
Forward-Looking Statements
 
This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements concerning property acquisitions and dispositions, development activity and capital expenditures, capital raising activities, rent growth, occupancy, and rental expense growth. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the results of operations or plans expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among other things, unanticipated adverse business developments affecting us, or our properties, adverse changes in the real estate markets and general and local economies and business conditions. Although we believe that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained herein are reasonable, any of the assumptions could be inaccurate, and therefore such statements included in this Annual Report may not prove to be accurate. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking statements included herein, the inclusion of such information should not be regarded as a representation by us or any other person that the results or conditions described in such statements or our objectives and plans will be achieved. For a further discussion of these and other factors that could impact future results, performance or transactions, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” elsewhere in this Annual Report.
 
Forward-looking statements and such risks, uncertainties and other factors speak only as of the date of this Annual Report, and we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to update or revise any forward-looking statement contained herein, to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto, or any other change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except to the extent otherwise required by law.
 
Item 1.   BUSINESS
 
General
 
UDR is a self administered real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns, acquires, renovates, develops, redevelops, and manages apartment communities in select markets throughout the United States. At December 31, 2010, our consolidated apartment portfolio included 172 communities located in 23 markets, with a total of 48,553 completed apartment homes, which are held through our operating partnerships, including the Operating Partnership and Heritage Communities L.P., our subsidiaries and consolidated joint ventures. In addition, we have an ownership interest in 37 communities containing 9,891 completed apartment homes through unconsolidated joint ventures.
 
At December 31, 2010, the Operating Partnership’s consolidated apartment portfolio included 81 communities located in 19 markets, with a total of 23,351 completed apartment homes. The Operating Partnership owns, acquires, renovates, develops, redevelops, manages, and disposes of multifamily apartment communities generally located in high barrier-to-entry markets located in the United States. The high barrier-to-entry markets are characterized by limited land for new construction, difficult and lengthy entitlement process, expensive single-family home prices and significant employment growth potential. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, revenues of the Operating Partnership represented approximately 55% of our total rental revenues.
 
UDR elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which we refer to in this Report as the “Code”. To continue to qualify as a REIT, we must continue to meet certain tests which, among other things, generally require that our assets consist primarily of real estate assets, our income be derived primarily from real estate assets, and that we distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (other than our net capital gains) to our stockholders annually. As a qualified REIT, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes at the corporate level on our net income to the extent we distribute such


2


Table of Contents

net income to our stockholders annually. In 2010, we declared total distributions of $0.730 per common share and paid dividends of $0.725 per common share.
 
                 
    Dividends Declared in 2010     Dividends Paid in 2010  
 
First Quarter
  $ 0.180     $ 0.180  
Second Quarter
    0.180       0.180  
Third Quarter
    0.185       0.180  
Fourth Quarter
    0.185       0.185  
                 
Total
  $ 0.730     $ 0.725  
                 
 
UDR was formed in 1972 as a Virginia corporation. In June 2003, we changed our state of incorporation from Virginia to Maryland. The Operating Partnership was formed in 2004 as Delaware limited partnership. The Operating Partnership is the successor-in-interest to United Dominion Realty, L.P., a limited partnership formed under the laws of Virginia, which commenced operations in 1995. Our corporate offices are located at 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200, Highlands Ranch, Colorado and our telephone number is (720) 283-6120. Our website is located at www.udr.com.
 
As of February 17, 2011, we had 1,547 full-time associates and 85 part-time associates, all of whom were employed by UDR.
 
Reporting Segments
 
We report in two segments: Same Communities and Non-Mature/Other Communities. Our Same Communities segment includes those communities acquired, developed, and stabilized prior to January 1, 2009, and held as of December 31, 2010. These communities were owned and had stabilized occupancy and operating expenses as of the beginning of the prior year, there is no plan to conduct substantial redevelopment activities, and the community is not held for disposition within the current year. A community is considered to have stabilized occupancy once it achieves 90% occupancy for at least three consecutive months. Our Non-Mature/Other Communities segment includes those communities that were acquired or developed in 2008, 2009 or 2010, sold properties, redevelopment properties, properties classified as real estate held for disposition, condominium conversion properties, joint venture properties, properties managed by third parties, and the non-apartment components of mixed use properties. For additional information regarding our operating segments, see Note 15 to UDR’s consolidated financial statements and Note 12 to the Operating Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
 
Business Objectives
 
Our principal business objective is to maximize the economic returns of our apartment communities to provide our stockholders with the greatest possible total return and value. To achieve this objective, we intend to continue to pursue the following goals and strategies:
 
  •  own and operate apartments in markets that have the best growth prospects based on favorable job formation and low home affordability, thus enhancing stability and predictability of returns to our stockholders;
 
  •  manage real estate cycles by taking an opportunistic approach to buying, selling, renovating, and developing apartment communities;
 
  •  empower site associates to manage our communities efficiently and effectively;
 
  •  measure and reward associates based on specific performance targets; and
 
  •  manage our capital structure to help enhance predictability of earnings and dividends.


3


Table of Contents

 
2010 Highlights
 
  •  We acquired five operating communities with 1,374 homes located in Orange County, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; and Boston, Massachusetts for $412 million. We also acquired a land parcel located in San Francisco, California for $23.6 million.
 
  •  We acquired an interest in a joint venture with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) for $100.8 million. The joint venture owns 26 operating communities with 5,748 homes and 11 parcels of land with the potential to develop approximately 2,300 additional homes. The majority of the portfolio is comprised of mid/high-rise buildings located in urban, in-fill locations. The assets are located in many of our core markets with rent and quality levels at the top of each market.
 
  •  We completed the development of four wholly-owned communities with 1,575 homes at a total cost of $259.7 million.
 
  •  We completed the development of one community (274 apartment homes) held by a consolidated joint venture for a total cost of $122.3 million.
 
  •  We repaid $187.3 million of secured debt and $50 million of maturing medium-term unsecured notes. The $187.3 million of secured debt includes $70.5 million for a maturing construction loan held by one of our consolidated joint ventures, repayment of $52.7 million of credit facilities and $64.1 million of mortgage payments.
 
  •  We repurchased unsecured debt with a notional amount of $29.2 million for $29.4 million resulting in a loss on extinguishment of $1 million, which includes the write off of related deferred finance charges. The unsecured debt repurchased by the Company matures in 2011. As a result of this repurchase, the loss is represented as an addition to interest expense on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
 
  •  We closed on a $250 million, five-year unsecured term loan facility of which $100 million was swapped into a fixed rate of 3.76% and $150 million has rate of LIBOR plus 200 basis points.
 
  •  In 2009, we entered into an Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement with respect to the issue and sale by us from time to time of our Medium-Term Notes, Series A Due Nine Months or More From Date of Issue. In February 2010, we issued $150 million of 5.25% senior unsecured medium-term notes under the Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement. These notes were priced at 99.46% of the principal amount at issuance and the unamortized discount was $519,000 at December 31, 2010.
 
  •  In 2009, we initiated an “At the Market” equity distribution program pursuant to which we may sell up to 15,000,000 shares of Common Stock from time to time to or through sales agents, by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange at prevailing market prices at the time of sale, or as otherwise agreed with the applicable agent. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we sold 6,144,367 shares of Common Stock through this program for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $110.8 million at a weighted average price per share of $18.04. Aggregate net proceeds from such sales, after deducting related expenses, including commissions paid to the sales agents of approximately $2.2 million, were approximately $108.6 million.
 
  •  We initiated an underwritten public offering to sell 16,000,000 shares of Common Stock at a price of $20.35 per share. We granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,400,000 shares of Common Stock to cover overallotments, if any. We sold 18,400,000 shares of Common Stock in this offering for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $374.4 million at a price of $20.35 per share. Aggregate net proceeds from the offering, after deducting related expenses were approximately $359.2 million.
 
Other than the following, there were no significant changes to the Operating Partnership’s business during 2010 (the above 2010 highlights relate to UDR or other subsidiaries of UDR):
 
  •  On September 30, 2010, the Operating Partnership guaranteed certain outstanding securities of UDR, such that the Operating Partnership, as primary obligor and not merely as surety, irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees to each holder of the applicable securities and to the trustee and their


4


Table of Contents

  successors and assigns under the respective indenture (a) the full and punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of all obligations of UDR under the respective indenture whether for principal of or interest on the securities (and premium, if any), and all other monetary obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities and (b) the full and punctual performance within the applicable grace periods of all other obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities.
 
Our Strategies and Vision
 
We previously announced our vision to be the innovative multifamily public real estate investment trust of choice. We identified the following strategies to guide decision-making and growth:
 
1. Strengthen our portfolio
 
2. Continually improve operations
 
3. Maintain access to low-cost capital
 
Strengthen our Portfolio
 
We are focused on increasing our presence in markets with favorable job formation, low single-family home affordability, and a favorable demand/supply ratio for multifamily housing. Portfolio decisions consider internal analyses and third-party research, taking into account job growth, multifamily permitting and housing affordability.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately 55.7% of our same store net operating income was provided by our communities located in California, Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Oregon and Washington state.
 
Operating Partnership Strategies and Vision
 
The Operating Partnership’s long-term strategic plan is to achieve greater operating efficiencies by investing in fewer, more concentrated markets. As a result, the Operating Partnership has sought to expand its interests in communities located in California, Metropolitan Washington D.C. and the Washington state markets over the past years. Prospectively, we plan to continue to channel new investments into those markets we believe will continue to provide the best investment returns. Markets will be targeted based upon defined criteria including favorable job formation, low single-family home affordability and favorable demand/supply ratio for multifamily housing.
 
Acquisitions and Dispositions
 
During 2010, in conjunction with our strategy to strengthen our portfolio, we acquired five operating communities with 1,374 apartment homes for approximately $412 million.
 
When evaluating potential acquisitions, we consider:
 
  •  population growth, cost of alternative housing, overall potential for economic growth and the tax and regulatory environment of the community in which the property is located;
 
  •  geographic location, including proximity to jobs, entertainment, transportation, and our existing communities which can deliver significant economies of scale;
 
  •  construction quality, condition and design of the community;
 
  •  current and projected cash flow of the property and the ability to increase cash flow;
 
  •  potential for capital appreciation of the property;
 
  •  ability to increase the value and profitability of the property through operations and redevelopment;
 
  •  terms of resident leases, including the potential for rent increases;
 
  •  occupancy and demand by residents for properties of a similar type in the vicinity;


5


Table of Contents

 
  •  prospects for liquidity through sale, financing, or refinancing of the property; and
 
  •  competition from existing multifamily communities and the potential for the construction of new multifamily properties in the area.
 
We regularly monitor our assets to increase the quality and performance of our portfolio. Factors we consider in deciding whether to dispose of a property include:
 
  •  current market price for an asset compared to projected economics for that asset;
 
  •  potential increases in new construction in the market area;
 
  •  areas where the economy is not expected to grow substantially;
 
  •  markets where we do not intend to establish a long-term concentration; and
 
  •  operating efficiencies.
 
During 2010, we sold one 149 apartment home community. This apartment home community was not owned by the Operating Partnership.
 
The following table summarizes our apartment community acquisitions, apartment community dispositions and our consolidated year-end ownership position for the past five years (dollars in thousands):
 
                                         
    2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
 
Homes acquired
    1,374       289       4,558       2,671       2,763  
Homes disposed
    149             25,684       7,125       7,653  
Homes owned at December 31
    48,553       45,913       44,388       65,867       70,339  
Total real estate owned, at cost
  $ 6,881,347     $ 6,315,047     $ 5,831,753     $ 5,956,481     $ 5,820,122  
 
The following table summarizes our apartment community acquisitions, apartment community dispositions and our year-end ownership position of the Operating Partnership for the past five years (dollars in thousands):
 
                                         
    2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
 
Homes acquired
                3,346       943       1,487  
Homes disposed
                16,960       4,631       7,836  
Homes owned at December 31
    23,351       23,351       23,351       36,965       40,653  
Total real estate owned, at cost
  $ 3,706,184     $ 3,640,888     $ 3,569,239     $ 2,685,249     $ 2,584,495  
 
Development Activities
 
The following wholly owned projects were under development as of December 31, 2010:
 
                                                 
    Number of
    Completed
    Cost to
    Budgeted
    Estimated
    Expected
 
    Apartment     Apartment     Date     Cost     Cost     Completion  
    Homes     Homes     (In thousands)     (In thousands)     Per Home     Date  
 
Savoye II (Phase II of Vitruvian Park)
                                               
Addison, TX
    347           $ 26,984     $ 69,000     $ 198,847       1Q12  
2400 14th Streeet
                                               
Washington, DC
    255             45,681       126,100       494,510       4Q12  
Mission Bay
                                               
San Francisco, CA
    315             24,354       139,600       443,175       3Q13  
Belmont Townhomes
                                               
Dallas, TX
    13             893       4,175       321,154       2Q12  
                                                 
      930           $ 97,912     $ 338,875     $ 364,382          
                                                 


6


Table of Contents

None of these projects are held by the Operating Partnership.
 
Redevelopment Activities
 
During 2010, we continued to redevelop properties in targeted markets where we concluded there was an opportunity to add value. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we incurred $30.8 million in major renovations, which include major structural changes and/or architectural revisions to existing buildings.
 
Joint Venture Activities
 
In 2010, we completed the development of an apartment community located in Bellevue, Washington with 274 apartment homes, 45,394 square feet of retail space and a carrying value of $122.3 million. On October 16, 2009, our partner in the joint venture (“Elements Too”) in this property resigned as managing member and appointed us as managing member. In addition, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture. As a result of UDR’s control of the joint venture, we were required to consolidate the joint venture. On December 30, 2009, we entered into an agreement with our partner to purchase its 49% interest in Elements Too for $3.2 million, which was paid in 2010. At closing, our interest in Elements Too increased to 98%.
 
We are a partner with an unaffiliated third party in a joint venture (“989 Elements”) which owns and operates a 23-story, 166 home high-rise apartment community in the central business district of Bellevue, Washington. At closing, UDR owned 49% of the joint venture. Our initial investment was $11.8 million. On December 31, 2009, our partner resigned as managing member and appointed us as managing member. In addition, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture. Concurrently, we entered into an agreement with our partner to purchase its 49% interest in 989 Elements for $7.7 million, which was paid in 2010. At closing, our interest in 989 Elements increased to 98%.
 
We are a partner with an unaffiliated third party in a joint venture (“Bellevue Plaza”) which owns an operating retail site in Bellevue, Washington. We initially planned to develop a 430 home high rise apartment building with ground floor retail on an existing operating retail center. However, during the year ended December 31, 2009, the joint venture decided to continue to operate the retail property as opposed to developing a high rise apartment building on the site. On December 30, 2009, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture. Our partner also resigned as managing member and appointed us as managing member. Concurrently, we entered into an agreement with our partner to purchase its 49% interest in Bellevue Plaza for $5.2 million, which was paid in 2010. At closing, our interest in Bellevue Plaza increased from 49% to 98%.
 
For additional information regarding these consolidated joint ventures, see Note 5, Joint Ventures to the Consolidated Financial Statements of UDR, Inc. included in this Report.
 
In November 2010, we acquired The Hanover Company’s (“Hanover”) partnership interests in the Hanover/MetLife Master Limited Partnership (the “UDR/MetLife Partnership”). The UDR/MetLife Partnership owns a portfolio of 26 operating communities containing 5,748 homes and 11 land parcels with the potential to develop approximately 2,300 additional homes. Under the terms of the UDR/MetLife Partnership, we will act as the general partner and earn fees for property and asset management and financing transactions. We acquired ownership interests of 12.27% in the operating communities and 4.14% in the land parcels for $100.8 million. Our initial investment of $100.8 million consists of $71.8 million in cash, which includes associated transaction costs, and a $30 million payable (includes discount of $1 million) to Hanover. We agreed to pay the $30 million balance to Hanover in two interest free installments in the amounts of $20 million and $10 million on the first and second anniversaries of the closing, respectively. Our investment at December 31, 2010 was $122.2 million.
 
In October 2010, the Company entered into a venture with an affiliate of Hanover to develop a 240 apartment home community in the metropolitan Boston, Massachusetts area. At the closing and at


7


Table of Contents

December 31, 2010, UDR owned a noncontrolling interest of 95% in the joint venture. Our initial investment was $10 million and our investment at December 31, 2010 was $10.3 million.
 
During 2009, we and an unaffiliated third party formed a joint venture for the investment of up to $450 million in multi-family properties located in key, high barrier to entry markets. The partners will contribute equity of $180 million of which our maximum equity will be 30% or $54 million when fully invested. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the joint venture acquired its first property (151 homes) located in Metropolitan Washington D.C. for $43.1 million. At closing and at December 31, 2010, we owned 30% of the joint venture. Our investment at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $5.2 million and $242,000, respectively.
 
The Operating Partnership is not a party to any of the joint venture activities described above.
 
Continually Improve Operations
 
We continue to make progress on automating our business as a way to drive operating efficiencies and to better meet the changing needs of our residents. Since its launch in January 2009, our residents have been utilizing the resident internet portal on our website. Our residents have access to conduct business with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to pay rent on line and to submit service requests. In July 2010, we completed the roll out of online renewals throughout our entire portfolio. As a result of transforming operations through technology our residents get the convenience they want and our operating teams have become more efficient. These improvements in adopting the web as a way to conduct business with us have also resulted in a decline in marketing and advertising costs, improved cash management, and improved capabilities to better manage pricing of our available apartment homes.
 
In 2010, we launched an enhanced www.udr.com website along and a new Modern Living website that highlights our premier urban-style location communities. Both UDR.com and Modern Living feature innovative point-of-view walking tours (at select locations), social media content sharing and a new “save to favorites” feature that entices first-time visitors to revisit www.udr.com. In addition to improvements to www.udr.com, we also increased our suite of mobile and tablet device offerings with the addition of an iPad, Android, BlackBerry and Palm Pre apartment search applications. These overall enhancements have contributed to increasing our web visitor traffic to over 2.3 million visitors (up 24%) and almost 1.5 million organic search engine visitors (up 30%) which contributed to a 20% year-over-year lead stream increase.
 
Maintaining Access to Low-Cost Capital
 
We seek to maintain a capital structure that allows us to seek, and not just react to, opportunities available in the marketplace. We have structured our borrowings to stagger our debt maturities and to be able to opportunistically access both secured and unsecured debt.
 
Special Dividend
 
On November 5, 2008, our Board of Directors declared a dividend on a pre-adjusted basis of $1.29 per share (“the Special Dividend”). The Special Dividend was paid on January 29, 2009 to stockholders of record on December 9, 2008. The dividend represented our fourth quarter recurring distribution of $0.33 per share and an additional special distribution of $0.96 per share due to taxable income arising from our dispositions occurring during the year. Subject to our right to pay the entire Special Dividend in cash, stockholders had the option to make an election to receive payment in cash or in shares, however, the aggregate amount of cash payable to stockholders, other than cash payable in lieu of fractional shares, would not be less than $44.0 million.
 
The Special Dividend, totaling $177.1 million, was paid on 137,266,557 shares issued and outstanding on the record date. Approximately $133.1 million of the Special Dividend was paid through the issuance of 11,358,042 shares of common stock, which was determined based on the volume weighted average closing sales price of our common stock of $11.71 per share on the NYSE on January 21, 2009 and January 22, 2009. In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update 2010-01, Accounting for Distributions to Shareholders with Components of Stock and Cash (“ASU 2010-01”),


8


Table of Contents

which considers distributions that contain components of cash and stock and allows shareholders to select their preferred form of distribution as a stock dividend. Such a distribution is treated as a stock issuance on the date the dividend is paid. At December 31, 2008, we accrued $133.1 million of distribution payable related to the Special Dividend. ASU 2010-01 is effective for the Company on December 15, 2009 and should be applied on a retrospective basis. As a result, we reversed the effect of the issuance of additional shares of common stock pursuant to the Special Dividend, which was retroactively reflected in each of the historical periods presented within the Company’s Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the “SEC” on May 22, 2009, and effectively issued these shares on January 29, 2009 (the payment date of the Special Dividend).
 
Financing Activities
 
As part of our plan to strengthen our capital structure, we utilized proceeds from debt and equity offerings and refinancings to extend maturities, pay down existing debt and acquire apartment communities. The following is a summary of our major financing activities in 2010:
 
  •  repaid $187.3 million of secured debt and $50.0 million of maturing medium-term unsecured notes. The $187.3 million of secured debt includes $70.5 million for a maturing construction loan held by one of our consolidated joint ventures, repayment of $52.7 million of credit facilities and $64.1 million of mortgage payments;
 
  •  repurchased unsecured debt with a notional amount of $29.2 million for $29.4 million resulting in a loss on extinguishment of $1 million, which includes the write off of related deferred finance charges. The unsecured debt repurchased by us matures in 2011. As a result of this repurchase, the loss is represented as an addition to interest expense on the Consolidated Statement of Operations;
 
  •  closed on a $250 million, five-year unsecured term loan facility of which $100 million was swapped into a fixed rate of 3.76% and $150 million has a rate of LIBOR plus 200 basis points;
 
  •  in 2009, we entered into an Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement with respect to the issue and sale by us from time to time of our Medium-Term Notes, Series A Due Nine Months or More From Date of Issue. In February 2010, we issued $150 million of 5.25% senior unsecured medium-term notes under the Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement. These notes were priced at 99.46% of the principal amount at issuance and had a discount of $519,000 at December 31, 2010;
 
  •  in 2009, we initiated an “At the Market” equity distribution program pursuant to which we may sell up to 15,000,000 shares of common stock from time to time to or through sales agents, by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange at prevailing market prices at the time of sale, or as otherwise agreed with the applicable agent. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we sold 6,144,367 shares of common stock through this program for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $110.8 million at a weighted average price per share of $18.04. Aggregate net proceeds from such sales, after deducting related expenses, including commissions paid to the sales agents of approximately $2.2 million, were approximately $108.6 million;
 
  •  in 2010, we initiated an underwritten public offering to sell 16,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $20.35 per share. We granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,400,000 shares of common stock to cover overallotments, if any. We sold 18,400,000 shares of common stock in this offering for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $374.4 million at a price of $20.35 per share. Aggregate net proceeds from the offering, after deducting related expenses were approximately $359.2 million; and
 
  •  on September 30, 2010, the Operating Partnership guaranteed certain outstanding securities of UDR, such that the Operating Partnership, as primary obligor and not merely as surety, irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees to each holder of the applicable securities and to the trustee and their successors and assigns under the respective indenture (a) the full and punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of all obligations of UDR under the respective indenture whether for principal of or interest on the securities (and premium, if any), and all other monetary obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities


9


Table of Contents

  and (b) the full and punctual performance within the applicable grace periods of all other obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities.
 
