e10vk
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)
Registrants 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 Registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, 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 registrants officers
and directors and each person known by the registrant to
beneficially own more than 5% of the registrants
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, Incs
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.
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 UDRs 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
Partnerships 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 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
Market for Registrants 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
UDRs business outside of the Operating Partnership.
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.
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 Partnerships
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
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 UDRs consolidated
financial statements and Note 12 to the Operating
Partnerships 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
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 Partnerships 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
|
|
|
|
|
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 Partnerships 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
|
|
|
|
|
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
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
UDRs 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 Companys
(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
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
Boards (FASB) issued Accounting Standards
Update
2010-01,
Accounting for Distributions to Shareholders with Components
of Stock and Cash (ASU
2010-01),
8
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
Companys
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
|
|
|
|
|
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 Partnerships
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 portfolios 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 Partnerships
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 communitys 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
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
Partnerships 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
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
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
Companys Corporate Compliance Officer and in October 2008
he was named the Companys 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 Companys 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 Companys acquisitions,
dispositions, redevelopment and asset management in the
companys 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 companys 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
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 companys
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 stockholders
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
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 UDRs 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 arms 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 UDRs 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 Partnerships income was qualifying income as
defined in the Code. A publicly traded partnership
is a partnership whose
25
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
Partnerships partnership units are not traded on an
established securities market, because of the redemption right,
the Operating Partnerships 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, Incs 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
|
|
|
|
|
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 UDRs 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 UDRs 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
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
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
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS 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
holders 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
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
Partnerships 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 Partnerships 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 Partnerships
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, UDRs Board of Directors authorized a
10,000,000 share repurchase program. In January 2008,
UDRs 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
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
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 & Poors 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.
|
|
Total
Return Performance |
Total
Return
Performance |
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
|
|
|
Five-year |
Total
Return Performance |
|
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
|
|
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
Partnerships respective consolidated financial statements
and the notes thereto, and Item 7. Managements
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
|
|
|
(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
Trusts 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
MANAGEMENTS
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
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
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
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
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
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 managements 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
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 investments 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 managements 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
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 UDRs 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
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 UDRs 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 partners 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 partners
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
partners 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
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
Companys 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
Companys (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 Companys 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 Companys 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
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 Companys 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
|
|
|
|
|
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
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
Trusts (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
Companys 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
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
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
Companys 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
|
|
|
|