Markets and Competitive Conditions
 
At December 31, 2010, 55.7% of our consolidated same store net operating income and 76% of the Operating Partnership’s same store net operating income was generated from apartment homes located in California, Metropolitan Washington D.C., Oregon, and Washington state. We believe that this diversification increases investment opportunity and decreases the risk associated with cyclical local real estate markets and economies, thereby increasing the stability and predictability of our earnings.
 
Competition for new residents is generally intense across all of our markets. Some competing communities offer features that our communities do not have. Competing communities can use concessions or lower rents to obtain temporary competitive advantages. Also, some competing communities are larger or newer than our communities. The competitive position of each community is different depending upon many factors including sub-market supply and demand. In addition, other real estate investors compete with us to acquire existing properties and to develop new properties. These competitors include insurance companies, pension and investment funds, public and private real estate companies, investment companies and other public and private apartment REITs, some of which may have greater resources, or lower capital costs, than we do.
 
We believe that, in general, we are well-positioned to compete effectively for residents and investments. We believe our competitive advantages include:
 
  •  a fully integrated organization with property management, development, redevelopment, acquisition, marketing, sales and financing expertise;
 
  •  scalable operating and support systems, which include automated systems to meet the changing electronic needs of our residents and to effectively focus on our Internet marketing efforts;
 
  •  purchasing power;
 
  •  geographic diversification with a presence in 23 markets across the country; and
 
  •  significant presence in many of our major markets that allows us to be a local operating expert.
 
Moving forward, we will continue to emphasize aggressive lease management, improved expense control, increased resident retention efforts and the alignment of employee incentive plans tied to our bottom line performance. We believe this plan of operation, coupled with the portfolio’s strengths in targeting renters across a geographically diverse platform, should position us for continued operational improvement in spite of the difficult economic environment.
 
Communities
 
At December 31, 2010, our apartment portfolio included 172 consolidated communities having a total of 48,553 completed apartment homes and an additional 930 apartment homes under development, which included the Operating Partnership’s apartment portfolio of 81 consolidated communities having a total of 23,351 completed apartment homes. The overall quality of our portfolio enables us to raise rents and to attract residents with higher levels of disposable income who are more likely to absorb expenses, such as water and sewer costs, from the landlord to the resident. In addition, it potentially reduces recurring capital expenditures per apartment home, and therefore should result in increased cash flow in the future.
 
Same Store Community Comparison
 
We believe that one pertinent qualitative measurement of the performance of our portfolio is tracking the results of our same store community’s net operating income (“NOI”), which is total rental revenue, less rental expenses excluding property management and other operating expenses. Our same store community population are operating communities which we own and have stabilized occupancy, revenues and expenses as of the beginning of the prior year.


10


Table of Contents

For the year ended December 31, 2010, our same store NOI decreased by $6.2 million or 1.7% compared to the prior year. The decrease in NOI for the 40,699 apartment homes which make up the same store population was driven by a decrease in rental rates and an increase in expenses which was partially offset by increased occupancy.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Operating Partnership’s same store NOI decreased by $6.0 million or 2.7% compared to the prior year. The decrease in NOI for the 22,104 apartment homes which make up the same store population was driven by a decrease in revenue rental rates and increase in operating expenses which was partially offset by increased occupancy.
 
Revenue growth in 2011 may be impacted by general adverse conditions affecting the economy, reduced occupancy rates, increased rental concessions, increased bad debt and other factors which may adversely impact our ability to increase rents.
 
Tax Matters
 
UDR has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Code. To continue to qualify as a REIT, UDR must continue to meet certain tests that, among other things, generally require that our assets consist primarily of real estate assets, our income be derived primarily from real estate assets, and that we distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (other than net capital gains) to our stockholders annually. Provided we maintain our qualification as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes at the corporate level on our net income to the extent such net income is distributed to our stockholders annually. Even if we continue to qualify as a REIT, we will continue to be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property.
 
We may utilize taxable REIT subsidiaries to engage in activities that REITs may be prohibited from performing, including the provision of management and other services to third parties and the conduct of certain nonqualifying real estate transactions. Taxable REIT subsidiaries generally are taxable as regular corporations and therefore are subject to federal, state and local income taxes.
 
The Operating Partnership intends to qualify as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. As a partnership, the Operating Partnership generally is not a taxable entity and does not incur federal income tax liability. However, any state or local revenue, excise or franchise taxes that result from the operating activities of the Operating Partnership are incurred at the entity level.
 
Inflation
 
We believe that the direct effects of inflation on our operations have been immaterial. While the impact of inflation primarily impacts our results through wage pressures, utilities and material costs, substantially all of our leases are for a term of one year or less, which generally enables us to compensate for any inflationary effects by increasing rents on our apartment homes. Although an extreme escalation in energy and food costs could have a negative impact on our residents and their ability to absorb rent increases, we do not believe this has had a material impact on our results for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Environmental Matters
 
Various environmental laws govern certain aspects of the ongoing operation of our communities. Such environmental laws include those regulating the existence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, management of surfaces with lead-based paint (and notices to residents about the lead-based paint), use of active underground petroleum storage tanks, and waste-management activities. The failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to a government enforcement action and/or claims for damages by a private party.
 
To date, compliance with federal, state and local environmental protection regulations has not had a material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position. We have a property management plan for hazardous materials. As part of the plan, Phase I environmental site investigations and reports have been completed for each property we acquire. In addition, all proposed acquisitions are inspected prior to


11


Table of Contents

acquisition. The inspections are conducted by qualified environmental consultants, and we review the issued report prior to the purchase or development of any property. Nevertheless, it is possible that our environmental assessments will not reveal all environmental liabilities, or that some material environmental liabilities exist of which we are unaware. In some cases, we have abandoned otherwise economically attractive acquisitions because the costs of removal or control of hazardous materials have been prohibitive or we have been unwilling to accept the potential risks involved. We do not believe we will be required to engage in any large-scale abatement at any of our properties. We believe that through professional environmental inspections and testing for asbestos, lead paint and other hazardous materials, coupled with a relatively conservative posture toward accepting known environmental risk, we can minimize our exposure to potential liability associated with environmental hazards.
 
Federal legislation requires owners and landlords of residential housing constructed prior to 1978 to disclose to potential residents or purchasers of the communities any known lead paint hazards and imposes treble damages for failure to provide such notification. In addition, lead based paint in any of the communities may result in lead poisoning in children residing in that community if chips or particles of such lead based paint are ingested, and we may be held liable under state laws for any such injuries caused by ingestion of lead based paint by children living at the communities.
 
We are unaware of any environmental hazards at any of our properties that individually or in the aggregate may have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position. We have not been notified by any governmental authority, and we are not otherwise aware, of any material non-compliance, liability, or claim relating to environmental liabilities in connection with any of our properties. We do not believe that the cost of continued compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations will have a material adverse effect on us or our financial condition or results of operations. Future environmental laws, regulations, or ordinances, however, may require additional remediation of existing conditions that are not currently actionable. Also, if more stringent requirements are imposed on us in the future, the costs of compliance could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial condition.
 
Insurance
 
We carry comprehensive general liability coverage on our communities, with limits of liability customary within the industry to insure against liability claims and related defense costs. We are also insured, with limits of liability customary within the industry, against the risk of direct physical damage in amounts necessary to reimburse us on a replacement cost basis for costs incurred to repair or rebuild each property, including loss of rental income during the reconstruction period.
 
Executive Officers of the Company
 
UDR is the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership. The following table sets forth information about our executive officers as of February 17, 2011. The executive officers listed below serve in their respective capacities at the discretion of our Board of Directors.
 
                     
Name   Age   Office   Since
 
Thomas W. Toomey
    50     Chief Executive Officer, President and Director     2001  
Warren L. Troupe
    57     Senior Executive Vice President     2008  
Richard A Giannotti
    55     Executive Vice President — Redevelopment     1985  
Matthew T. Akin
    43     Senior Vice President — Acquisitions & Dispositions     1994  
Harry G. Alcock
    48     Senior Vice President — Asset Management     2010  
Mark M. Culwell, Jr. 
    59     Senior Vice President — Development     2006  
Jerry A. Davis
    48     Senior Vice President — Property Operations     2008  
Cameron A. Etezadi
    35     Senior Vice President — Chief Information Officer     2010  
David L. Messenger
    40     Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officer     2008  
Katie Miles-Ley
    49     Senior Vice President — Human Resources     2007  
 
Set forth below is certain biographical information about our executive officers.


12


Table of Contents

Mr. Toomey spearheads the vision and strategic direction of the Company and oversees its executive officers. He joined us in February 2001 as President, Chief Executive Officer and Director. Prior to joining us, Mr. Toomey was with Apartment Investment and Management Company (AIMCO), where he served as Chief Operating Officer for two years and Chief Financial Officer for four years. During his tenure at AIMCO, Mr. Toomey was instrumental in the growth of AIMCO from 34,000 apartment homes to 360,000 apartment homes. He has also served as a Senior Vice President at Lincoln Property Company, a national real estate development, property management and real estate consulting company, from 1990 to 1995. He currently serves as a member of the board of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), the National Multi Housing Council (NMHC), a member of the Real Estate Roundtable, a member of the Pension Real Estate Association (PREA), an Urban Land Institute Governor and a trustee of the Oregon State University Foundation.
 
Mr. Troupe oversees all financial, treasury, tax and legal functions of the Company. He joined us in March 2008 as Senior Executive Vice President. In May 2008, he was appointed the Company’s Corporate Compliance Officer and in October 2008 he was named the Company’s Corporate Secretary. Prior to joining us, Mr. Troupe was a partner with Morrison & Forester LLP from 1997 to 2008, where his practice focused on all aspects of corporate finance including, but not limited to, public and private equity offerings, traditional loan structures, debt placements to subordinated debt financings, workouts and recapitalizations. While at Morrison & Forester LLP he represented both public and private entities in connection with merger and acquisition transactions, including tender offers, hostile proxy contests and negotiated acquisitions. He currently is a member of NMHC, PREA and the Urban Land Institute.
 
Mr. Giannotti oversees redevelopment projects and acquisition efforts and development projects in the mid-Atlantic region. He joined us in September 1985 as Director of Development and Construction. He was appointed Assistant Vice President in 1988, Vice President in 1989, and Senior Vice President in 1996. In 1998, he was assigned the additional responsibilities of Director of Development for the Eastern Region. In 2003, Mr. Giannotti was promoted to Executive Vice President.
 
Mr. Akin oversees the Company’s acquisition and disposition efforts. He joined us in 1996 in connection with the merger with SouthWest Property Trust, where he had been a Financial Analyst since 1994. He was promoted to Due Diligence Analyst in April 1998 and to Asset Manager for the Western Region in 1999. Mr. Akin was promoted to Vice President, Senior Business Analyst in September 2000 and his focus shifted to acquisitions for the Western Region. In May 2004 he was promoted to Vice President — Acquisitions, and in August 2006 he was promoted to Senior Vice President — Acquisitions and Dispositions.
 
Mr. Alcock oversees the Company’s acquisitions, dispositions, redevelopment and asset management in the company’s east coast markets. He joined us in December 2010 as Senior Vice President — Asset Management. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Alcock was with AIMCO for over 16 years, serving most recently as Executive Vice President, co-Head of Transactions and Asset Management. He was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Investment officer in 1999, a position he held through 2007. Mr. Alcock established and chaired the company’s Investment Committee, established the portfolio management function and at various times ran the property debt and redevelopment departments. Prior to the formation of AIMCO, from 1992 to 1994, Mr. Alcock was with Heron Financial and PDI, predecessor companies to AIMCO. From 1988 to 1992 he worked for Larwin Company, a national homebuilder. Mr. Alcock holds a Bachelor of Science in Finance from San Jose State University.
 
Mr. Culwell oversees all aspects of in-house development, joint venture development and pre-sale opportunities. He joined us in June 2006 as Senior Vice President — Development. Prior to joining us, Mr. Culwell served as Regional Vice President of Development for Gables Residential, where he established a $300 million pipeline of new development and redevelopment opportunities. Before joining Gables Residential, Mr. Culwell had over 30 years of real estate experience, including working for Elsinore Group, LLC, Lexford Residential Trust, Cornerstone Housing Corporation and Trammell Crow Residential Company, where his development and construction responsibilities included site selection and acquisition, construction oversight, asset management, as well as obtaining financing for acquisitions and rehabilitations.


13


Table of Contents

Mr. Davis oversees property operations, human resources and technology. He originally joined us in March 1989 as Controller and subsequently moved into Operations as an Area Director and in 2001, he accepted the position of Chief Operating Officer of JH Management Co., a California-based apartment company. He returned to the Company in March 2002 and in 2008, Mr. Davis was promoted to Senior Vice President — Property Operations. He began his career in 1984 as a Staff Accountant for Arthur Young & Co.
 
Mr. Etezadi oversees all aspects of the company’s technology infrastructure and strategy. He joined us in June 2010 as Senior Vice President — Chief Information Officer. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Etezadi was with Amazon.com from 2007 to 2010, where he served as Senior Manager, overseeing domestic and international teams of software engineers responsible for global payment processing and order placement systems. From 1996 to 2007 Mr. Etezadi was with Microsoft Corporation where he began as a Software Design Engineer and Test Lead working on Windows NT4 and Windows 2000. In 2000 he began three years in Sweden as part of a technical leadership team focused on transforming a company Microsoft acquired into an integrated subsidiary. In 2003, upon his return to the U.S., he led various teams in developing mobile web technologies, speech recognition software, and mobile computing hardware. Mr. Etezadi holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Chemical Engineering and Biochemistry from Rice University and an MBA from the University of Washington.
 
Mr. Messenger oversees the areas of accounting, risk management, financial planning and analysis, property tax administration and SEC reporting. He joined us in August 2002 as Vice President and Controller. In March 2006, Mr. Messenger was appointed Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer and in January 2007, while retaining the Chief Accounting Officer title, he was promoted to Senior Vice President. Prior to joining the company in 2002, Mr. Messenger was owner and President of TRC Management Company, a restaurant management company, in Chicago. Mr. Messenger began his career in real estate and financial services with Ernst & Young LLP, as a manager in their Chicago real estate division.
 
Ms. Miles-Ley oversees employee relations, organizational development, succession planning, staffing and recruitment, compensation, training and development, benefits administration, HRIS and payroll. She joined us in June 2007 as Senior Vice President — Human Resources. Prior to joining us, Ms. Miles-Ley was with Starz Entertainment Group LLC from 2001 to 2007 where she served as Vice President, Human Resources & Organizational Development. Ms. Miles-Ley had over twenty years of experience with both domestic and international work forces. Ms. Miles-Ley holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Human Relations from Golden Gate University and an MBA from the University of Denver.
 
Available Information
 
Both UDR and the Operating Partnership file electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission their respective annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and current reports on Form 8-K, pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You may obtain a free copy of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports on the day of filing with the SEC on our website at www.udr.com, or by sending an e-mail message to ir@udr.com.
 
Item 1A.   RISK FACTORS
 
There are many factors that affect our business and our results of operations, some of which are beyond our control. The following is a description of important factors that may cause our actual results of operations in future periods to differ materially from those currently expected or discussed in forward-looking statements set forth in this report relating to our financial results, operations and business prospects.
 
Risks Related to Our Real Estate Investments and Our Operations
 
Unfavorable Apartment Market and Economic Conditions Could Adversely Affect Occupancy Levels, Rental Revenues and the Value of Our Real Estate Assets.  Unfavorable market conditions in the areas in which we operate and unfavorable economic conditions generally may significantly affect our occupancy levels, our rental rates and collections, the value of the properties and our ability to strategically acquire or


14


Table of Contents

dispose of apartment communities on economically favorable terms. Our ability to lease our properties at favorable rates is adversely affected by the increase in supply in the multifamily market and is dependent upon the overall level in the economy, which is adversely affected by, among other things, job losses and unemployment levels, recession, personal debt levels, the downturn in the housing market, stock market volatility and uncertainty about the future. Some of our major expenses, including mortgage payments and real estate taxes, generally do not decline when related rents decline. We would expect that declines in our occupancy levels, rental revenues and/or the values of our apartment communities would cause us to have less cash available to pay our indebtedness and to distribute to our stockholders, which could adversely affect our financial condition and the market value of our securities. Factors that may affect our occupancy levels, our rental revenues, and/or the value of our properties include the following, among others:
 
  •  downturns in the national, regional and local economic conditions, particularly increases in unemployment;
 
  •  declines in mortgage interest rates, making alternative housing more affordable;
 
  •  government or builder incentives which enable first time homebuyers to put little or no money down, making alternative housing options more attractive;
 
  •  local real estate market conditions, including oversupply of, or reduced demand for, apartment homes;
 
  •  declines in the financial condition of our tenants, which may make it more difficult for us to collect rents from some tenants;
 
  •  changes in market rental rates;
 
  •  the timing and costs associated with property improvements, repairs or renovations;
 
  •  declines in household formation; and
 
  •  rent control or stabilization laws, or other laws regulating rental housing, which could prevent us from raising rents to offset increases in operating costs.
 
Continued Economic Weakness Following the Economic Recession that the U.S. Economy Recently Experienced May Materially and Adversely Affect our Financial Condition and Results of Operations.  The U.S. economy continues to experience weakness following a severe recession, which has resulted in increased unemployment, decreased consumer spending and a decline in residential and commercial property values. Although the U.S. economy has emerged from the recession, high levels of unemployment have persisted. If the economic recovery slows or stalls, we may experience adverse effects on our occupancy levels, our rental revenues and the value of our properties, any of which could adversely affect our cash flow, financial condition and results of operations.
 
Substantial International, National and Local Government Spending and Increasing Deficits May Adversely Impact Our Business, Financial Condition and Results of Operations.  The values of, and the cash flows from, the properties we own are affected by developments in global, national and local economies. As a result of the recent recession and the significant government interventions, federal, state and local governments have incurred record deficits and assumed or guaranteed liabilities of private financial institutions or other private entities. These increased budget deficits and the weakened financial condition of federal, state and local governments may lead to reduced governmental spending, tax increases, public sector job losses, increased interest rates, currency devaluations or other adverse economic events, which may directly or indirectly adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
Risk of Inflation/Deflation.  Substantial inflationary or deflationary pressures could have a negative effect on rental rates and property operating expenses. Neither inflation nor deflation has materially impacted our operations in the recent past. The general risk of inflation is that our debt interest and general and administrative expenses increase at a rate higher than our rental rates. The predominant effects of deflation include high unemployment and credit contraction. Restricted lending practices could impact our ability to obtain financing or refinancing for our properties. High unemployment may have a negative effect on our occupancy levels and our rental revenues.


15


Table of Contents

We Are Subject to Certain Risks Associated with Selling Apartment Communities, Which Could Limit Our Operational and Financial Flexibility.  We periodically dispose of apartment communities that no longer meet our strategic objectives, but adverse market conditions may make it difficult to sell apartment communities like the ones we own. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any property for the price or on the terms we set, or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property. Furthermore, we may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold. These conditions may limit our ability to dispose of properties and to change our portfolio promptly in order to meet our strategic objectives, which may in turn have a materially adverse effect on our financial condition and the market value of our securities. We are also subject to the following risks in connection with sales of our apartment communities:
 
  •  a significant portion of the proceeds from our overall property sales may be held by intermediaries in order for some sales to qualify as like-kind exchanges under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the “Code,” so that any related capital gain can be deferred for federal income tax purposes. As a result, we may not have immediate access to all of the cash proceeds generated from our property sales; and
 
  •  federal tax laws limit our ability to profit on the sale of communities that we have owned for less than two years, and this limitation may prevent us from selling communities when market conditions are favorable.
 
Competition Could Limit Our Ability to Lease Apartment Homes or Increase or Maintain Rents.  Our apartment communities compete with numerous housing alternatives in attracting residents, including other apartment communities, condominiums and single-family rental homes, as well as owner occupied single-and multi-family homes. Competitive housing in a particular area could adversely affect our ability to lease apartment homes and increase or maintain rents.
 
We May Not Realize the Anticipated Benefits of Past or Future Acquisitions, and the Failure to Integrate Acquired Communities and New Personnel Successfully Could Create Inefficiencies.  We have selectively acquired in the past, and if presented with attractive opportunities we intend to selectively acquire in the future, apartment communities that meet our investment criteria. Our acquisition activities and their success are subject to the following risks:
 
  •  we may be unable to obtain financing for acquisitions on favorable terms or at all;
 
  •  even if we are able to finance the acquisition, cash flow from the acquisition may be insufficient to meet our required principal and interest payments on the acquisition;
 
  •  even if we enter into an acquisition agreement for an apartment community, we may be unable to complete the acquisition after incurring certain acquisition-related costs;
 
  •  we may incur significant costs and divert management attention in connection with the evaluation and negotiation of potential acquisitions, including potential acquisitions that we are subsequently unable to complete;
 
  •  an acquired apartment community may fail to perform as we expected in analyzing our investment, or a significant exposure related to the acquired property may go undetected during our due diligence procedures;
 
  •  when we acquire an apartment community, we may invest additional amounts in it with the intention of increasing profitability, and these additional investments may not produce the anticipated improvements in profitability; and
 
  •  we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate acquired apartment communities and new personnel into our existing operations, and the failure to successfully integrate such apartment communities or personnel will result in inefficiencies that could adversely affect our expected return on our investments and our overall profitability.


16


Table of Contents

 
We do not expect to acquire apartment communities at the rate we have in prior years, which may limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business and the market value of our securities. In the past, other real estate investors, including insurance companies, pension and investment funds, developer partnerships, investment companies and other public and private apartment REITs, have competed with us to acquire existing properties and to develop new properties, and such competition in the future may make it more difficult for us to pursue attractive investment opportunities on favorable terms, which could adversely affect growth.
 
Development and Construction Risks Could Impact Our Profitability.  In the past we have selectively pursued the development and construction of apartment communities, and we intend to do so in the future as appropriate opportunities arise. Development activities have been, and in the future may be, conducted through wholly owned affiliated companies or through joint ventures with unaffiliated parties. Our development and construction activities are subject to the following risks:
 
  •  we may be unable to obtain construction financing for development activities under favorable terms, including but not limited to interest rates, maturity dates and/or loan to value ratios, or at all which could cause us to delay or even abandon potential developments;
 
  •  we may be unable to obtain, or face delays in obtaining, necessary zoning, land-use, building, occupancy and other required governmental permits and authorizations, which could result in increased development costs, could delay initial occupancy dates for all or a portion of a development community, and could require us to abandon our activities entirely with respect to a project for which we are unable to obtain permits or authorizations;
 
  •  yields may be less than anticipated as a result of delays in completing projects, costs that exceed budget and/or higher than expected concessions for lease up and lower rents than pro forma;
 
  •  if we are unable to find joint venture partners to help fund the development of a community or otherwise obtain acceptable financing for the developments, our development capacity may be limited;
 
  •  we may abandon development opportunities that we have already begun to explore, and we may fail to recover expenses already incurred in connection with exploring such opportunities;
 
  •  we may be unable to complete construction and lease-up of a community on schedule, or incur development or construction costs that exceed our original estimates, and we may be unable to charge rents that would compensate for any increase in such costs;
 
  •  occupancy rates and rents at a newly developed community may fluctuate depending on a number of factors, including market and economic conditions, preventing us from meeting our profitability goals for that community; and
 
  •  when we sell to third parties communities or properties that we developed or renovated, we may be subject to warranty or construction defect claims that are uninsured or exceed the limits of our insurance.
 
In some cases in the past, the costs of upgrading acquired communities exceeded our original estimates. We may experience similar cost increases in the future. Our inability to charge rents that will be sufficient to offset the effects of any increases in these costs may impair our profitability.
 
Bankruptcy of Developers in Our Development Joint Ventures Could Impose Delays and Costs on Us With Respect to the Development of Our Communities and May Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations.  The bankruptcy of one of the developers in any of our development joint ventures could materially and adversely affect the relevant property or properties. If the relevant joint venture through which we have invested in a property has incurred recourse obligations, the discharge in bankruptcy of the developer may require us to honor a completion guarantee and therefore might result in our ultimate liability for a greater portion of those obligations than we would otherwise bear.
 
Property Ownership Through Joint Ventures May Limit Our Ability to Act Exclusively in Our Interest.  We have in the past and may in the future develop and acquire properties in joint ventures with other persons


17


Table of Contents

or entities when we believe circumstances warrant the use of such structures. If we use such a structure, we could become engaged in a dispute with one or more of our joint venture partners that might affect our ability to operate a jointly-owned property. Moreover, joint venture partners may have business, economic or other objectives that are inconsistent with our objectives, including objectives that relate to the appropriate timing and terms of any sale or refinancing of a property. In some instances, joint venture partners may have competing interests in our markets that could create conflicts of interest.
 
Some Potential Losses May Not Be Adequately Covered by Insurance.  We have a comprehensive insurance program covering our property and operating activities. We believe the policy specifications and insured limits of these policies are adequate and appropriate. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses which may not be adequately covered under our insurance program. In addition, we will sustain losses due to insurance deductibles, self-insured retention, uninsured claims or casualties, or losses in excess of applicable coverage.
 
If an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the property. In such an event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property. Material losses in excess of insurance proceeds may occur in the future. If one or more of our significant properties were to experience a catastrophic loss, it could seriously disrupt our operations, delay revenue and result in large expenses to repair or rebuild the property. Such events could adversely affect our cash flow and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
 
Failure to Succeed in New Markets May Limit Our Growth.  We have acquired in the past, and we may acquire in the future if appropriate opportunities arise, apartment communities that are outside of our existing markets. Entering into new markets may expose us to a variety of risks, and we may not be able to operate successfully in new markets. These risks include, among others:
 
  •  inability to accurately evaluate local apartment market conditions and local economies;
 
  •  inability to hire and retain key personnel;
 
  •  lack of familiarity with local governmental and permitting procedures; and
 
  •  inability to achieve budgeted financial results.
 
Potential Liability for Environmental Contamination Could Result in Substantial Costs.  Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, as a current or former owner or operator of real estate, we could be required to investigate and remediate the effects of contamination of currently or formerly owned real estate by hazardous or toxic substances, often regardless of our knowledge of or responsibility for the contamination and solely by virtue of our current or former ownership or operation of the real estate. In addition, we could be held liable to a governmental authority or to third parties for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination. These costs could be substantial, and in many cases environmental laws create liens in favor of governmental authorities to secure their payment. The presence of such substances or a failure to properly remediate any resulting contamination could materially and adversely affect our ability to borrow against, sell or rent an affected property.
 
In addition, our properties are subject to various federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, including laws governing the management of wastes and underground and aboveground storage tanks. Noncompliance with these environmental, health and safety laws could subject us to liability. Changes in laws could increase the potential costs of compliance with environmental laws, health and safety laws or increase liability for noncompliance. This may result in significant unanticipated expenditures or may otherwise materially and adversely affect our operations.
 
As the owner or operator of real property, we may also incur liability based on various building conditions. For example, buildings and other structures on properties that we currently own or operate or those we acquire or operate in the future contain, may contain, or may have contained, asbestos-containing material, or ACM. Environmental, health and safety laws require that ACM be properly managed and maintained and may impose fines or penalties on owners, operators or employers for non-compliance with those requirements.


18


Table of Contents

These requirements include special precautions, such as removal, abatement or air monitoring, if ACM would be disturbed during maintenance, renovation or demolition of a building, potentially resulting in substantial costs. In addition, we may be subject to liability for personal injury or property damage sustained as a result of exposure to ACM or releases of ACM into the environment.
 
We cannot assure you that costs or liabilities incurred as a result of environmental issues will not affect our ability to make distributions to our shareholders, or that such costs or liabilities will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
 
Our Properties May Contain or Develop Harmful Mold or Suffer from Other Indoor Air Quality Issues, Which Could Lead to Liability for Adverse Health Effects or Property Damage or Cost for Remediation.  When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Indoor air quality issues can also stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contamination from indoor or outdoor sources, and other biological contaminants such as pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to airborne toxins or irritants can be alleged to cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold or other airborne contaminants or to increase ventilation. In addition, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants could expose us to liability from our tenants or others if property damage or personal injury occurs.
 
Compliance or Failure to Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or Other Safety Regulations and Requirements Could Result in Substantial Costs.  The Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires that public buildings, including our properties, be made accessible to disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants. From time to time claims may be asserted against us with respect to some of our properties under this Act. If, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we are required to make substantial alterations and capital expenditures in one or more of our properties, including the removal of access barriers, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
 
Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur fines or private damage awards. We do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether compliance with future requirements will require significant unanticipated expenditures that will affect our cash flow and results of operations.
 
Real Estate Tax and Other Laws.  Generally we do not directly pass through costs resulting from compliance with or changes in real estate tax laws to residential property tenants. We also do not generally pass through increases in income, service or other taxes, to tenants under leases. These costs may adversely affect net operating income and the ability to make distributions to stockholders. Similarly, compliance with or changes in (i) laws increasing the potential liability for environmental conditions existing on properties or the restrictions on discharges or other conditions or (ii) rent control or rent stabilization laws or other laws regulating housing, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, may result in significant unanticipated expenditures, which would adversely affect funds from operations and the ability to make distributions to stockholders.
 
Risk of Damage from Catastrophic Weather Events.  Certain of our communities are located in the general vicinity of active earthquake faults, mudslides and fires, and others where there are hurricanes, tornadoes or risks of other inclement weather. The adverse weather events could cause damage or losses that may be greater than insured levels. In the event of a loss in excess of insured limits, we could lose our capital invested in the affected community, as well as anticipated future revenue from that community. We would also continue to be obligated to repay any mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the community. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition and results of operations.


19


Table of Contents

Actual or Threatened Terrorist Attacks May Have an Adverse Effect on Our Business and Operating Results and Could Decrease the Value of Our Assets.  Actual or threatened terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Attacks that directly impact one or more of our apartment communities could significantly affect our ability to operate those communities and thereby impair our ability to achieve our expected results. Further, our insurance coverage may not cover all losses caused by a terrorist attack. In addition, the adverse effects that such violent acts and threats of future attacks could have on the U.S. economy could similarly have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
 
We May Experience a Decline in the Fair Value of Our Assets and Be Forced to Recognize Impairment Charges, Which Could Materially and Adversely Impact Our Financial Condition, Liquidity and Results of Operations and the Market Price of Our Common Stock.  A decline in the fair value of our assets may require us to recognize an impairment against such assets under GAAP if we were to determine that, with respect to any assets in unrealized loss positions, we do not have the ability and intent to hold such assets to maturity or for a period of time sufficient to allow for recovery to the amortized cost of such assets. If such a determination were to be made, we would recognize unrealized losses through earnings and write down the amortized cost of such assets to a new cost basis, based on the fair value of such assets on the date they are considered to be impaired. Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition; subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains, as they are based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale. If we are required to recognize asset impairment charges in the future, these charges could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and the per share trading price of our common stock.
 
Any Weaknesses Identified in Our Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Could Have an Adverse Effect on Our Stock Price.  Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to evaluate and report on our internal control over financial reporting. If we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our stock price.
 
Our Success Depends on Our Senior Management.  Our success depends upon the retention of our senior management, whose continued service in not guaranteed. We may not be able to find qualified replacements for the individuals who make up our senior management if their services should no longer be available to us. The loss of services of one or more members of our senior management team could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
 
We May be Adversely Affected by New Laws and Regulations.  The current United States administration and Congress have enacted, or called for consideration of, proposals relating to a variety of issues, including with respect to health care, financial regulation reform, climate control, executive compensation and others. We believe that these and other potential proposals could have varying degrees of impact on us ranging from minimal to material. At this time, we are unable to predict with certainty what level of impact specific proposals could have on us.
 
Certain rulemaking and administrative efforts that may have an impact on us focus principally on the areas perceived as contributing to the global financial crisis and the continuing economic downturn. These initiatives have created a degree of uncertainty regarding the basic rules governing the real estate industry and many other businesses that is unprecedented in the United States at least since the wave of lawmaking and regulatory reform that followed in the wake of the Great Depression. The federal legislative response in this area has culminated most recently in the enactment on July 21, 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have extended implementation periods and delayed effective dates and will require extensive rulemaking by regulatory authorities; thus, the impact on us may not be known for an extended period of time. The Dodd-Frank Act, including future rules implementing its provisions and the interpretation of those rules, along with other legislative and regulatory proposals that are proposed or pending in the United States Congress, may


20


Table of Contents

limit our revenues, impose fees or taxes on us, and/or intensify the regulatory framework in which we operate in ways that are not currently identifiable.
 
Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure in particular, including certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, have created uncertainty for public companies like ours and could significantly increase the costs and risks associated with accessing the U.S. public markets. Because we are committed to maintaining high standards of internal control over financial reporting, corporate governance and public disclosure, our management team will need to devote significant time and financial resources to comply with these evolving standards for public companies. We intend to continue to invest appropriate resources to comply with both existing and evolving standards, and this investment has resulted and will likely continue to result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities.
 
Changes in the System for Establishing U.S. Accounting Standards May Materially and Adversely Affect Our Reported Results of Operations.  Accounting for public companies in the United States has historically been conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as in effect in the United States (“GAAP”). GAAP is established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”), an independent body whose standards are recognized by the SEC as authoritative for publicly held companies. The International Accounting Standards Board (the “IASB”) is a London-based independent board established in 2001 and charged with the development of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). IFRS generally reflects accounting practices that prevail in Europe and in developed nations around the world.
 
IFRS differs in material respects from GAAP. Among other things, IFRS has historically relied more on “fair value” models of accounting for assets and liabilities than GAAP. “Fair value” models are based on periodic revaluation of assets and liabilities, often resulting in fluctuations in such values as compared to GAAP, which relies more frequently on historical cost as the basis for asset and liability valuation.
 
The SEC has proposed the mandatory adoption of IFRS by United States public companies starting in 2015, with early adoption permitted before that date. It is unclear at this time how the SEC will propose that GAAP and IFRS be harmonized if the proposed change is adopted. In addition, switching to a new method of accounting and adopting IFRS will be a complex undertaking. We may need to develop new systems and controls based on the principles of IFRS. Since these are new endeavors, and the precise requirements of the pronouncements ultimately adopted are not now known, the magnitude of costs associated with this conversion are uncertain.
 
We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of IFRS on our financial position and results of operations. Such evaluation cannot be completed, however, without more clarity regarding the specific IFRS standards that will be adopted. Until there is more certainty with respect to the IFRS standards to be adopted, prospective investors should consider that our conversion to IFRS could have a material adverse impact on our reported results of operations.
 
Risks Related to Our Indebtedness and Financings
 
Insufficient Cash Flow Could Affect Our Debt Financing and Create Refinancing Risk.  We are subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that our operating income and cash flow will be insufficient to make required payments of principal and interest, or could restrict our borrowing capacity under our line of credit due to debt covenant restraints. Sufficient cash flow may not be available to make all required principal payments and still satisfy UDR’ Inc.’s distribution requirements to maintain its status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, the full limits of our line of credit may not be available to us if our operating performance falls outside the constraints of our debt covenants. We are also likely to need to refinance substantially all of our outstanding debt as it matures. We may not be able to refinance existing debt, or the terms of any refinancing may not be as favorable as the terms of the existing debt, which could create pressures to sell assets or to issue additional equity when we would otherwise not choose to do so. In addition, our failure to comply with our debt covenants could result in a requirement to


21


Table of Contents

repay our indebtedness prior to its maturity, which could have an adverse effect on our cash flow, increase our financing costs and impact our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
 
Failure to Generate Sufficient Revenue Could Impair Debt Service Payments and Distributions to Stockholders.  If our apartment communities do not generate sufficient net rental income to meet rental expenses, our ability to make required payments of interest and principal on our debt securities and to pay distributions to UDR, Inc.’s stockholders will be adversely affected. The following factors, among others, may affect the net rental income generated by our apartment communities:
 
  •  the national and local economies;
 
  •  local real estate market conditions, such as an oversupply of apartment homes;
 
  •  tenants’ perceptions of the safety, convenience, and attractiveness of our communities and the neighborhoods where they are located;
 
  •  our ability to provide adequate management, maintenance and insurance;
 
  •  rental expenses, including real estate taxes and utilities;
 
  •  competition from other apartment communities;
 
  •  changes in interest rates and the availability of financing;
 
  •  changes in governmental regulations and the related costs of compliance; and
 
  •  changes in tax and housing laws, including the enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating multi-family housing.
 
Expenses associated with our investment in an apartment community, such as debt service, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in rental income from that community. If a community is mortgaged to secure payment of debt and we are unable to make the mortgage payments, we could sustain a loss as a result of foreclosure on the community or the exercise of other remedies by the mortgage holder.
 
Debt Level May Be Increased.  Our current debt policy does not contain any limitations on the level of debt that we may incur, although our ability to incur debt is limited by covenants in our bank and other credit agreements. We manage our debt to be in compliance with these debt covenants, but subject to compliance with these covenants, we may increase the amount of our debt at any time without a concurrent improvement in our ability to service the additional debt.
 
Financing May Not Be Available and Could Be Dilutive.  Our ability to execute our business strategy depends on our access to an appropriate blend of debt financing, including unsecured lines of credit and other forms of secured and unsecured debt, and equity financing, including common and preferred equity. We and other companies in the real estate industry have experienced limited availability of financing from time to time. If we issue additional equity securities to finance developments and acquisitions instead of incurring debt, the interests of our existing stockholders could be diluted.
 
Disruptions in Financial Markets May Adversely Impact Availability and Cost of Credit and Have Other Adverse Effects on Us and the Market Price of Our Stock.  Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance debt obligations will depend on our operating and financial performance, which in turn is subject to prevailing economic conditions and to financial, business and other factors beyond our control. During the past few years, the United States stock and credit markets have experienced significant price volatility, dislocations and liquidity disruptions, which have caused market prices of many stocks to fluctuate substantially and the spreads on prospective debt financings to widen considerably. These circumstances have materially impacted liquidity in the financial markets, making terms for certain financings less attractive, and in some cases have resulted in the unavailability of financing. Continued uncertainty in the stock and credit markets may negatively impact our ability to access additional financing for acquisitions, development of our properties and other purposes at reasonable terms, which may negatively affect our business. Additionally, due to this uncertainty, we may be unable to refinance our existing indebtedness or the terms of any refinancing may not


22


Table of Contents

be as favorable as the terms of our existing indebtedness. If we are not successful in refinancing this debt when it becomes due, we may be forced to dispose of properties on disadvantageous terms, which might adversely affect our ability to service other debt and to meet our other obligations. A prolonged downturn in the financial markets may cause us to seek alternative sources of potentially less attractive financing, and may require us to adjust our business plan accordingly. These events also may make it more difficult or costly for us to raise capital through the issuance of our common or preferred stock. The disruptions in the financial markets have had and may continue to have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common shares and other adverse effects on us and our business.
 
Prospective buyers of our properties may also experience difficulty in obtaining debt financing which might make it more difficult for us to sell properties at acceptable pricing levels. Tightening of credit in financial markets and high unemployment rates may also adversely affect the ability of tenants to meet their lease obligations and for us to continue increasing rents on a prospective basis. Disruptions in the credit and financial markets may also have other adverse effects on us and the overall economy.
 
A Change in U.S. Government Policy Regarding Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Could Have a Material Adverse Impact on Our Business.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a major source of financing for secured multifamily rental real estate. We and other multifamily companies depend heavily on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance growth by purchasing or guaranteeing apartment loans. In September 2008, the U.S. government assumed control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and placed both companies into a government conservatorship under the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The Administration has recently proposed potential options for the future of mortgage finance in the U.S. that could involve the phase out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While we believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will continue to provide liquidity to our sector, should they discontinue doing so, have their mandates changed or reduced or be disbanded or reorganized by the government, it would significantly reduce our access to debt capital and adversely affect our ability to finance or refinance existing indebtedness at competitive rates and it may adversely affect our ability to sale assets. Uncertainty in the future activity and involvement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a source of financing could negatively impact our ability to make acquisitions and make it more difficult or not possible for us to sell properties or may adversely affect the price we receive for properties that we do sell, as prospective buyers may experience increased costs of debt financing or difficulties in obtaining debt financing.
 
The Soundness of Financial Institutions Could Adversely Affect Us.  We have relationships with many financial institutions, including lenders under our credit facilities, and, from time to time, we execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, financial institutions or the financial services industry generally, could result in losses or defaults by these institutions. In the event that the volatility of the financial markets adversely affects these financial institutions or counterparties, we or other parties to the transactions with us may be unable to complete transactions as intended, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
 
Changing Interest Rates Could Increase Interest Costs and Adversely Affect Our Cash Flow and the Market Price of Our Securities.  We currently have, and expect to incur in the future, interest-bearing debt at rates that vary with market interest rates. As of December 31, 2010, UDR, Inc. had approximately $1 billion of variable rate indebtedness outstanding, which constitutes approximately 29% of total outstanding indebtedness as of such date. As of December 31, 2010, the Operating Partnership had approximately $304 million of variable rate indebtedness outstanding, which constitutes approximately 28% of total outstanding indebtedness as of such date. An increase in interest rates would increase our interest expenses and increase the costs of refinancing existing indebtedness and of issuing new debt. Accordingly, higher interest rates could adversely affect cash flow and our ability to service our debt and to make distributions to security holders. The effect of prolonged interest rate increases could negatively impact our ability to make acquisitions and develop properties. In addition, an increase in market interest rates may lead our security holders to demand a higher annual yield, which could adversely affect the market price of our common and preferred stock and debt securities.
 
Interest Rate Hedging Contracts May Be Ineffective and May Result in Material Charges.  From time to time when we anticipate issuing debt securities, we may seek to limit our exposure to fluctuations in interest


23


Table of Contents

rates during the period prior to the pricing of the securities by entering into interest rate hedging contracts. We may do this to increase the predictability of our financing costs. Also, from time to time we may rely on interest rate hedging contracts to limit our exposure under variable rate debt to unfavorable changes in market interest rates. If the terms of new debt securities are not within the parameters of, or market interest rates fall below that which we incur under a particular interest rate hedging contract, the contract is ineffective. Furthermore, the settlement of interest rate hedging contracts has involved and may in the future involve material charges. In addition, our use of interest rate hedging arrangements may expose us to additional risks, including a risk that a counterparty to a hedging arrangement may fail to honor its obligations. Developing an effective interest rate risk strategy is complex and no strategy can completely insulate us from risks associated with interest rate fluctuations. There can be no assurance that our hedging activities will have desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Termination of these hedging agreements typically involves costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs.
 
Risks Related to Tax Laws
 
We Would Incur Adverse Tax Consequences if UDR Failed to Qualify as a REIT.  UDR has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Code. Our qualification as a REIT requires us to satisfy numerous requirements, some on an annual and quarterly basis, established under highly technical and complex Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations, and involves the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. We intend that our current organization and method of operation enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT, but we may not so qualify or we may not be able to remain so qualified in the future. In addition, U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs and other corporations and the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended at any time, potentially with retroactive effect. Future legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or adversely affect our stockholders.
 
If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we would be subject to federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and would not be allowed to deduct dividends paid to our stockholders in computing our taxable income. Also, unless the Internal Revenue Service granted us relief under certain statutory provisions, we could not re-elect REIT status until the fifth calendar year after the year in which we first failed to qualify as a REIT. The additional tax liability from the failure to qualify as a REIT would reduce or eliminate the amount of cash available for investment or distribution to our stockholders. This would likely have a significant adverse effect on the value of our securities and our ability to raise additional capital. In addition, we would no longer be required to make distributions to our stockholders. Even if we continue to qualify as a REIT, we will continue to be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property.
 
REITs May Pay a Portion of Dividends in Common Stock.  In December 2009, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Procedure 2010-12, which expanded previously issued temporary guidance relating to certain stock distributions made by publicly traded REITs to satisfy their tax-related distribution requirements. This expanded temporary guidance is intended to permit REITs to limit cash distributions in order to maintain liquidity during the current downturn in economic conditions. Under this expanded guidance, for stock dividends declared on or after January 1, 2008 and before December 31, 2012, with respect to a taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service will treat a distribution of stock by a publicly traded REIT, pursuant to certain stockholder elections to receive either stock or cash, as a taxable distribution of property, provided that, among other conditions, (i) the total amount of cash available for distribution is not less than 10% of the aggregate declared distribution, and (ii) if too many stockholders elect to receive cash, each stockholder electing to receive cash will receive a pro rata amount of cash corresponding to its respective entitlement under the declaration, but in no event will any such electing stockholder receive less than 10% of the stockholder’s entire entitlement in money. The amount of such stock distribution will generally be treated as equal to the amount of cash that could have been received instead. If we pay a portion of our dividends in shares of our common stock pursuant to this temporary guidance, our stockholders may receive less cash than they received in distributions in prior years and the market value of our securities may decline.


24


Table of Contents

UDR May Conduct a Portion of Our Business Through Taxable REIT Subsidiaries, Which are Subject to Certain Tax Risks.  We have established several taxable REIT subsidiaries. Despite UDR’s qualification as a REIT, its taxable REIT subsidiaries must pay income tax on their taxable income. In addition, we must comply with various tests to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and our income from and investments in our taxable REIT subsidiaries generally do not constitute permissible income and investments for these tests. While we will attempt to ensure that our dealings with our taxable REIT subsidiaries will not adversely affect our REIT qualification, we cannot provide assurance that we will successfully achieve that result. Furthermore, we may be subject to a 100% penalty tax, we may jeopardize our ability to retain future gains on real property sales, or our taxable REIT subsidiaries may be denied deductions, to the extent our dealings with our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not deemed to be arm’s length in nature or are otherwise not respected.
 
REIT Distribution Requirements Limit Our Available Cash.  As a REIT, UDR is subject to annual distribution requirements, which limit the amount of cash we retain for other business purposes, including amounts to fund our growth. We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our net REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for our distributed earnings not to be subject to corporate income tax. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the requirements of the Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Code.
 
Certain Property Transfers May Generate Prohibited Transaction Income, Resulting in a Penalty Tax on Gain Attributable to the Transaction.  From time to time, we may transfer or otherwise dispose of some of our properties. Under the Code, any gain resulting from transfers of properties that we hold as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business would be treated as income from a prohibited transaction and subject to a 100% penalty tax. Since we acquire properties for investment purposes, we do not believe that our occasional transfers or disposals of property are prohibited transactions. However, whether property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. The Internal Revenue Service may contend that certain transfers or disposals of properties by us are prohibited transactions. If the Internal Revenue Service were to argue successfully that a transfer or disposition of property constituted a prohibited transaction, then we would be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to us from the prohibited transaction and we may jeopardize our ability to retain future gains on real property sales. In addition, income from a prohibited transaction might adversely affect UDR’s ability to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.
 
We Could Face Possible State and Local Tax Audits and Adverse Changes in State and Local Tax Laws.  As discussed in the risk factors above, because UDR is organized and qualifies as a REIT it is generally not subject to federal income taxes, but it is subject to certain state and local taxes. From time to time, changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. A shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in which we own apartment communities may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional state and local taxes. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and the amount of cash available for the payment of distributions to our stockholders. In the normal course of business, entities through which we own real estate may also become subject to tax audits. If such entities become subject to state or local tax audits, the ultimate result of such audits could have an adverse effect on our financial condition.
 
The Operating Partnership Intends to Qualify as a Partnership, But Cannot Guarantee That It Will Qualify.  The Operating Partnership intends to qualify as a partnership for federal income tax purposes at any such time that the Operating Partnership admits additional limited partners other than UDR, Inc. If classified as a partnership, the Operating Partnership generally will not be a taxable entity and will not incur federal income tax liability. However, the Operating Partnership would be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes if it were a “publicly traded partnership,” unless at least 90% of the Operating Partnership’s income was qualifying income as defined in the Code. A “publicly traded partnership” is a partnership whose


25


Table of Contents

partnership interests are traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent thereof). Although the Operating Partnership’s partnership units are not traded on an established securities market, because of the redemption right, the Operating Partnership’s units held by limited partners could be viewed as readily tradable on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent thereof), and the Operating Partnership may not qualify for one of the “safe harbors” under the applicable tax regulations. Qualifying income for the 90% test generally includes passive income, such as real property rents, dividends and interest. The income requirements applicable to REITs and the definition of qualifying income for purposes of this 90% test are similar in most respects. The Operating Partnership may not meet this qualifying income test. If the Operating Partnership were to be taxed as a corporation, it would incur substantial tax liabilities, and UDR, Inc. would then fail to qualify as a REIT for tax purposes, unless it qualified for relief under certain statutory savings provisions, and our ability to raise additional capital would be impaired.
 
Risks Related to Our Organization and Ownership of UDR, Inc.’s Stock
 
Changes in Market Conditions and Volatility of Stock Prices Could Adversely Affect the Market Price of Our Common Stock.  The stock markets, including the New York Stock Exchange, on which we list UDR, Inc’s common stock, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. As a result, the market price of our common stock could be similarly volatile, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease in the value of their shares, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. In addition to the risks listed in this “Risk Factors” section, a number of factors could negatively affect the price per share of our common stock, including:
 
  •  general market and economic conditions;
 
  •  actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results or dividends or our payment of dividends in shares of our stock;
 
  •  changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates;
 
  •  difficulties or inability to access capital or extend or refinance existing debt;
 
  •  decreasing (or uncertainty in) real estate valuations;
 
  •  changes in market valuations of similar companies;
 
  •  publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry;
 
  •  the general reputation of real estate investment trusts and the attractiveness of their equity securities in comparison to other equity securities (including securities issued by other real estate companies);
 
  •  general stock and bond market conditions, including changes in interest rates on fixed income securities, that may lead prospective purchasers of our stock to demand a higher annual yield from future dividends;
 
  •  a change in analyst ratings;
 
  •  additions or departures of key management personnel;
 
  •  adverse market reaction to any additional debt we incur in the future;
 
  •  speculation in the press or investment community;
 
  •  terrorist activity which may adversely affect the markets in which our securities trade, possibly increasing market volatility and causing the further erosion of business and consumer confidence and spending;
 
  •  failure to qualify as a REIT;
 
  •  strategic decisions by us or by our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestments, spin-offs, joint ventures, strategic investments or changes in business strategy;


26


Table of Contents

 
  •  failure to satisfy listing requirements of the NYSE;
 
  •  governmental regulatory action and changes in tax laws; and
 
  •  the issuance of additional shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales might occur, including under our at-the-market equity distribution program.
 
Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control. These factors may cause the market price of shares of our common stock to decline, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or our prospects.
 
We May Change the Dividend Policy for Our Common Stock in the Future.  The decision to declare and pay dividends on UDR’s common stock, as well as the timing, amount and composition of any such future dividends, will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, funds from operations, liquidity, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual prohibitions or other limitations under our indebtedness, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, state law and such other factors as our board of directors considers relevant. Any change in our dividend policy could have a material adverse effect on the market price of UDR’s common stock.
 
Maryland Law May Limit the Ability of a Third Party to Acquire Control of Us, Which May Not be in Our Stockholders’ Best Interests.  Maryland business statutes may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of us. As a Maryland corporation, we are subject to various Maryland laws which may have the effect of discouraging offers to acquire our Company and of increasing the difficulty of consummating any such offers, even if our acquisition would be in our stockholders’ best interests. The Maryland General Corporation Law restricts mergers and other business combination transactions between us and any person who acquires beneficial ownership of shares of our stock representing 10% or more of the voting power without our board of directors’ prior approval. Any such business combination transaction could not be completed until five years after the person acquired such voting power, and generally only with the approval of stockholders representing 80% of all votes entitled to be cast and 662/3% of the votes entitled to be cast, excluding the interested stockholder, or upon payment of a fair price. Maryland law also provides generally that a person who acquires shares of our equity stock that represents 10% (and certain higher levels) of the voting power in electing directors will have no voting rights unless approved by a vote of two-thirds of the shares eligible to vote.
 
Limitations on Share Ownership and Limitations on the Ability of Our Stockholders to Effect a Change in Control of Our Company Restricts the Transferability of Our Stock and May Prevent Takeovers That are Beneficial to Our Stockholders.  One of the requirements for maintenance of our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes is that no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned by five or fewer individuals, including entities specified in the Code, during the last half of any taxable year. Our charter contains ownership and transfer restrictions relating to our stock primarily to assist us in complying with this and other REIT ownership requirements; however, the restrictions may have the effect of preventing a change of control, which does not threaten REIT status. These restrictions include a provision that generally limits ownership by any person of more than 9.9% of the value of our outstanding equity stock, unless our board of directors exempts the person from such ownership limitation, provided that any such exemption shall not allow the person to exceed 13% of the value of our outstanding equity stock. Absent such an exemption from our board of directors, the transfer of our stock to any person in excess of the applicable ownership limit, or any transfer of shares of such stock in violation of the ownership requirements of the Code for REITs, will be considered null and void, and the intended transferee of such stock will acquire no rights in such shares. These provisions of our charter may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing someone from taking control of us, even though a change of control might involve a premium price for our stockholders or might otherwise be in our stockholders’ best interests.
 
Item 1B.   UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
 
None.


27


Table of Contents

Item 2.   PROPERTIES
 
At December 31, 2010, our consolidated apartment portfolio included 172 communities located in 23 markets, with a total of 48,553 completed apartment homes.
 
We lease approximately 35,000 square feet of office space in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, for our corporate headquarters and lease an additional 39,000 square feet for two regional offices located in Dallas, Texas and Richmond, Virginia. The lease term on 21,000 square feet in Richmond, Virginia expires in February 2011.
 
The tables below set forth a summary of real estate portfolio by geographic market of the Company and of the Operating Partnership at December 31, 2010.
 
SUMMARY OF REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO BY GEOGRAPHIC MARKET AT DECEMBER 31, 2010
 
UDR, INC.
 
                                                                 
                                              Average
 
    Number of
    Number of
    Percentage of
    Carrying
                Average
    Home Size
 
    Apartment
    Apartment
    Carrying
    Value
    Encumbrances
    Cost per
    Physical
    Square
 
    Communities     Homes     Value     (In thousands)     (In thousands)     Home     Occupancy     Feet  
 
WESTERN REGION
                                                               
Orange County, CA
    14       4,479       12.4 %   $   853,952     $   348,808     $   190,657       95.2 %     841  
San Francisco, CA
    11       2,339       8.1 %     555,023       105,236       237,291       93.7 %     805  
Los Angeles, CA
    9       2,261       8.5 %     583,553       232,198       258,095       95.8 %     950  
Seattle, WA
    11       2,165       6.8 %     465,661       54,278       215,086       95.3 %     882  
San Diego, CA
    5       1,123       2.5 %     174,659       21,774       155,529       95.3 %     797  
Monterey Peninsula, CA
    7       1,565       2.2 %     152,645             97,537       94.1 %     724  
Inland Empire, CA
    3       1,074       2.2 %     150,276       81,279       139,922       94.9 %     886  
Sacramento, CA
    2       914       1.0 %     68,061       46,611       74,465       93.5 %     820  
Portland, OR
    3       716       1.0 %     69,543       43,037       97,127       95.9 %     918  
MID-ATLANTIC REGION
                                                               
Metropolitan DC
    13       4,343       11.5 %     790,243       194,172       181,958       92.3 %(a)     963  
Baltimore, MD
    11       2,301       4.3 %     297,685       131,460       129,372       96.5 %     1,001  
Richmond, VA
    6       2,211       2.7 %     187,044       67,820       84,597       95.9 %     966  
Norfolk, VA
    6       1,438       1.2 %     84,401             58,693       95.5 %     1,016  
Boston, MA
    2       346       2.0 %     137,692       25,375       397,954       94.1 %     1,041  
Other Mid-Atlantic
    6       1,491       1.9 %     128,216       32,126       85,993       82.7 %(a)     972  
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
                                                               
Tampa, FL
    11       3,804       4.9 %     334,062       50,682       87,819       95.5 %     963  
Orlando, FL
    11       3,167       3.9 %     271,043       88,009       85,584       94.4 %     978  
Nashville, TN
    8       2,260       2.6 %     180,413       25,294       79,829       96.5 %     933  
Jacksonville, FL
    5       1,857       2.3 %     156,540       17,930       84,297       95.0 %     913  
Other Florida
    4       1,184       1.6 %     112,072       40,133       94,655       94.2 %     1,035  
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
                                                               
Dallas, TX
    13       4,320       7.1 %     486,109       211,265       112,525       86.8 %(a)     906  
Phoenix, AZ
    6       1,744       2.5 %     169,990       62,132       97,471       88.3 %(a)     970  
Austin, TX
    2       640       1.3 %     92,361       25,079       144,314       93.4 %     888  
Other Texas
    3       811       0.9 %     65,218       36,701       80,417       94.1 %     859  
                                                                 
Total Operating Communities
    172       48,553       95.4 %   $ 6,566,462     $ 1,941,399     $ 135,243       93.5 %     919  
                                                                 
Real Estate Under Development(b)
                1.4 %     97,912                                
Land
                2.0 %     131,889                                
Other
                1.2 %     85,084       22,271                          
                                                                 
Total Real Estate Owned
    172       48,553       100.0 %   $ 6,881,347     $ 1,963,670                          
                                                                 
 
 
(a) Markets include properties in lease-up during the year.
 
(b) The Company is currently developing four wholly-owned communities with 930 apartment homes that have not yet been completed.


28


Table of Contents

 
SUMMARY OF REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO BY GEOGRAPHIC MARKET AT DECEMBER 31, 2010
 
UNITED DOMINION REALTY, L.P.
 
                                                                 
                                              Average
 
    Number of
    Number of
    Percentage of
    Carrying
                Average
    Home Size
 
    Apartment
    Apartment
    Carrying
    Value
    Encumbrances
    Cost per
    Physical
    (In Square
 
    Communities     Homes     Value     (In thousands)     (In thousands)     Home     Occupancy     Feet)  
 
WESTERN REGION
                                                               
Orange County, CA
    12       4,124       20.6 %   $   765,097     $   348,808     $   185,523       95.4 %     820  
San Francisco, CA
    10       2,315       14.6 %     542,531       105,236       234,355       93.6 %     806  
Los Angeles, CA
    6       1,222       7.2 %     265,084       64,499       216,926       96.0 %     967  
Seattle, WA
    5       932       5.6 %     206,953       33,777       222,053       96.6 %     865  
San Diego, CA
    3       689       2.7 %     99,586       21,774       144,537       95.1 %     788  
Monterey Peninsula, CA
    7       1,565       4.1 %     152,645             97,537       94.1 %     724  
Inland Empire, CA
    2       834       3.2 %     119,199       54,308       142,924       95.0 %     882  
Sacramento, CA
    2       914       1.8 %     68,061       46,611       74,465       93.5 %     820  
Portland, OR
    3       716       1.9 %     69,543       43,037       97,127       95.9 %     918  
MID-ATLANTIC REGION
                                                               
Metropolitan DC
    8       2,565       15.5 %     574,504       98,174       223,978       96.4 %     948  
Baltimore, MD
    5       994       3.9 %     145,968       82,887       146,849       96.4 %     971  
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
                                                               
Tampa, FL
    3       1,154       2.9 %     109,081       7,330       94,524       95.6 %     1,029  
Nashville, TN
    6       1,612       3.4 %     127,178             78,895       96.5 %     925  
Jacksonville, FL
    1       400       1.1 %     42,292             105,730       94.9 %     964  
Other Florida
    1       636       2.1 %     76,310       40,133       119,984       95.1 %     1,130  
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
                                                               
Dallas, TX
    2       1,348       4.9 %     182,840       90,475       135,638       95.6 %     909  
Phoenix, AZ
    3       914       1.9 %     71,646       33,012       78,387       95.3 %     1,000  
Austin, TX
    1       250       0.8 %     32,180             128,720       89.8 %     883  
Other Texas
    1       167       0.8 %     19,179             114,844             710  
                                                                 
Total Operating Communities
    81       23,351       99.0 %     3,669,877       1,070,061       157,161       94.6 %     887  
Land and other
                  1.0 %     36,307                                
                                                                 
Total Real Estate Owned
    81       23,351       100.0 %   $ 3,706,184     $ 1,070,061                          
                                                                 
 
Item 3.   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
 
We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We cannot determine the ultimate liability with respect to such legal proceedings and claims at this time. We believe that such liability, to the extent not provided for through insurance or otherwise, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.
 
Item 4.   (Removed and Reserved)


29


Table of Contents

 
PART II
 
Item 5.   MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER
 
MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
 
UDR, Inc.
 
Common Stock
 
UDR, Inc.’s common stock has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “UDR” since May 7, 1990. The following tables set forth the quarterly high and low sale prices per common share reported on the NYSE for each quarter of the last two fiscal years. Distribution information for common stock reflects distributions declared per share for each calendar quarter and paid at the end of the following month.
 
                                                                 
    2010   2009        
            Distributions
          Distributions
       
    High   Low   Declared   High   Low   Declared        
 
Quarter ended March 31,
  $ 18.26     $ 14.47     $ 0.180     $ 14.27     $ 6.73     $ 0.310                  
Quarter ended June 30,
  $ 21.82     $ 17.57     $ 0.180     $ 11.92     $ 7.93     $ 0.180                  
Quarter ended September 30,
  $ 22.26     $ 17.93     $ 0.185     $ 16.23     $ 9.06     $ 0.180                  
Quarter ended December 31,
  $ 24.10     $ 20.99     $ 0.185     $ 17.26     $ 13.93     $ 0.180                  
 
On February 17, 2011, the closing sale price of our common stock was $23.82 per share on the NYSE and there were 4,804 holders of record of the 182,496,330 outstanding shares of our common stock.
 
We have determined that, for federal income tax purposes, approximately 95% of the distributions for 2010 represented ordinary income, 3% represented long-term capital gain, and 2% represented unrecaptured section 1250 gain.
 
UDR pays regular quarterly distributions to holders of its common stock. Future distributions will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our actual funds from operations, financial condition and capital requirements, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, and other factors. The annual distribution payment for calendar year 2010 necessary for us to maintain our status as a REIT was $0.002 per share of common stock. We declared total distributions of $0.73 per share of common stock for 2010.
 
Series E Preferred Stock
 
The Series E Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series E”) has no stated par value and a liquidation preference of $16.61 per share. Subject to certain adjustments and conditions, each share of the Series E is convertible at any time and from time to time at the holder’s option into one share of our common stock prior to the Special Dividend. The holders of the Series E are entitled to vote on an as-converted basis as a single class in combination with the holders of common stock at any meeting of our stockholders for the election of directors or for any other purpose on which the holders of common stock are entitled to vote. The Series E has no stated maturity and is not subject to any sinking fund or any mandatory redemption. In connection with the Special Dividend, the Company reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Series E additional shares of common stock to which a holder of the Series E would have received if the holder had converted the Series E immediately prior to the record date for the Special Dividend.
 
Distributions declared on the Series E in 2010 were $1.33 per share or $0.3322 per quarter. The Series E is not listed on any exchange. At December 31, 2010, a total of 2,803,812 shares of the Series E were outstanding.
 
Series F Preferred Stock
 
We are authorized to issue up to 20,000,000 shares of our Series F (“Series F”) Preferred Stock. The Series F Preferred Stock may be purchased by holders of our Operating Partnership Units, or OP Units, described below under “Operating Partnership Units,” at a purchase price of $0.0001 per share. OP Unitholders are entitled to subscribe for and purchase one share of the Series F for each OP Unit held. At December 31,


30


Table of Contents

2010, a total of 3,208,706 shares of the Series F were outstanding at a value of $321. Holders of the Series F are entitled to one vote for each share of the Series F they hold, voting together with the holders of our common stock, on each matter submitted to a vote of security holders at a meeting of our stockholders. The Series F does not entitle its holders to any other rights, privileges or preferences.
 
Series G Preferred Stock
 
In May 2007, UDR issued 5,400,000 shares of our 6.75% Series G Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series G”). The Series G has no stated par value and a liquidation preference of $25 per share. The Series G generally has no voting rights except under certain limited circumstances and as required by law. The Series G has no stated maturity and is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any of our other securities. The Series G is not redeemable prior to May 31, 2012. On or after this date, the Series G may be redeemed for cash at our option, in whole or in part, at a redemption price of $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid dividends. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company repurchased 27,400 shares of Series G, for less than the liquidation preference of $25 per share resulting in a $25,000 benefit to our net loss attributable to common stockholders. Distributions declared on the Series G for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $1.69 per share. The Series G is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “UDRPrG.” At December 31, 2010, a total of 3,405,562 shares of the Series G were outstanding.
 
Distribution Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan
 
We have a Distribution Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan under which holders of our common stock may elect to automatically reinvest their distributions and make additional cash payments to acquire additional shares of our common stock. Stockholders who do not participate in the plan continue to receive distributions as declared. As of February 17, 2011, there were approximately 2,707 participants in the plan.
 
United Dominion Realty, L.P.
 
Operating Partnership Units
 
There is no established public trading market for United Dominion Realty, L.P.’s Operating Partnership Units. From time to time we issue shares of our common stock in exchange for OP Units tendered to the Operating Partnership, for redemption in accordance with the provisions of the Operating Partnership’s limited partnership agreement. At December 31, 2010, there were 179,909,408 OP Units outstanding in the Operating Partnership, of which 174,847,440 OP Units or 97.2% were owned by UDR and 5,061,968 OP Units or 2.8% were owned by limited partners. Under the terms of the Operating Partnership’s limited partnership agreement, the holders of OP Units have the right to require the Operating Partnership to redeem all or a portion of the OP Units held by the holder in exchange for a cash payment based on the market value of our common stock at the time of redemption. However, the Operating Partnership’s obligation to pay the cash amount is subject to the prior right of the Company to acquire such OP Units in exchange for either the cash amount or the number of shares of our common stock equal to the number of OP Units being redeemed. During 2010, we issued a total of 924,624 shares of common stock upon redemption of OP Units.
 
Purchases of Equity Securities
 
In February 2006, UDR’s Board of Directors authorized a 10,000,000 share repurchase program. In January 2008, UDR’s Board of Directors authorized a new 15,000,000 share repurchase program. Under the two share repurchase programs, UDR may repurchase shares of our common stock in open market purchases, block purchases, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise. As reflected in the table below, no shares of common stock were repurchased under these programs during the quarter ended December 31, 2010.


31


Table of Contents

The following tables set forth certain information regarding our common stock repurchases during the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
 
                                 
                Total Number
       
                of Shares
    Maximum Number
 
                Purchased as
    of Shares
 
    Total Number
    Average
    Part of Publicly
    that May Yet Be
 
    of Shares
    Price per
    Announced Plans or
    Purchased Under the
 
Period   Purchased     Share     Programs     Plans or Programs(1)  
 
Beginning Balance
    9,967,490     $ 22.00       9,967,490       15,032,510  
October 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010
                      15,032,510  
November 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010
                      15,032,510  
December 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010
                      15,032,510  
                                 
Balance as of December 31, 2010
    9,967,490     $ 22.00       9,967,490       15,032,510  
                                 
 
 
(1) This number reflects the amount of shares that were available for purchase under our 10,000,000 share repurchase program authorized in February 2006 and our 15,000,000 share repurchase program authorized in January 2008.


32


Table of Contents

Comparison of One-, Three- and Five- year Cumulative Total Returns
 
The following graphs compare the one-, three- and five-year cumulative total returns for UDR common stock with the comparable cumulative return of the NAREIT Equity REIT Index, Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index, the NAREIT Equity Apartment Index and the MSCI US REIT Index. Each graph assumes that $100 was invested on December 31 (of the initial year shown in the graph), in each of our common stock and the indices presented. Historical stock price performance is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance. The comparisons assume that all dividends are reinvested.
 
     
One-year
  Three-year
 
                    Total Return Performance             Total Return Performance                    
 
(PERFORMANCE GRAPH)
 
One-year
 
                                                                                                                                   
      Period Ending  
  Index     12/31/09       01/31/10       02/28/10       03/31/10       04/30/10       05/31/10       06/30/10       07/31/10       08/31/10       09/30/10       10/31/10       11/30/10       12/31/10  
UDR, Inc. 
      100.00         95.72         103.35         108.52         126.17         126.29         118.84         132.34         129.02         132.40         142.12         140.98         148.70  
 
NAREIT Equity Appartment Index
      100.00         94.54         102.45         109.67         127.34         123.91         116.29         128.84         128.52         132.83         138.00         141.04         147.04  
 
US MSCI REITS
      100.00         94.66         99.98         110.09         117.87         111.51         105.70         115.97         114.57         119.63         125.33         122.80         128.48  
 
S&P 500
      100.00         96.40         99.39         105.39         107.05         98.50         93.35         99.89         95.38         103.89         107.84         107.86         115.06  
 
NAREIT Equity REIT Index
      100.00         94.79         99.85         110.02         117.66         111.13         105.56         115.61         114.00         119.10         124.70         122.25         127.96  
 
 
Three-year
 
                                                                       
      Period Ending  
  Index     12/31/07       06/30/08       12/31/08       06/30/09       12/31/09       06/30/10       12/31/10  
UDR, Inc. 
      100.00         116.24         75.89         58.98         96.78         115.01         143.90  
 
NAREIT Equity Appartment Index
      100.00         104.35         74.87         64.56         97.63         113.54         143.56  
 
US MSCI REITS
      100.00         96.55         62.03         54.32         79.78         84.33         102.50  
 
S&P 500
      100.00         88.09         63.00         65.00         79.68         74.37         91.68  
 
NAREIT Equity REIT Index
      100.00         96.41         62.27         54.67         79.70         84.13         101.99  
 


33


Table of Contents

Five-year Total Return Performance
 
(PERFORMANCE GRAPH)
 
Five-year
 
                                                             
      Period Ending  
 Index     12/31/05       12/31/06       12/31/07       12/31/08       12/31/09       12/31/10  
UDR, Inc. 
      100.00         141.79         92.70         70.35         89.71         133.40  
 
NAREIT Equity Appartment Index
      100.00         139.95         104.36         78.14         101.89         149.82  
 
US MSCI REITS
      100.00         135.92         113.06         70.13         90.20         115.89  
 
S&P 500
      100.00         115.79         122.16         76.96         97.33         111.99  
 
NAREIT Equity REIT Index
      100.00         135.06         113.87         70.91         90.76         116.13  
 
 
The performance graph, and the related chart and text, are being furnished solely to accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of ours, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.


34


Table of Contents

Item 6.   SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
 
The following tables set forth selected consolidated financial and other information of UDR, Inc. and of the Operating Partnership as of and for each of the years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2010. The table should be read in conjunction with each of UDR, Inc.’s and the Operating Partnership’s respective consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, and Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, included elsewhere in this Report.
 
                                         
    UDR, Inc.
    Years Ended December 31,
    (In thousands, except per share data and
    apartment homes owned)
    2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
 
OPERATING DATA:
                                       
Rental income(a)
  $   632,249     $   600,702     $   561,073     $   499,538     $   465,389  
(Loss)/income from continuing operations(a)
    (111,313 )     (94,812 )     (63,202 )     44,051       (78,480 )
Income from discontinued operations(a)
    4,725       3,189       807,069       182,679       210,825  
Consolidated net (loss)/income
    (106,588 )     (91,623 )     743,867       226,730       132,345  
Distributions to preferred stockholders
    9,488       10,912       12,138       13,910       15,370  
Net (loss)/income attributable to common
                                       
stockholders
    (112,362 )     (95,858 )     688,708       198,958       109,738  
Common distributions declared
    126,085       127,066       308,313       177,540       168,408  
Special Dividend declared
                177,074              
Earnings per share — basic and diluted:
                                       
(Loss)/income from continuing operations attributable to stockholders
  $ (0.71 )   $ (0.66 )   $ (0.91 )   $ 0.12     $ (0.76 )
Income from discontinued operations(a)
    0.03       0.02       6.20       1.36       1.58  
Net (loss)/income attributable to common stockholders
    (0.68 )     (0.64 )     5.29       1.48       0.82  
Weighted average number of Common Share outstanding — basic and diluted
    165,857       149,090       130,219       134,016       133,732  
Weighted average number of Common Share outstanding, OP Units and Common Stock equivalents outstanding — diluted(b)
    176,900       159,561       142,904       147,199       147,981  
Common distributions declared
  $ 0.73     $ 0.85     $ 2.29     $ 1.22     $ 1.25  
Balance Sheet Data:
                                       
Real estate owned, at cost
  $ 6,881,347     $ 6,315,047     $ 5,831,753     $ 5,956,481     $ 5,820,122  
Accumulated depreciation
    1,638,326       1,351,293       1,078,689       1,371,759       1,253,727  
Total real estate owned, net of accumulated depreciation
    5,243,021       4,963,754       4,753,064       4,584,722       4,566,395  
Total assets
    5,529,540       5,132,617       5,143,805       4,800,454       4,675,875  
Secured debt
    1,963,670       1,989,434       1,462,471       1,137,936       1,182,919  
Unsecured debt
    1,603,834       1,437,155       1,798,662       2,341,895       2,155,866  
Total debt
    3,567,504       3,426,589       3,261,133       3,479,831       3,338,785  
Stockholders’ equity
    1,606,343       1,395,441       1,415,989       941,205       942,467  
Number of common shares outstanding
    182,496       155,465       137,423       133,318       135,029  
Other Data:
                                       
Total apartments owned (at end of period)
    48,553       45,913       44,388       65,867       70,339  
Weighted average number of apartment homes owned during the year
    47,571       45,113       46,149       69,662       73,731  
Cash Flow Data
                                       
Cash provided by operating activities
  $ 214,180     $ 229,383     $ 179,754     $ 269,281     $ 237,881  
Cash (used in)/provided by investing activities
    (583,754 )     (158,045 )     302,304       (90,100 )     (158,241 )
Cash provided by/(used in) financing activities
    373,075       (78,093 )     (472,537 )     (178,105 )     (93,040 )
Funds from Operations(b)
                                       
Funds from operations — basic
  $ 189,045     $ 180,858     $ 204,213     $ 238,722     $ 240,851  
Funds from operations — diluted
    192,771       184,582       207,937       242,446       244,577  


35


Table of Contents

(a) Reclassified to conform to current year presentation in accordance with Topic 360, Property, Plant and Equipment (formerly FASB Statement No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”) as described in Note 4, Discontinued Operations, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Report.
 
(b) Funds from operations, or FFO, is defined as net income (computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of depreciable property, premiums or original issuance costs associated with preferred stock redemptions, plus depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. This definition conforms with the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust’s definition issued in April 2002. We consider FFO in evaluating property acquisitions and our operating performance and believe that FFO should be considered along with, but not as an alternative to, net income and cash flows as a measure of our activities in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is not necessarily indicative of cash available to fund cash needs.
 
RE3 is our subsidiary that focuses on development, land entitlement and short-term hold investments. RE3 tax benefits and gain on sales, net of taxes, is defined as net sales proceeds less a tax provision and the gross investment basis of the asset before accumulated depreciation. We consider FFO with RE3 tax benefits and gain on sales, net of taxes, to be a meaningful supplemental measure of performance because the short-term use of funds produces a profit that differs from the traditional long-term investment in real estate for REITs.
 
For 2010, FFO includes a loss of $1.2 million due to debt extinguishment of unsecured debt, partially offset by $6.8 million of severance and restructuring expenses and $567,000 of storm related expenses.
 
For 2009, FFO includes a gain of $9.8 million due to the extinguishment of unsecured debt, partially offset by charges of $1.0 million prepayment penalty on debt restructure, $1.6 million on the write-off of a fair market adjustment for debt paid on a consolidated joint venture, $3.8 million of expenses related to a tender offer, and $127,000 of storm related expenses.
 
For 2008, FFO includes a gain of $26.3 million due to the extinguishment of unsecured debt and $1.6 million of net hurricane related recoveries, partially offset by charges of $1.7 million incurred for exiting the condominium business, $1.7 million for cancelling a pre-sale contract, $4.7 million related to penalties and the write off of the associated deferred financing costs for debt refinancing and $0.7 million for severance.
 
See “Funds from Operations” below for a reconciliation of FFO and Net (loss)/income attributable to UDR, Inc.
 


36


Table of Contents

                                         
    United Dominion Realty, L.P.
    Years Ended December 31,
    (In thousands, except per OP unit data and
    apartment homes owned)
    2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
 
OPERATING DATA:
                                       
Rental income(a)
  $   350,394     $   353,056     $   336,674     $   297,094     $   280,648  
(Loss)/income from continuing operations(a)
    (20,846 )     (5,520 )     9,636       116,370       15,522  
Income from discontinued operations
    152       1,475       489,272       78,060       153,745  
Consolidated net (loss)/income
    (20,694 )     (4,045 )     498,908       194,430       169,267  
Net (loss)/income attributable to OP unitholders
    (20,735 )     (4,176 )     497,720       193,688       168,772  
Earnings per OP unit — basic and diluted:
                                       
(Loss)/income from continuing operations(a)
  $ (0.12 )   $ (0.03 )   $ 0.06     $ 0.70     $ 0.10  
Income from discontinued operations
    0.00       0.01       2.94       0.47       0.92  
Net (loss)/income attributable to OP unitholders
    (0.12 )     (0.02 )     3.00       1.17       1.02  
Weighted average number of OP units outstanding — basic and diluted
    179,909       178,817       166,163       166,174       166,252  
Balance Sheet Data:
                                       
Real estate owned, at cost
  $ 3,706,184     $ 3,640,888     $ 3,569,239     $ 2,685,249     $ 2,584,495  
Accumulated depreciation
    884,083       717,892       552,369       403,092       348,352  
Total real estate owned, net of accumulated depreciation
    2,822,101       2,922,996       3,016,870       2,282,157       2,236,143  
Total assets
    2,861,395       2,961,067       3,254,851       2,909,707       2,961,297  
Secured debt(a)
    1,070,061       1,122,198       851,901       594,845       697,096  
Total liabilities
    1,299,772       1,339,319       1,272,101       920,698       951,735  
Total partners’ capital
    2,042,241       2,197,753       2,345,825       2,232,404       2,257,406  
Receivable due from General Partner
    492,709       588,185       375,124       254,256       257,963  
Number of OP units outstanding
    179,909       179,909       166,163       166,163       166,186  
Other Data:
                                       
Total apartments owned (at end of period)
    23,351       23,351       23,351       36,965       40,653  
Cash Flow Data
                                       
Cash provided by operating activities
  $ 146,604     $ 157,333     $ 168,660     $ 212,727     $ 203,195  
Cash (used in)/provided by investing activities
    (59,458 )     129,628       81,993       75,069       217,992  
Cash used in financing activities
    (86,668 )     (290,109 )     (247,150 )     (287,847 )     (422,117 )
 
(a) Excludes amounts classified as Discontinued Operations, where applicable.
 
Item 7.   MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
 
Forward-Looking Statements
 
This Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements concerning property acquisitions and dispositions, development activity and capital expenditures, capital raising activities, rent growth, occupancy, and rental expense growth. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the results of operations or plans expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among other things, unanticipated adverse business developments affecting us, or our properties, adverse changes in the real estate markets and general and local economies and business conditions.

37


Table of Contents

The following factors, among others, could cause our future results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:
 
  •  general economic conditions;
 
  •  unfavorable changes in apartment market and economic conditions that could adversely affect occupancy levels and rental rates;
 
  •  the failure of acquisitions to achieve anticipated results;
 
  •  possible difficulty in selling apartment communities;
 
  •  competitive factors that may limit our ability to lease apartment homes or increase or maintain rents;
 
  •  insufficient cash flow that could affect our debt financing and create refinancing risk;
 
  •  failure to generate sufficient revenue, which could impair our debt service payments and distributions to stockholders;
 
  •  development and construction risks that may impact our profitability;
 
  •  potential damage from natural disasters, including hurricanes and other weather-related events, which could result in substantial costs to us;
 
  •  risks from extraordinary losses for which we may not have insurance or adequate reserves;
 
  •  uninsured losses due to insurance deductibles, self-insurance retention, uninsured claims or casualties, or losses in excess of applicable coverage;
 
  •  delays in completing developments and lease-ups on schedule;
 
  •  our failure to succeed in new markets;
 
  •  changing interest rates, which could increase interest costs and affect the market price of our securities;
 
  •  potential liability for environmental contamination, which could result in substantial costs to us;
 
  •  the imposition of federal taxes if we fail to qualify as a REIT under the Code in any taxable year;
 
  •  our internal control over financial reporting may not be considered effective which could result in a loss of investor confidence in our financial reports, and in turn have an adverse effect on our stock price; and
 
  •  changes in real estate laws, tax laws and other laws affecting our business.
 
A discussion of these and other factors affecting our business and prospects is set forth in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors. We encourage investors to review these risk factors.
 
Although we believe that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained herein are reasonable, any of the assumptions could be inaccurate, and therefore such statements included in this Report may not prove to be accurate. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking statements included herein, the inclusion of such information should not be regarded as a representation by us or any other person that the results or conditions described in such statements or our objectives and plans will be achieved.
 
Forward-looking statements and such risks, uncertainties and other factors speak only as of the date of this report, and we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to update or revise any forward-looking statement contained herein, to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto, or any other change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based, except to the extent otherwise required by law.
 
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere herein and is based primarily on the consolidated financial statements and the


38


Table of Contents

accompanying notes for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 of each of UDR, Inc. and United Domination Realty, L.P.
 
UDR, Inc.:
 
Business Overview
 
We are a self administered real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns, acquires, renovates, develops, redevelops, and manages apartment communities in select markets throughout the United States. We were formed in 1972 as a Virginia corporation. In June 2003, we changed our state of incorporation from Virginia to Maryland. Our subsidiaries include two operating partnerships, Heritage Communities L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and United Dominion Realty, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.
 
At December 31, 2010, our consolidated real estate portfolio included 172 communities located in 23 markets with a total of 48,553 completed apartment homes and our total real estate portfolio, inclusive of our unconsolidated communities, included an additional 37 communities with 9,891 completed apartment homes.


39


Table of Contents

The following table summarizes our market information by major geographic markets as of December 31, 2010.
 
                                                         
    As of December 31, 2010     Year Ended December 31, 2010  
                Percentage
    Total
                   
    Number of
    Number of
    of Total
    Carrying
    Average
    Total Income
    Net Operating
 
    Apartment
    Apartment
    Carrying
    Value
    Physical
    per Occupied
    Income(a)
 
    Communities     Homes     Value     (In thousands)     Occupancy     Home     (In thousands)  
 
SAME COMMUNITIES
                                                       
WESTERN REGION
                                                       
Orange County, CA
    13       4,214       11.4 %   $ 785,358       95.4 %   $   1,483     $   50,006  
San Francisco, CA
    9       1,727       5.9 %     404,890       96.9 %     1,910       26,840  
Monterey Peninsula, CA
    7       1,565       2.2 %     152,645       94.1 %     1,066       12,820  
Los Angeles, CA
    7       1,380       4.2 %     289,501       95.9 %     1,535       16,066  
San Diego, CA
    5       1,123       2.5 %     174,659       95.3 %     1,332       11,735  
Seattle, WA
    9       1,725       4.4 %     304,462       96.4 %     1,173       15,841  
Inland Empire, CA
    3       1,074       2.2 %     150,275       94.9 %     1,220       9,909  
Sacramento, CA
    2       914       1.0 %     68,061       93.5 %     867       5,857  
Portland, OR
    3       716       1.0 %     69,543       95.9 %     946       5,211  
MID-ATLANTIC REGION
                                                       
Metropolitan DC
    11       3,765       9.8 %     672,228       97.0 %     1,538       45,066  
Richmond, VA
    6       2,211       2.7 %     187,044       95.9 %     1,012       18,182  
Baltimore, MD
    10       2,121       3.7 %     252,236       96.7 %     1,269       21,895  
Norfolk VA
    6       1,438       1.2 %     84,400       95.5 %     958       10,565  
Other Mid-Atlantic
    5       1,132       1.1 %     78,761       96.2 %     1,017       9,201  
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
                                                       
Tampa, FL
    10       3,278       3.7 %     254,713       95.4 %     919       21,275  
Orlando, FL
    10       2,796       3.2 %     220,743       95.2 %     896       18,562  
Nashville, TN
    8       2,260       2.6 %     180,413       96.5 %     847       14,170  
Jacksonville, FL
    5       1,857       2.3 %     156,540       95.0 %     818       10,654  
Other Florida
    4       1,184       1.6 %     112,072       94.2 %     978       7,936  
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
                                                       
Dallas, TX
    9       2,595       3.9 %     269,684       95.7 %     949       16,101  
Phoenix, AZ
    3       914       1.0 %     71,646       95.3 %     855       5,620  
Austin, TX
    1       390       0.9 %     60,181       95.8 %     1,115       2,684  
Houston, TX
    1       320       0.4 %     22,226       93.1 %     893       1,764  
                                                         
Total/Average Same Communities
    147       40,699       72.9 %     5,022,281       95.7 %   $ 1,155     $ 357,960  
                                                         
Non Matures, Commercial Properties & Other
    25       7,854       26.7 %     1,761,154                          
                                                         
Total Real Estate Held for Investment
    172       48,553       99.6 %     6,783,435                          
                                                         
Real Estate Under Development(b)
                0.4 %     97,912                          
                                                         
Total Real Estate Owned
    172       48,553       100.0 %     6,881,347                          
                                                         
Total Accumulated Depreciation
                            (1,638,326 )                        
                                                         
Total Real Estate Owned, Net of Accumulated Depreciation
                          $ 5,243,021                          
                                                         
 
 
(a) Total Income per Occupied Home represents total revenues divided by the product of occupancy and the number of mature apartment homes.
 
(b) The Company is currently developing four wholly-owned communities with 930 apartment homes, none of which have been completed.
 
We report in two segments: Same Communities and Non-Mature/Other Communities. Our Same Communities segment includes those communities acquired, developed, and stabilized prior to January 1, 2009, and held as of December 31, 2010. These communities were owned and had stabilized occupancy and


40


Table of Contents

operating expenses as of the beginning of the prior year, there is no plan to conduct substantial redevelopment activities, and the community is not held for disposition within the current year. A community is considered to have stabilized occupancy once it achieves 90% occupancy for at least three consecutive months. Our Non-Mature/Other Communities segment includes those communities that were acquired or developed in 2008, 2009 or 2010, sold properties, redevelopment properties, properties classified as real estate held for disposition, condominium conversion properties, joint venture properties, properties managed by third parties, and the non-apartment components of mixed use properties.
 
Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
Liquidity is the ability to meet present and future financial obligations either through operating cash flows, the sale of properties, and the issuance of debt and equity. Both the coordination of asset and liability maturities and effective capital management are important to the maintenance of liquidity. Our primary source of liquidity is our cash flow from operations as determined by rental rates, occupancy levels, and operating expenses related to our portfolio of apartment homes and borrowings under credit agreements. We routinely use our unsecured credit facility to temporarily fund certain investing and financing activities prior to arranging for longer-term financing or the issuance of equity or debt securities. During the past several years, proceeds from the sale of real estate have been used for both investing and financing activities as we repositioned our portfolio.
 
We expect to meet our short-term liquidity requirements generally through cash flow provided by operations and borrowings under credit agreements. We expect to meet certain long-term liquidity requirements such as scheduled debt maturities, the repayment of financing on development activities, and potential property acquisitions, through secured and unsecured borrowings, the issuance of debt or equity securities, and the disposition of properties. We believe that our net cash provided by operations and borrowings under credit agreements will continue to be adequate to meet both operating requirements and the payment of dividends by the Company in accordance with REIT requirements. Likewise, the budgeted expenditures for improvements and renovations of certain properties are expected to be funded from property operations, borrowings under credit agreements, and the issuance of debt or equity securities.
 
We have a shelf registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or “SEC” which provides for the issuance of an indeterminate amount of Common Stock, Preferred Stock, guarantees of debt securities, warrants, subscription rights, purchase contracts and units to facilitate future financing activities in the public capital markets. Access to capital markets is dependent on market conditions at the time of issuance.
 
On September 13, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to sell 16,000,000 shares of its Common Stock at a price of $20.35 per share in an underwritten public offering. The Company granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,400,000 shares of Common Stock to cover overallotments. We sold 18,400,000 shares of Common Stock in this offering, with aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $374.4 million at a price per share of $20.35. Aggregate net proceeds from the offering, after deducting related expenses were approximately $359.2 million.
 
On September 15, 2009, the Company entered into an equity distribution agreement under which the Company may offer and sell up to 15,000,000 shares of its Common Stock over time to or through its sales agents. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we sold 6,144,367 shares of Common Stock through this program for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $110.8 million at a weighted average price per share of $18.04. Aggregate net proceeds from such sales, after deducting related expenses, including commissions paid to the sales agents of approximately $2.2 million, were approximately $108.6 million.
 
On December 7, 2009, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement with respect to the issue and sale by the Company from time to time of its Medium-Term Notes, Series A Due Nine Months or More From Date of Issue. In February 2010, the Company issued $150 million of 5.25% senior unsecured medium-term notes under the Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement. These notes were priced at 99.46% of the principal amount at issuance and had a discount of $519,000 at December 31, 2010.


41


Table of Contents

Future Capital Needs
 
Future development expenditures are expected to be funded with proceeds from construction loans, through joint ventures, unsecured or secured credit facilities, proceeds from the issuance of equity or debt securities, the sale of properties and to a lesser extent, with cash flows provided by operating activities. Acquisition activity in strategic markets is expected to be financed by the reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of properties, through the issuance of equity or debt securities, the issuance of operating partnership units and the assumption or placement of secured and/or unsecured debt.
 
During 2011, we have approximately $63.4 million of secured debt maturing, inclusive of principal amortization and net of extension rights of $188.1 million, and $95.8 million of unsecured debt maturing. We anticipate repaying that debt with proceeds from debt and equity offerings and by exercising extension rights with respect to the secured debt.
 
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
 
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. A critical accounting policy is one that is both important to our financial condition and results of operations as well as involves some degree of uncertainty. Estimates are prepared based on management’s assessment after considering all evidence available. Changes in estimates could affect our financial position or results of operations. Below is a discussion of the accounting policies that we consider critical to understanding our financial condition or results of operations where there is uncertainty or where significant judgment is required.
 
Capital Expenditures
 
In conformity with GAAP, we capitalize those expenditures that materially enhance the value of an existing asset or substantially extend the useful life of an existing asset. Expenditures necessary to maintain an existing property in ordinary operating condition are expensed as incurred.
 
During 2010, $47.1 million or $1,047 per apartment home was spent on recurring capital expenditures. These include revenue enhancing capital expenditures, exterior/interior upgrades, turnover related expenditures for floor coverings and appliances, other recurring capital expenditures such as exterior paint, roofs, siding, parking lots, and asset preservation capital expenditures. In addition, major renovations totaled $30.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. Total capital expenditures, which in aggregate include recurring capital expenditures and major renovations, of $77.9 million or $1,732 per home was spent on all of our communities, excluding development and commercial properties, for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
The following table outlines capital expenditures and repair and maintenance costs for all of our communities, excluding real estate under development, condominium conversions and commercial properties, for the periods presented:
 
                                                 
    Year Ended December 31,
 
    (dollars in thousands, except for per apartment homes)  
                      Per Apartment Home  
    2010     2009     % Change     2010     2009     % Change  
 
Revenue enhancing improvements
  $  15,043     $  23,626       −36.3 %   $  334     $   543       −38.5 %
Turnover capital expenditures
    9,528       9,401       1.4 %     212       216       −1.9 %
Asset preservation expenditures
    22,538       19,912       13.2 %     501       458       9.4 %
                                                 
Total recurring capital expenditures
    47,109       52,939       −11.0 %     1,047       1,217       −14.0 %
Major renovations
    30,816       33,466       −7.9 %     685       769       −10.9 %
                                                 
Total capital expenditures
  $ 77,925     $ 86,405       −9.8 %   $  1,732     $ 1,986       −12.8 %
                                                 
Repair and maintenance expense
  $ 33,224     $ 30,450       9.1 %   $ 738     $ 700       5.4 %
                                                 
Average stabilized home count
    44,999       43,505                                  


42


Table of Contents

We will continue to selectively add revenue enhancing improvements which we believe will provide a return on investment substantially in excess of our cost of capital. Recurring capital expenditures during 2011 are currently expected to be approximately $1,050 per apartment home.
 
Investment in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
 
We continually evaluate our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures when events or changes in circumstances indicate that there may be an other-than-temporary decline in value. We consider various factors to determine if a decrease in the value of the investment is other-than-temporary. These factors include, but are not limited to, age of the venture, our intent and ability to retain our investment in the entity, the financial condition and long-term prospects of the entity, and the relationships with the other joint venture partners and its lenders. The amount of loss recognized is the excess of the investment’s carrying amount over its estimated fair value. If we believe that the decline in fair value is temporary, no impairment is recorded. The aforementioned factors are taken as a whole by management in determining the valuation of our investment property. Should the actual results differ from management’s judgment, the valuation could be negatively affected and may result in a negative impact to our Consolidated Financial Statements.
 
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
 
We record impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by the future operation and disposition of those assets are less than the net book value of those assets. Our cash flow estimates are based upon historical results adjusted to reflect our best estimate of future market and operating conditions and our estimated holding periods. The net book value of impaired assets is reduced to fair market value. Our estimates of fair market value represent our best estimate based upon industry trends and reference to market rates and transactions.
 
Real Estate Investment Properties
 
We purchase real estate investment properties from time to time and allocate the purchase price to various components, such as land, buildings, and intangibles related to in-place leases. The purchase price is allocated based on the fair value of each component. The fair value of buildings is determined as if the buildings were vacant upon acquisition and subsequently leased at market rental rates. As such, the determination of fair value considers the present value of all cash flows expected to be generated from the property including an initial lease-up period. We determine the fair value of in-place leases by assessing the net effective rent and remaining term of the lease relative to market terms for similar leases at acquisition. In addition, we consider the cost of acquiring similar leases, the foregone rents associated with the lease-up period, and the carrying costs associated with the lease-up period. The fair value of in-place leases is recorded and amortized as amortization expense over the remaining contractual lease period.
 
REIT Status
 
We are a Maryland corporation that has elected to be treated for federal income tax purposes as a REIT. A REIT is a legal entity that holds interests in real estate and is required by the Code to meet a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that a REIT must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (other than our net capital gain) to our stockholders. If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will be subject to federal and state income taxes at the regular corporate rates and may not be able to qualify as a REIT for four years. Based on the net earnings reported for the year ended December 31, 2010 in our Consolidated Statements of Operations we would have incurred immaterial federal and state GAAP income taxes if we had failed to qualify as a REIT.


43


Table of Contents

Statements of Cash Flow
 
The following discussion explains the changes in net cash provided by operating activities and net cash provided by/(used in) investing and net cash (used in)/provided by financing activities that are presented in our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
 
Operating Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, our net cash flow provided by operating activities was $214.2 million compared to $229.4 million for 2009. The decrease in cash flow from operating activities is primarily due to changes in operating assets, which include an increase in lease tangibles related to the acquisition of five operating communities in 2010, and operating liabilities, which include accrued restructuring and severance charges. This decrease is partially offset by an increase in property net operating income.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, our net cash flow provided by operating activities was $229.4 million compared to $179.8 million for 2008. The increase in cash flow from operating activities is primarily due to changes in operating liabilities and is partially offset by a reduction in property operating income.
 
Investing Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, net cash used in investing activities was $583.8 million compared to net cash used in investing activities of $158 million for 2009. The change relates to acquisitions of real estate assets and investments in unconsolidated joint ventures, which are discussed in further detail throughout this Report.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, net cash used in investing activities was $158 million compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $302.3 million for 2008. The change is primarily driven by a reduction in the disposition of real estate investments partially offset by a reduction in the acquisition of real estate assets and capital expenditures, all of which are discussed in further detail throughout this Report.
 
Acquisitions
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company acquired five apartment communities located in Orange County, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; and Boston, Massachusetts for a total gross purchase price of $412 million. During the same period, the Company also acquired land located in San Francisco, California for a gross purchase price of $23.6 million.
 
The following table summarizes UDR’s real estate community acquisitions for the year ended December 31, 2010 (dollar amounts in thousands):
 
                         
            Apartment
    Purchase
 
Property Name   Market   Acquisition Date   Homes     Price(a)  
 
1818 Platinum Triangle
  Orange County, CA   August 2010     265     $   70,500  
Domain Brewers Hill
  Baltimore, MD   August 2010     180       46,000  
Garrison Square
  Boston, MA   September 2010     160       98,000  
Marina Pointe
  Los Angeles, CA   September 2010     583       157,500  
Ridge at Blue Hills
  Boston, MA   September 2010     186       40,000  
                         
              1,374     $ 412,000  
                         
 
 
(a) The purchase price is the contractual amount paid by UDR to the third party and does not include any costs that the Company incurred in the pursuit of the property.
 
Our long-term strategic plan is to continue achieving greater operating efficiencies by investing in fewer, more concentrated markets. As a result, we have been seeking to expand our interests in communities located in California, Boston, Metropolitan D.C., Oregon and Washington state markets over the past years. Prospectively, we plan to channel new investments into those markets we believe will provide the best


44


Table of Contents

investment returns. Markets will be targeted based upon defined criteria including favorable job formation, low single-family home affordability and favorable demand/supply ratio for multifamily housing.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, we acquired one community in Dallas, Texas with 289 apartment homes for $28.5 million.
 
Real Estate Under Development
 
At December 31, 2010, our development pipeline for wholly-owned communities totaled 930 apartment homes with a budget of $338.9 million in which we have a carrying value of $97.9 million. We anticipate the completion of these communities from the first quarter of 2012 through the third quarter of 2013.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we invested approximately $92.1 million in development projects, a decrease of $91.0 million from our 2009 level of $183.2 million. In 2010, we completed development on four wholly-owned communities with 1,575 apartment homes that have a carrying value of $259.7 million and one community held by a consolidated joint venture with 274 apartment homes and a carrying value of $122.3 million.
 
Consolidated Joint Ventures
 
UDR is a partner with an unaffiliated third party in a joint venture (“Elements Too”) which owns and operates a 274 home apartment community in the central business district of Bellevue, Washington. Construction began in the fourth quarter of 2006 and was completed in the first quarter of 2010. At closing, we owned 49% of the joint venture. Our initial investment was $10.0 million. On October 16, 2009, our partner resigned as managing member and appointed UDR as managing member. In addition, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture resulting in the consolidation of the joint venture. As a result of UDR’s appointment as managing member, the Company was required to consolidate the joint venture. In March 2010, the Company paid $3.2 million to acquire our partner’s 49% interest in the joint venture. At the closing of the agreement and at December 31, 2010, the Company held a 98% interest in Elements Too.
 
UDR is a partner with an unaffiliated third party in a joint venture (“989 Elements”) which owns and operates a 23-story, 166 home high-rise apartment community in the central business district of Bellevue, Washington. At closing, UDR owned 49% of the joint venture. Our initial investment was $11.8 million. On December 30, 2009, UDR entered into an agreement with our partner to purchase its 49% interest in 989 Elements for $7.7 million. Concurrently, our partner resigned as managing member and appointed UDR as managing member. In addition, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture resulting in the consolidation of the joint venture. In March 2010, the Company paid $7.7 million and acquired our partner’s 49% interest in the joint venture. At the closing of the agreement and December 31, 2010, the Company held a 98% interest in 989 Elements.
 
UDR is a partner with an unaffiliated third party in a joint venture (“Bellevue”) which owns an operating retail site in Bellevue, Washington. The Company initially planned to develop a 430 home high rise apartment building with ground floor retail on an existing operating retail center. However, during the year ended December 31, 2009, the joint venture decided to continue to operate the retail property as opposed to developing a high rise apartment building on the site. On December 30, 2009, UDR entered into an agreement with our partner to purchase its 49% interest in Bellevue for $5.2 million. In addition, our partner resigned as managing member and appointed UDR as managing member. Concurrent with its resignation, our partner relinquished its voting rights and approval rights and its ability to substantively participate in the decision-making process of the joint venture resulting in the consolidation of the joint venture at fair value. In March 2010, the Company paid $5.2 million and acquired our partner’s 49% interest in the joint venture. At the closing of the agreement and at December 31, 2010, the Company held a 98% interest in Bellevue.
 
Prior to their consolidation in 2009, we evaluated our investments in these joint ventures when events or changes in circumstances indicate that there may be an other-than-temporary decline in value. We considered


45


Table of Contents

various factors to determine if a decrease in value of each of these investments is other-than-temporary. In 2009, we recognized a non-cash charge of $16 million representing the other-than-temporary decline in fair values below the carrying values of two of the Company’s Bellevue, Washington joint ventures.
 
For additional information regarding these joint ventures, see Note 5, Joint Ventures, in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Report.
 
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
 
In November 2010, the Company acquired The Hanover Company’s (“Hanover”) partnership interests in the Hanover/MetLife Master Limited Partnership (the “UDR/MetLife Partnership”). The UDR/MetLife Partnership owns a portfolio of 26 operating communities containing 5,748 homes and 11 land parcels with the potential to develop approximately 2,300 additional homes. Under the terms of the UDR/MetLife Partnership, UDR will act as the general partner and earn fees for property and asset management and financing transactions. UDR acquired ownership interests of 12.27% in the operating communities and 4.14% in the land parcels for $100.8 million. The initial investment of $100.8 million consists of $71.8 million in cash, which includes associated transaction costs, and a $30 million payable (includes discount of $1 million) to Hanover. UDR agreed to pay the $30 million balance to Hanover in two interest free installments in the amounts of $20 million and $10 million on the first and second anniversaries of the closing, respectively. At December 31, 2010, the Company’s investment in the Partnership was $122.2 million.
 
In October 2010, the Company entered into a venture with an affiliate of Hanover to develop a 240 apartment home community in the metropolitan Boston, Massachusetts area. At the closing and at December 31, 2010, UDR owned a noncontrolling interest of 95% in the joint venture. Our initial investment was $10 million and our investment at December 31, 2010 was $10.3 million.
 
During 2009, UDR and an unaffiliated third party formed a joint venture for the investment of up to $450 million in multifamily properties located in key, high barrier to entry markets. The partners will contribute equity of $180 million of which the Company’s maximum equity will be 30% or $54.0 million when fully invested. During 2010, the joint venture acquired its first property (151 homes) located in Metropolitan Washington D.C. for $43.1 million. At closing and at December 31, 2010, the Company owned 30%. Our investment at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $5.2 million and $242,000, respectively.
 
In November 2007, UDR and an unaffiliated third party formed a joint venture which owns and operates various properties located in Texas. UDR contributed cash and property equal to 20% of the fair value of the properties. The unaffiliated member contributed cash equal to 80% of the fair value of the properties comprising the joint venture, which was then used to purchase the nine operating properties from UDR. Our initial investment was $20.4 million. Our investment at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $10.3 million and $13.9 million, respectively.
 
Disposition of Investments
 
In 2010, UDR sold one 149 apartment home community. UDR recognized an after-tax gain for financial reporting purposes of $4 million on this sale that is included in discontinued operations. Proceeds from the sale were used primarily to reduce debt.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we did not dispose of any communities.
 
We plan to continue to pursue our strategy of exiting markets where long-term growth prospects are limited and redeploying capital into markets we believe will provide the best investment returns.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2008, UDR sold 86 communities with a total of 25,684 apartment homes, for gross consideration of $1.7 billion, 53 condominiums from two communities with a total of 640 condominiums for gross consideration of $6.9 million, one parcel of land for gross proceeds of $1.6 million and one commercial property for gross proceeds of $6.5 million. We received $1.5 billion in cash and a note in the principal amount of $200 million. We recognized after-tax gains for financial reporting purposes of $786.4 million on these sales. Proceeds from the sales were used primarily to acquire new communities and


46


Table of Contents

reduce debt. During 2008, we decided to discontinue sales of units with the two communities identified for condominium conversion until such time that the market conditions turn favorable and it is economically beneficial to sell those units versus operate the residual 525 apartment homes of those communities. As a result of our decision to revert the remaining units to operations the Company recorded a charge to earnings of $1.7 million, excluding the catch up for depreciation on the units when they were returned to operations.
 
As a result of our disposition activities in 2008, the Company declared a Special Dividend payable to holders of our common stock for $0.96 per share included with our recurring distribution for the Company’s fourth quarter of 2008 for a total of $1.29 per share payable on January 29, 2009 to stockholders of record on December 9, 2008. Additional information regarding the Special Dividend is set forth in Item 1. Business in Part 1 of this Report.
 
In conjunction with the transaction in which we sold 86 communities for $1.7 billion, we received a note in the amount of $200.0 million. The note was paid in full in 2009.
 
Financing Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, our net cash provided by/(used in) financing activities was $373.1 million compared to ($78.1 million) for the comparable period of 2009.
 
The following significant financing activity occurred during the year ended December 31, 2010:
 
  •  repaid $187.3 million of secured debt and $50.0 million of maturing medium-term unsecured notes. The $187.3 million of secured debt includes $70.5 million for a maturing construction loan held by one of our consolidated joint ventures, repayment of $52.7 million of credit facilities and $64.1 million of mortgage payments;
 
  •  repurchased unsecured debt with a notional amount of $29.2 million for $29.4 million resulting in a loss on extinguishment of $1 million, which includes the write off of related deferred finance charges. The unsecured debt repurchased by the Company matures in 2011. As a result of this repurchase, the loss is represented as an addition to interest expense on the Consolidated Statement of Operations;
 
  •  net repayments of $157.6 million were applied toward our $600 million revolving credit facility;
 
  •  received proceeds of $70.2 million from secured debt financings. The $70.2 million includes $37.8 million in variable rate mortgages, $21.1 million in fixed rate mortgages, and $11.3 million in credit facilities;
 
  •  closed on a $250 million, five-year unsecured term loan facility of which $100 million was swapped into a fixed rate of 3.76% and $150 million has rate of LIBOR plus 200 basis points;
 
  •  in February 2010, we issued $150 million of 5.25% senior unsecured medium-term notes under our Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement with respect to the issue and sale by us from time to time of our Medium-Term Notes, Series A Due Nine Months or More From Date of Issue. These notes were priced at 99.46% of the principal amount at issuance and had a discount of $519,000 at December 31, 2010;
 
  •  we sold 6,144,367 shares of Common Stock for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $110.8 million at a weighted average price per share of $18.04 through our “At the Market” equity distribution program, which we initiated in 2009, pursuant to which we may sell up to 15,000,000 shares of common stock from time to time to or through sales agents, by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange at prevailing market prices at the time of sale, or as otherwise agreed with the applicable agent. Aggregate net proceeds from such sales, after deducting related expenses, including commissions paid to the sales agents of approximately $2.2 million, were approximately $108.6 million;
 
  •  initiated an underwritten public offering to sell 16,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $20.35 per share. We granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,400,000 shares of common stock to cover overallotments, if any. We sold 18,400,000 shares of common stock in this offering for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $374.4 million at a price


47


Table of Contents

  of $20.35 per share. Aggregate net proceeds from the offering, after deducting related expenses were approximately $359.2 million; and
 
  •  repurchased 27,400 shares of our 6.75% Series G Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock for $637,000, less than their liquidation value of $685,000.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, our net cash used in financing activities was $78.1 million compared to $472.5 million for the comparable period of 2008. The decrease in financing activities was due to a net issuance of debt in 2009 versus net payments in 2008 and the repurchase of shares of our Common Stock in 2008. These cash outflows were offset by the issuance of common equity through a public offering.
 
Credit Facilities
 
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we have secured revolving credit facilities with Fannie Mae with an aggregate commitment of $1.4 billion with $1.2 billion outstanding. The Fannie Mae credit facilities are for an initial term of 10 years, bear interest at floating and fixed rates, and certain variable rate facilities can be extended for an additional five years at our option. We have $897.3 million of the funded balance fixed at a weighted average interest rate of 5.3% and the remaining balance on these facilities is currently at a weighted average variable rate of 1.7% as of December 31, 2010. We had $950.0 million of the funded balance fixed at a weighted average interest rate of 5.4% and the remaining balance on these facilities was at a weighted average variable rate of 1.7% as of December 31, 2009.
 
We have a $600 million unsecured revolving credit facility that matures on July 26, 2012. Under certain circumstances, we may increase the $600 million credit facility to $750 million. Based on our current credit rating, the $600 million credit facility carries an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 47.5 basis points. In addition, the unsecured credit facility contains a provision that allows us to bid up to 50% of the commitment and we can bid out the entire unsecured credit facility once per quarter so long as we maintain an investment grade rating. As of December 31, 2010, we had $31.8 million of borrowings outstanding under the credit facility leaving $568.2 million of unused capacity (excluding $4.8 million of letters of credit at December 31, 2010). As of December 31, 2009, we had $189.3 million of borrowings outstanding under the credit facility.
 
The Fannie Mae credit facilities and the bank revolving credit facility are subject to customary financial covenants and limitations. As of December 31, 2010, we were in compliance with all financial covenants under these credit facilities.
 
Interest Rate Risk
 
We are exposed to interest rate risk associated with variable rate notes payable and maturing debt that has to be refinanced. We do not hold financial instruments for trading or other speculative purposes, but rather issue these financial instruments to finance our portfolio of real estate assets. Interest rate sensitivity is the relationship between changes in market interest rates and the fair value of market rate sensitive assets and liabilities. Our earnings are affected as changes in short-term interest rates impact our cost of variable rate debt and maturing fixed rate debt. We had $1 billion in variable rate debt that is not subject to interest rate swap contracts as of December 31, 2010. If market interest rates for variable rate debt increased by 100 basis points, our interest expense would increase by $9.3 million based on the average balance outstanding during the year.
 
These amounts are determined by considering the impact of hypothetical interest rates on our borrowing cost. These analyses do not consider the effects of the adjusted level of overall economic activity that could exist in such an environment. Further, in the event of a change of such magnitude, management would likely take actions to further mitigate our exposure to the change. However, due to the uncertainty of the specific actions that would be taken and their possible effects, the sensitivity analysis assumes no change in our financial structure.


48


Table of Contents

Funds from Operations
 
Funds from operations, or FFO, is defined as net income (computed in accordance with GAAP), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of depreciable property, plus real estate depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. We compute FFO for all periods presented in accordance with the recommendations set forth by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust’s (“NAREIT”) April 1, 2002 White Paper. We consider FFO in evaluating property acquisitions and our operating performance, and believe that FFO should be considered along with, but not as an alternative to, net income and cash flow as a measure of our activities in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is not necessarily indicative of cash available to fund cash needs.
 
Historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time. Since real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many industry investors and analysts have considered the presentation of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient by themselves. Thus, NAREIT created FFO as a supplemental measure of REIT operating performance and defines FFO as net income (computed in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of depreciable property, premiums or original issuance costs associated with preferred stock redemptions, plus depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. The use of FFO, combined with the required presentations, has been fundamentally beneficial, improving the understanding of operating results of REITs among the investing public and making comparisons of REIT operating results more meaningful. We generally consider FFO to be a useful measure for reviewing our comparative operating and financial performance (although FFO should be reviewed in conjunction with net income which remains the primary measure of performance) because by excluding gains or losses related to sales of previously depreciated operating real estate assets and excluding real estate asset depreciation and amortization, FFO can help one compare the operating performance of a Company’s real estate between periods or as compared to different companies. We believe that FFO is the best measure of economic profitability for real estate investment trusts.


49


Table of Contents

The following table outlines our FFO calculation and reconciliation to GAAP for the three years ended December 31, 2010 (dollars in thousands):
 
                         
    For the Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     2008  
 
Net (loss)/income attributable to UDR, Inc. 
  $ (102,899 )   $ (87,532 )   $ 697,790  
Adjustments:
                       
Distributions to preferred stockholders
    (9,488 )     (10,912 )     (12,138 )
Real estate depreciation and amortization, including discontinued operations
    303,446       278,391       251,984  
Net loss attributable to redeemable non-controlling interests in OP
    (3,835 )     (4,282 )     45,875  
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
    146       191       202  
Real estate depreciation and amortization on unconsolidated joint ventures
    5,698       4,759       4,502  
Net gains on the sale of depreciable property in discontinued operations, excluding RE3
    (4,048 )     (2,343 )     (787,058 )
Discount on preferred stock repurchases, net
    25       2,586       3,056  
                         
Funds from operations — basic
  $ 189,045     $ 180,858     $ 204,213  
                         
Distributions to preferred stockholders — Series E (Convertible)
    3,726       3,724       3,724  
                         
Funds from operations — diluted
  $ 192,771     $ 184,582     $ 207,937  
                         
Weighted average number of common shares and OP Units outstanding — basic
    171,569       155,796       138,971  
Weighted average number of common shares and OP Units outstanding — diluted
    176,900       159,561       142,904  
 
In the computation of diluted FFO, OP Units, unvested restricted stock, stock options, and the shares of Series E Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock are dilutive; therefore, they are included in the diluted share count. The effect of the conversion of the Series E Out-Performance Partnership Shares (the Series E Out-Performance Program terminated on December 31, 2009) are anti-dilutive for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and are excluded from the diluted share count.
 
RE3 is our subsidiary that focuses on development, land entitlement and short-term hold investments. RE3 tax benefits and gain on sales, net of taxes, is defined as net sales proceeds less a tax provision and the gross investment basis of the asset before accumulated depreciation. We consider FFO with RE3 tax benefits and gain on sales, net of taxes, to be a meaningful supplemental measure of performance because the short-term use of funds produces a profit that differs from the traditional long-term investment in real estate for REITs.


50


Table of Contents

The following table is our reconciliation of FFO share information to weighted average common shares outstanding, basic and diluted, reflected on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three years ended December 31, 2010 (shares in thousands):
 
                         
    For the Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     2008  
 
Weighted average number of Common Shares and OP Units
                       
outstanding basic
    171,569       155,796       138,971  
Weighted average number of OP Units outstanding
    (5,712 )     (6,706 )     (8,752 )
                         
Weighted average number of Common Shares outstanding - basic per the Consolidated Statement of Operations
    165,857       149,090       130,219  
                         
Weighted average number of Common Shares, OP Units, and common stock equivalents outstanding — diluted
    176,900       159,561       142,904  
Weighted average number of OP Units outstanding
    (5,712 )     (6,706 )     (8,752 )
Weighted average incremental shares from assumed conversion of stock options
    (1,637 )     (567 )     (412 )
Weighted average incremental shares from unvested restricted stock
    (658 )     (162 )     (717 )
Weighted average number of Series E preferred shares outstanding
    (3,036 )     (3,036 )     (2,804 )
                         
Weighted average number of Common Shares outstanding — diluted per the Consolidated Statements of Operations
    165,857       149,090       130,219  
                         
 
FFO also does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP, and therefore should not be considered an alternative to net cash flows from operating activities, as determined by generally accepted accounting principles, as a measure of liquidity. Additionally, it is not necessarily indicative of cash availability to fund cash needs. A presentation of cash flow metrics based on GAAP is as follows (dollars in thousands):
 
                         
    For the Year Ended December 31,
    2010   2009   2008
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
  $ 214,180     $ 229,383     $ 179,754  
Net cash (used in)/provided by investing activities
    (583,754 )     (158,045 )     302,304  
Net cash provided by/(used in) financing activities
    373,075       (78,093 )     (472,537 )
 
Results of Operations
 
The following discussion includes the results of both continuing and discontinued operations for the periods presented.
 
Net (Loss)/ Income Attributable to Common Stockholders
 
2010 -vs-2009
 
Net loss attributable to common stockholders was $112.4 million ($0.68 per diluted share) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to net loss attributable to common stockholders of $95.9 million ($0.64 per diluted share) for the comparable period in the prior year. The increase in net loss attributable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2010 resulted primarily from the following items, all of which are discussed in further detail elsewhere within this Report:
 
  •  an increase in depreciation expense primarily due to the Company’s acquisition of five apartment communities in the third quarter of 2010, consolidation of certain joint venture assets in the fourth quarter of 2009, and the completion of redevelopment and development communities in 2009 and 2010;
 
  •  an increase in interest expense primarily due to debt extinguishment gain from the repurchase of unsecured debt securities in 2009; and


51


Table of Contents

 
  •  an increase in severance costs and restructuring charges in the fourth quarter of 2010 due to the consolidation of corporate operations and the centralization of job functions from its Richmond, Virginia office to its Highlands Ranch, Colorado headquarters, in addition to severance costs related to the retirement of an executive officer of the Company.
 
The increase to our net loss attributable to common stockholders was partially offset by:
 
  •  an increase in our net operating income (“NOI”); and
 
  •  a decrease in our loss from unconsolidated entities primarily due to the recognition of a $16 million non-cash charge representing an other-than-temporary decline in the fair value of equity investments in two of our unconsolidated joint ventures during the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
2009 -vs-2008
 
Net loss attributable to common stockholders was ($95.9 million) ($0.64 per diluted share) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to net income attributable to common stockholders of $688.7 million ($5.29 per diluted share) for the comparable period in the prior year. The decrease in net income available to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2009 resulted primarily from the following items, all of which are discussed in further detail elsewhere within this Report:
 
  •  a reduction in disposition gains in 2009 as compared to 2008. The Company recognized net gains of $3.2 million and $807.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively;
 
  •  an increase in our loss from unconsolidated entities, primarily due to the recognition of a $16 million non-cash charge representing an other-than-temporary decline in the fair value of equity investments in two of our unconsolidated joint ventures during the year ended December 31, 2009;
 
  •  the recognition of an income tax benefit from the Company’s Taxable REIT Subsidiaries, or “TRS” during 2008;
 
  •  an increase in depreciation expense primarily due to the Company’s acquisition of operating properties and the completion of redevelopment and development communities in 2008 and 2009;
 
  •  a decrease in other income primarily due to a reduction in fees earned for both recurring and non-recurring items related to the Company’s joint ventures and a decrease in interest income;
 
  •  change in net income/(loss) attributable to redeemable non-controlling interest of $50.2 million.
 
The decreases to our net income available to common stockholders were partially offset by a decrease in general and administrative expense of $7.4 million when compared to 2008.
 
Apartment Community Operations
 
Our net income is primarily generated from the operation of our apartment communities. The following table summarizes the operating performance of our total apartment portfolio which excludes commercial operating income and expense for each of the periods presented (dollars in thousands):
 
                                                 
    Year Ended December 31,     Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     % Change     2009     2008     % Change  
 
Property rental income
  $ 624,981     $ 594,359       5.2 %   $ 594,359     $ 599,343       −0.8 %
Property operating expense(a)
    (220,279 )     (202,773 )     8.6 %     (202,773 )     (207,563 )     −2.3 %
                                                 
Property net operating income
  $ 404,702     $ 391,586       3.3 %   $ 391,586     $ 391,780       0.0 %
                                                 
 
 
(a) Excludes depreciation, amortization, and property management expenses.


52


Table of Contents

 
The following table is our reconciliation of property NOI to net (loss)/income attributable to UDR, Inc. as reflected, for both continuing and discontinued operations, for the periods presented (dollars in thousands):
 
                         
    Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     2008  
 
Property net operating income
  $ 404,702     $ 391,586     $ 391,780  
Other net operating income
    6,362       6,874       5,206  
Non-property income
    14,347       12,362       27,190  
Real estate depreciation and amortization
    (303,446 )     (278,391 )     (251,984 )
Interest, net
    (150,796 )     (142,152 )     (145,630 )
General and administrative and property management
    (60,142 )     (55,925 )     (55,359 )
Severance costs and other restructuring charges
    (6,803 )           (653 )
Other depreciation and amortization
    (4,843 )     (5,161 )     (4,866 )
Loss from unconsolidated entities
    (4,204 )     (18,665 )     (3,612 )
Other operating expenses
    (5,848 )     (6,487 )     (4,569 )
Redeemable non-controlling interests in OP
    3,835       4,282       (45,875 )
Non-controlling interests
    (146 )     (191 )     (202 )
Gain on consolidation of joint ventures
          1,912        
Net gain on the sale of depreciable property
    4,083       2,424       786,364  
                         
Net (loss)/income attributable to UDR, Inc.
  $  (102,899 )   $ (87,532 )   $ 697,790  
                         
 
Same Communities
 
2010-vs.-2009
 
Our same store communities (those acquired, developed, and stabilized prior to January 1, 2009 and held on December 31, 2010) consisted of 40,699 apartment homes and provided $358.0 million or 88% of our total property NOI for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
NOI for our same community properties decreased 1.7% or $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the same period in 2009. The decrease in property NOI was primarily attributable to a 0.9% or $5.0 million decrease in property rental income and a 0.6% or $1.1 million increase in operating expenses. The decrease in revenues was primarily driven by a 2.4% or $12.8 million decrease in rental rates which was offset by a 57.7% or $2.7 million decrease in concessions, an 8.3% or $1.8 million decrease in vacancy loss and a 12.4% or $2.8 million increase in reimbursement income. Physical occupancy increased 0.4% to 95.7% and total income per occupied home decreased $16 to $1,155.
 
The increase in property operating expenses was primarily driven by a 3.3% or $935,000 increase in utilities expense, a 3.8% or $1.1 million increase in repairs and maintenance, and a 2.6% or $1.2 million increase in personnel costs, which was partially offset by a 3.2% or $1.8 million decrease in real estate taxes.
 
As a result of the percentage changes in property rental income and property operating expenses, the operating margin (property net operating income divided by property rental income) decreased to 66.3% as compared to 66.8% in the comparable period in the prior year.
 
2009-vs.-2008
 
Our same store communities (those acquired, developed, and stabilized prior to January 1, 2008 and held on December 31, 2009) consisted of 33,166 apartment homes and provided $296.4 million or 76% of our total NOI for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
NOI for our same community properties decreased 2.2% or $6.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. The decrease in property NOI was primarily attributable to a 2.0% or $8.8 million decrease in property rental income, which was partially offset by a 1.6% or $2.3 million


53


Table of Contents

decrease in operating expenses. The decrease in revenues was primarily driven by a 2.9% or $12.9 million decrease in rental rates which was offset by an 18.9% or $4.0 million decrease in vacancy loss and an 8.6% or $1.4 million increase in reimbursement income. Physical occupancy increased 0.6% to 95.4% and total income per occupied home decreased $30 to $1,149.
 
The decrease in property operating expenses was primarily driven by a 1.3% or $568,000 decrease in real estate taxes due to favorable tax appeals, a 3.3% or $764,000 decrease in repairs and maintenance, and a 9.7% or $970,000 decrease in administrative and marketing costs.
 
As a result of the percentage changes in property rental income and property operating expenses, the operating margin (property net operating income divided by property rental income) decreased to 68.0% as compared to 68.1% in the comparable period in the prior year.
 
Non-Mature Communities
 
2010-vs.-2009
 
The remaining $46.7 million and $27.5 million of our NOI during the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, was generated from communities that we classify as “non-mature communities.” UDR’s non-mature communities consist of communities that do not meet the criteria to be included in same communities, which include communities developed or acquired, redevelopment properties, sold properties, properties classified as real estate held for disposition, joint venture properties, properties managed by third-parties, and the non-apartment components of mixed use properties, and condominium properties. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recognized NOI for our developments of $15.7 million, acquired communities of $12.7 million, redeveloped properties of $12.3 million, and sold properties of $980,000. For the year ended December 31, 2009, we recognized NOI for our developments of $6.3 million, acquired communities of $2.8 million, redeveloped properties of $11.5 million, and sold properties of $1.4 million.
 
2009-vs.-2008
 
The remaining $95.2 million and $88.8 million of our NOI during the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, was generated from communities that we classify as “non-mature communities.” UDR’s non-mature communities consist of communities that do not meet the criteria to be included in same communities, which include communities developed or acquired, redevelopment properties, sold properties, properties classified as real estate held for disposition, joint venture properties, properties managed by third-parties, and the non-apartment components of mixed use properties, and condominium properties. For the year ended December 31, 2009, we recognized NOI for our developments of $10.5 million, acquired communities of $54.3 million, and redeveloped properties of $24.8 million. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we recognized NOI for our developments of $2.4 million, acquired communities of $38.2 million, redeveloped properties of $22.1 million and sold properties of $23.5 million.
 
Other Income
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, significant amounts reflected in other income include: a gain of $4.7 million from the sale of marketable securities, a reversal of certain tax accruals of $2.1 million, and $3.2 million of fees earned for both recurring and non-recurring items related to the Company’s joint ventures. For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, other income also included interest income and discount amortization from an interest in a convertible debt security of $2.9 million and $3.6 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2009, other income also included $5.1 million of interest income from a note for $200 million that the Company received related to the disposition of 86 properties during 2008. In May 2009, the $200 million note was paid in full.
 
Tax Benefit/Expense of TRS
 
UDR elected for certain consolidated subsidiaries to be treated as TRS. Income taxes for our TRS are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for future


54


Table of Contents

tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities from a change in tax rate is recognized in earnings in the period of the enactment date. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recognized a net benefit of $2.5 million from the write-off of income taxes payable (net of income taxes paid). For the year ended December 31, 2009, we recognized tax expense of $311,000 to the extent of cash taxes paid. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we recognized a benefit of $9.7 million in continuing operations due to the results of operations and temporary differences associated with the TRS. Tax benefits and expenses recognized during the years are included in “General and administrative” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations included in this Report.
 
Other Operating Expenses
 
Other operating expenses decreased 9.9% or $639,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010 from the comparable period in 2009. The decrease was due to a number of factors, none of which are significant. For the year ended December 31, 2009, other operating expenses increased 42.2% or $1.9 million compared to the comparable period in 2008. The increase is primarily due to additional costs incurred by the Company related to long-term ground leases associated with properties acquired in December 2007 and July 2008. A schedule of future obligations related to ground leases is set forth under “Contractual Obligations” below.
 
Real Estate Depreciation and Amortization
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, real estate depreciation and amortization on both continuing and discontinued operations increased 9.0% or $25.1 million as compared to the comparable period in 2009. The increase in depreciation and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2010 is primarily the result of the Company’s acquisition of five communities with 1,374 apartment homes during 2010, development completions during 2010 and 2009, and additional capital expenditures. As part of the Company’s acquisition activity a portion of the purchase price is allocated to intangible assets and are typically amortized over a period of less than one year.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, real estate depreciation and amortization on both continuing and discontinued operations increased 10.5% or $26.4 million as compared to the comparable period in 2008. The increase in depreciation and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2009 is primarily the result of the Company’s acquisition of 13 communities with 4,558 apartment homes during 2008, development completions during 2009 and 2008, and additional capital expenditures. As part of the Company’s acquisition activity a portion of the purchase price is allocated to intangible assets and are typically amortized over a period of less than one year.
 
Interest Expense
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, interest expense on both continuing and discontinued operations increased 6.1% or $8.6 million as compared to 2009. This increase is primarily due to the Company’s debt repurchase activity during 2010 and 2009. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we recognized a loss of $1.0 million as a result of repurchasing some of our 3.625% convertible Senior Notes in the open market as compared to our recognition of $9.8 million in gains resulting from the repurchase of unsecured debt securities with a notional amount of $238.9 million in the open market in 2009. The decrease in our gain from debt repurchase activity was partially offset by a decrease of $3.8 million of expenses related to the tender of $37.5 million of unsecured debt in 2009.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, interest expense on both continuing and discontinued operations decreased 2.4% or $3.5 million as compared to 2008. This decrease is primarily due to the Company’s debt repurchase activity during 2008 and 2009. During 2009, we recognized a gain of $9.8 million as a result of repurchasing unsecured debt securities with a notional amount of $238.9 million in the open market throughout the year. The gains were partially offset by $3.8 million of expenses related to the tender of $37.5 million of


55


Table of Contents

unsecured debt and $2.6 million for prepayment penalties and the write-off of the fair market value adjustment for consolidated joint venture debt. In addition, the weighted average interest rate decreased from 4.9% in 2008 to 4.5% in 2009, which further reduced our interest expense. The decrease in the weighted average interest rate during 2009 reflects short-term bank borrowings and variable rate debt that had lower interest rates in 2009 when compared to the same period in 2008.
 
General and Administrative
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, general and administrative expenses increased 8.6% or $3.4 million as compared to 2009. The increase is primarily due to an increase in acquisition costs of $2.9 million related to the Company’s acquisitions of five operating communities and one parcel of land in 2010; an increase of $4.8 million in compensation expense, including deferred compensation and bonuses; which was partially offset by a decrease in taxes of $1.6 million and an increase in tax benefit, which is discussed in “Tax Benefit/Expense of TRS” above.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, general and administrative expenses increased 4.7% or $1.8 million as compared to 2008. The increase was due to a decrease in tax benefit, which is discussed in “Tax Benefit/Expense of TRS” above and is offset by a number of factors, including the Company writing off acquisition-related costs, the Company no longer pursuing a condominium strategy (which resulted in writing off $1.7 million in deferred sales charges), the renegotiation and/or cancellation of certain operating leases and/or vendor contracts of $0.8 million, the Company cancelling a contract to acquire a pre-sale property (which resulted in a charge of $1.7 million), and the acquisitions of certain contractual rights related to a joint venture (which resulted in the Company incurring a charge of $305,000 for the profit component of the contracts which were in recognized in 2008).
 
Severance Costs and Other Restructuring Charges
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company recognized $6.8 million of severance and restructuring charges as the Company consolidated its corporate operations and centralized job functions to its Highlands Ranch, Colorado headquarters from its Richmond, Virginia office. Also included in these charges were severance costs related to the retirement of an executive officer.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company recognized $653,000 of severance and restructuring charges as the Company consolidated its operations in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. In addition, we announced reductions to certain positions related to both operations and corporate staff.
 
Gains on the Sale of Land and Depreciable Property
 
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we recognized after-tax gains for financial reporting purposes of $4.1 million, $2.4 million, and $786.2 million, respectively. Changes in the level of gains recognized from period to period reflect the changing level of our divestiture activity from period to period as well as the extent of gains related to specific properties sold.
 
Inflation
 
We believe that the direct effects of inflation on our operations have been immaterial. While the impact of inflation primarily impacts our results through wage pressures, utilities and material costs, substantially all of our leases are for a term of one year or less, which generally enables us to compensate for any inflationary effects by increasing rents on our apartment homes. Although an extreme escalation in energy and food costs could have a negative impact on our residents and their ability to absorb rent increases, we do not believe this has had a material impact on our results for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
 
In connection with the purchase of Hanover’s interests in the UDR/MetLife Partnership, UDR agreed to indemnify Hanover from liabilities from Hanover’s guaranty of $333 million in loans which are secured by a


56


Table of Contents

security interest in the operating community subject to the loan at December 31, 2010. The loans are to the sub-tier partnerships which own the 26 operating communities. The Company anticipates that the balance of these loans will be refinanced by the Partnership over the next twelve months.
 
We do not have any other off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenue or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources that are material.
 
Contractual Obligations
 
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010 (dollars in thousands):
 
                                         
    Payments Due by Period  
Contractual Obligations   2011     2012-2013     2014-2015     Thereafter     Total  
 
Long-term debt obligations
  $ 347,283     $ 847,182     $  762,570     $  1,610,469     $  3,567,504  
Interest on debt obligations
    147,655       240,750       156,901       275,503       820,809  
Letters of credit
    4,727       23                   4,750  
Unfunded commitments on development projects(a)
    240,963                         240,963  
Operating lease obligations:
                                       
Operating space
    671       864       939       50       2,524  
Ground leases(b)
    4,557       9,114       9,114       294,866       317,651  
                                         
    $  745,856     $  1,097,933     $  929,524     $ 2,180,888     $ 4,954,201  
                                         
 
 
(a) Any unfunded costs at December 31, 2010 are shown in the year of estimated completion. The Company has project debt on many of our development projects.
 
(b) For purposes of our ground lease contracts, the Company uses the minimum lease payment, if stated in the agreement. For ground lease agreements where there is a reset provision based on the communities appraised value or consumer price index but does not included a specified minimum lease payment, the Company uses the current rent over the remainder of the lease term.
 
During 2010, we incurred gross interest costs of $158.6 million, of which $12.5 million was capitalized.
 
UNITED DOMINION REALTY, L.P.:
 
Business Overview
 
United Dominion Realty, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership” or “UDR, L.P.”), is a Delaware limited partnership formed in February 2004 and organized pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (as amended from time to time, or any successor to such statute, the “Act”). The Operating Partnership is the successor-in-interest to United Dominion Realty, L.P., a limited partnership formed under the laws of Virginia, which commenced operations on November 4, 1995. Our sole general partner is UDR, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“UDR” or the “General Partner”), which conducts a substantial amount of its business and holds a substantial amount of its assets through the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2010, the Operating Partnership’s real estate portfolio included 81 communities located in 8 states plus the District of Columbia, with a total of 23,351 apartment homes.
 
As of December 31, 2010, UDR owned 110,883 units of our general limited partnership interests and 174,736,557 units of our limited partnership interests (the “OP Units”), or approximately 97.2% of our outstanding OP Units. By virtue of its ownership of our OP Units and being our sole general partner, UDR has the ability to control all of the day-to-day operations of the Operating Partnership. Unless otherwise indicated or unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this Report to the Operating Partnership refer to the Operating Partnership together with its consolidated subsidiaries, and all references in this “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis — United Dominion Realty, L.P.” to “we,” “us” or “our” refer to the Operating Partnership together with its consolidated subsidiaries. We refer to our General Partner together with


57


Table of Contents

its consolidated subsidiaries (including us) and the General Partner’s consolidated joint ventures as “UDR” or the “General Partner.”
 
UDR operates as a self administered real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes. UDR focuses on owning, acquiring, renovating, developing, redeveloping, and managing apartment communities in select markets throughout the United States. The General Partner was formed in 1972 as a Virginia corporation and changed its state of incorporation from Virginia to Maryland in September 2003. At December 31, 2010, the General Partner’s consolidated real estate portfolio included 172 communities located in 23 markets with a total of 48,553 apartment homes. In addition, the General Partner has an ownership interest in 37 communities with 9,891 completed apartment homes through unconsolidated joint ventures.
 
The following table summarizes our market information by major geographic markets as of December 31, 2010.
 
                                                         
    As of December 31, 2010     Year Ended December 31, 2010  
                Percentage
    Total
                   
    Number of
    Number of
    of Total
    Carrying
    Average
    Total Income
    Net Operating
 
    Apartment
    Apartment
    Carrying
    Value
    Physical
    per Occupied
    Income(a)
 
    Communities     Homes     Value     (In thousands)     Occupancy     Home     (In thousands)  
 
SAME COMMUNITIES
                                                       
WESTERN REGION
                                                       
Orange Co, CA
    12       4,124       20.6 %   $ 765,098       95.4 %   $ 1,478     $ 48,793  
San Francisco, CA
    8       1,703       10.6 %     392,398       96.9 %     1,907       26,620  
Monterey Peninsula, CA
    7       1,565       4.1 %     152,645       94.1 %     1,066       12,820  
Los Angeles, CA
    6       1,222       7.2 %     265,084       96.0 %     1,544       14,360  
San Diego, CA
    3       689       2.7 %     99,585       95.1 %     1,258       6,472  
Seattle, WA
    5       932       5.6 %     206,953       96.6 %     1,191       8,584  
Inland Empire, CA
    2       834       3.2 %     119,199       95.0 %     1,243       7,876  
Sacramento, CA
    2       914       1.8 %     68,061       93.5 %     867       5,857  
Portland, OR
    3       716       1.9 %     69,543       95.9 %     946       5,211  
MID-ATLANTIC REGION
                                                       
Metropolitan DC
    7       2,347       14.4 %     535,141       96.4 %     1,642       30,221  
Baltimore, MD
    5       994       3.9 %     145,968       96.4 %     1,314       10,673  
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
                                                       
Tampa, FL
    3       1,154       2.9 %     109,081       95.6 %     1,000       8,338  
Nashville, TN
    6       1,612       3.4 %     127,177       96.5 %     824       9,717  
Jacksonville, FL
    1       400       1.2 %     42,292       94.9 %     852       2,379  
Other Florida
    1       636       2.1 %     76,310       95.1 %     1,148       5,224  
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
                                                       
Dallas, TX
    2       1,348       4.9 %     182,840       95.6 %     1,131       10,554  
Phoenix, AZ
    3       914       2.0 %     71,646       95.3 %     855       5,621  
                                                         
Total/Average Same Communities
    76       22,104       92.5 %     3,429,021       95.6 %   $  1,287     $  219,320  
                                                         
Non Matures, Commercial Properties & Other
    5       1,247       7.5 %     277,163                          
                                                         
Total Real Estate Held for Investment
    81       23,351       100.0 %     3,706,184                          
                                                         
Total Accumulated Depreciation
                            (884,083 )                        
                                                         
Total Real Estate Owned, Net of Accumulated Depreciation
                          $  2,822,101                          
                                                         
 
 
(a) Total Income per Occupied Home represents total revenues divided by the product of occupancy and the number of mature apartment homes.


58


Table of Contents

 
We report in two segments: Same Communities and Non-Mature/Other Communities. Our Same Communities segment includes those communities acquired, developed, and stabilized prior to January 1, 2009, and held as of December 31, 2010. These communities were owned and had stabilized occupancy and operating expenses as of the beginning of the prior year, there is no plan to conduct substantial redevelopment activities, and the community is not held for disposition within the current year. A community is considered to have stabilized occupancy once it achieves 90% occupancy for at least three consecutive months. Our Non-Mature/Other Communities segment includes those communities that were acquired or developed in 2008, 2009 or 2010, sold properties, redevelopment properties, properties classified as real estate held for disposition, condominium conversion properties, joint venture properties, properties managed by third parties, and the non-apartment components of mixed use properties.
 
Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
Liquidity is the ability to meet present and future financial obligations either through operating cash flows, the sale of properties, and the issuance of debt. Both the coordination of asset and liability maturities and effective capital management are important to the maintenance of liquidity. The Operating Partnership’s primary source of liquidity is cash flow from operations as determined by rental rates, occupancy levels, and operating expenses related to our portfolio of apartment homes and borrowings allocated to us under the General Partner’s credit agreements. The General Partner will routinely use its unsecured credit facility to temporarily fund certain investing and financing activities prior to arranging for longer-term financing or the issuance of equity or debt securities. During the past several years, proceeds from the sale of real estate have been used for both investing and financing activities as we repositioned our portfolio.
 
We expect to meet our short-term liquidity requirements generally through net cash provided by operations and borrowings allocated to us under the General Partner’s credit agreements. We expect to meet certain long-term liquidity requirements such as scheduled debt maturities and potential property acquisitions through borrowings and the disposition of properties. We believe that our net cash provided by operations and borrowings will continue to be adequate to meet both operating requirements and the payment of distributions. Likewise, the budgeted expenditures for improvements and renovations of certain properties are expected to be funded from property operations and borrowings allocated to us under the General Partner’s credit agreements the Operating Partnership is a party to.
 
Future Capital Needs
 
Future capital expenditures are expected to be funded with proceeds from the issuance of secured debt, the sale of properties, the borrowings allocated to us under our General Partner’s credit agreements, and to a lesser extent, with cash flows provided by operating activities. Acquisition activity in strategic markets is expected to be largely financed by the reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of properties, the issuance of OP Units and the assumption or placement of secured debt.
 
During 2011, we have approximately $42.2 million of secured debt maturing and we anticipate that we will repay that debt with operating cash flows, proceeds from borrowings allocated to us under our General Partner’s credit agreements, or by exercising extension rights on such secured debt, as applicable. The repayment of debt will be recorded as an offset to the “Receivable due from General Partner”.
 
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
 
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. A critical accounting policy is one that is both important to our financial condition and results of operations and that involves some degree of uncertainty. Estimates are prepared based on management’s assessment after considering all evidence available. Changes in estimates could affect our financial position or results of operations. Below is a discussion of the accounting policies that we consider critical to understanding our financial condition or results of operations where there is uncertainty or where significant judgment is required.


59


Table of Contents

Capital Expenditures
 
In conformity with GAAP, we capitalize those expenditures that materially enhance the value of an existing asset or substantially extend the useful life of an existing asset. Expenditures necessary to maintain an existing property in ordinary operating condition are expensed as incurred.
 
During year ended December 31, 2010, $59.5 million was spent on capital expenditures for all of our communities as compared to $70.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2009. These capital improvements included turnover-related capital expenditures, revenue enhancing capital expenditures, asset preservation expenditures, kitchen and bath upgrades, other extensive interior/exterior upgrades and major renovations.
 
We will continue to selectively add revenue enhancing improvements which we believe will provide a return on investment substantially in excess of our cost of capital.
 
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
 
We record impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by the future operation and disposition of those assets are less than the net book value of those assets. Our cash flow estimates are based upon historical results adjusted to reflect our best estimate of future market and operating conditions and our estimated holding periods. The net book value of impaired assets is reduced to fair market value. Our estimates of fair market value represent our best estimate based upon industry trends and reference to market rates and transactions.
 
Real Estate Investment Properties
 
We purchase real estate investment properties from time to time and allocate the purchase price to various components, such as land, buildings, and intangibles related to in-place leases in accordance with FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (formerly SFAS 141R, “Business Combinations”). The purchase price is allocated based on the fair value of each component. The fair value of buildings is determined as if the buildings were vacant upon acquisition and subsequently leased at market rental rates. As such, the determination of fair value considers the present value of all cash flows expected to be generated from the property including an initial lease-up period. We determine the fair value of in-place leases by assessing the net effective rent and remaining term of the lease relative to market terms for similar leases at acquisition. In addition, we consider the cost of acquiring similar leases, the foregone rents associated with the lease-up period, and the carrying costs associated with the lease-up period. The fair value of in-place leases is recorded and amortized as amortization expense over the remaining contractual lease period.
 
Statements of Cash Flows
 
The following discussion explains the changes in net cash provided by operating activities, net cash (used in)/provided by investing activities and net cash used in financing activities that are presented in our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
 
Operating Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, net cash flow provided by operating activities was $146.6 million compared to $157.3 million for the comparable period in 2009. The decrease in net cash flow from operating activities is primarily due an increase in consolidated net loss, primarily due to a decrease in property net operating income and an increase in allocated general and administrative costs.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, our net cash flow provided by operating activities was $157.3 million compared to $168.7 million for 2008. The decrease in net cash flow from operating activities is primarily due to a decrease in property net operating income from our apartment community portfolio, a decrease in interest income related to a $200 million note receivable that was paid off during 2009 and higher interest expense, partially offset by a decrease in other operating liabilities.


60


Table of Contents

Investing Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, net cash used in investing activities was $59.5 million compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $129.6 million for the comparable period in 2009. This change was primarily due to the full payment received on a $200 million note receivable in 2009. The activity during 2010 consisted entirely of capital expenditures.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, net cash provided by investing activities was $129.6 million compared to $82.0 million for 2008. The increase in cash is primarily driven by the proceeds from a $200 million note receivable in 2009 and a reduction in acquisition activity and capital expenditures in 2009 as compared to 2008. This is partially offset by the proceeds from dispositions of $880 million in 2008.
 
Acquisitions
 
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had no property acquisitions. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we acquired nine apartment communities with 3,348 apartment homes for aggregate consideration of $713.6 million. The Operating Partnership’s long-term strategic plan is to achieve greater operating efficiencies by investing in fewer, more concentrated markets. As a result, we have been seeking to expand our interests in communities located in California, Metropolitan Washington D.C. and the Washington state markets over the past years. Prospectively, we plan to continue to channel new investments into those markets we believe will continue to provide the best investment returns. Markets will be targeted based upon defined criteria including favorable job formation, low single-family home affordability and favorable demand/supply ratio for multifamily housing.
 
Dispositions
 
During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, we did not dispose of any communities. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we sold 55 communities with a total of 16,960 apartment homes, for net proceeds of $880 million. We recognized gains for financial reporting purposes of $475.2 million on these sales. Proceeds from the sales were used primarily to acquire new communities, reduce debt, and repay our General Partner.
 
In conjunction with this transaction, a subsidiary of the Operating Partnership received a note in the amount of $200 million. The note was paid in full in 2009.
 
Financing Activities
 
For the year ended December 31, 2010, our net cash used in financing activities was $86.7 million compared to $290.1 million for 2009. The decrease in cash used in financing activities was primarily due to a net decrease in payments to the General Partner, partially offset by a decrease in the proceeds from secured debt.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, our net cash used in financing activities was $290.1 million compared to $247.2 million for the comparable period of 2008. The increase in cash used in financing activities was primarily due to a net increase in payments to the General Partner, which was partially offset by the net activity on secured debt.
 
Credit Facilities
 
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the General Partner had secured credit facilities with Fannie Mae with an aggregate commitment of $1.4 billion with $1.2 billion outstanding. The Fannie Mae credit facilities are for an initial term of 10 years, bear interest at floating and fixed rates, and certain variable rate facilities can be extended for an additional five years at the General Partner’s option. At December 31, 2010, $897.3 million of the funded balance was fixed at a weighted average interest rate of 5.3% and the remaining balance on these facilities was at a weighted average variable rate of 1.7%. At December 31, 2010, $736.9 million of these credit facilities are allocated to the Operating Partnership based on the ownership of the assets securing the debt.


61


Table of Contents

At December 31, 2009, there was $950 million of the funded balance fixed at a weighted average interest rate of 5.4% and the remaining balance on these facilities was at a weighted average variable rate of 1.7%. $750.4 million of these credit facilities were allocated to the Operating Partnership at December 31, 2009 based on the ownership of the assets securing the debt.
 
The Operating Partnership is a guarantor on the General Partner’s unsecured credit facility, with an aggregate borrowing capacity of $600 million, on a $100 million term loan, and on the $250 million term loan facility. At December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the outstanding balance under the unsecured credit facility was $31.8 million and $189.3 million, respectively.
 
The credit facilities are subject to customary financial covenants and limitations.
 
Other Guarantees
 
At December 31, 2010, the Operating Partnership guaranteed certain outstanding securities of UDR, such that the Operating Partnership, as primary obligor and not merely as surety, irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees to each holder of the applicable securities and to the trustee and their successors and assigns under the respective indenture (a) the full and punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of all obligations of UDR under the respective indenture whether for principal of or interest on the securities (and premium, if any), and all other monetary obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities and (b) the full and punctual performance within the applicable grace periods of all other obligations of UDR under the respective indenture and the terms of the applicable securities.
 
Interest Rate Risk
 
We are exposed to interest rate risk associated with variable rate notes payable and maturing debt that has to be refinanced. We do not hold financial instruments for trading or other speculative purposes, but rather issue these financial instruments to finance our portfolio of real estate assets. Interest rate sensitivity is the relationship between changes in market interest rates and the fair value of market rate sensitive assets and liabilities. Our earnings are affected as changes in short-term interest rates impact our cost of variable rate debt and maturing fixed rate debt. We had $303.5 million in variable rate debt that is not subject to interest rate swap contracts as of December 31, 2010. If market interest rates for variable rate debt increased by 100 basis points, our interest expense would increase by $3 million based on the balance at December 31, 2010.
 
These amounts are determined by considering the impact of hypothetical interest rates on our borrowing cost. These analyses do not consider the effects of the adjusted level of overall economic activity that could exist in such an environment. Further, in the event of a change of such magnitude, management would likely take actions to further mitigate our exposure to the change. However, due to the uncertainty of the specific actions that would be taken and their possible effects, the sensitivity analysis assumes no change in our financial structure.
 
A presentation of cash flow metrics based on GAAP is as follows (dollars in thousands):
 
                         
    For the Year Ended December 31,
    2010   2009   2008
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
  $ 146,604     $ 157,333     $ 168,660  
Net cash (used in)/provided by investing activities
    (59,458 )     129,628       81,993  
Net cash used in financing activities
    (86,668 )     (290,109 )     (247,150 )
 
Results of Operations
 
The following discussion explains the changes in results of operations that are presented in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, and includes the results of both continuing and discontinued operations for the periods presented.


62


Table of Contents

Net (Loss)/Income Attributable to OP Unitholders
 
2010-vs.-2009
 
Net loss attributable to OP unit holders was $20.7 million ($0.12 per OP unit) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to $4.2 million ($0.02 per OP unit) for the comparable period in the prior year. The increase in net loss attributable to OP unit holders for the year ended December 31, 2010 resulted primarily from the following items, all of which are discussed in further detail elsewhere within this Report:
 
  •  a decrease in net operating income (“NOI”);
 
  •  an increase in general and administrative expenses allocated to us by our General Partner; and
 
  •  a decrease in other income.
 
2009-vs.-2008
 
Net loss attributable to OP unit holders was $4.2 million ($0.02 per OP unit) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to net income attributable to OP unit holders of $497.7 million ($3.00 per OP unit) for the comparable period in the prior year. The decrease in net income attributable to OP unit holders for the year ended December 31, 2009 resulted primarily from the following items, all of which are discussed in further detail elsewhere within this Report:
 
  •  a reduction in disposition gains in 2009 as compared to 2008. We recognized net gains of $1.5 million and $475.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively;
 
  •  a decrease in net operating income due to the disposition of properties in 2008;
 
  •  an increase in interest expense incurred on new debt;
 
  •  an increase in depreciation expense primarily due to the acquisition of operating properties in 2008; and
 
  •  a decrease in other income primarily due to a decrease in interest income.
 
Apartment Community Operations
 
Our net income is primarily generated from the operation of our apartment communities.
 
The following table summarizes the operating performance of our total portfolio for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in thousands):
 
                                                 
    Year Ended December 31,     Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     % Change     2009     2008     % Change  
 
Property rental income
  $ 350,394     $ 353,056       −0.8 %   $ 353,056     $ 362,012       −2.5 %
Property operating expense(a)
    (116,278 )     (112,488 )     3.4 %     (112,488 )     (115,972 )     —3.0 %
                                                 
Property net operating income (“NOI”)
  $ 234,116     $ 240,568       −2.7 %   $ 240,568     $ 246,040       −2.2 %
                                                 
 
 
(a) Excludes depreciation, amortization, and property management expenses.


63


Table of Contents

 
The following table is our reconciliation of property NOI to net income attributable to OP unit holders as reflected, for both continuing and discontinued operations, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 (dollars in thousands):
 
                         
    Year Ended December 31,  
    2010     2009     2008  
 
Property net operating income
  $ 234,116     $ 240,568     $ 246,040  
Other income
    1,695       5,695       13,106  
Real estate depreciation and amortization
    (166,480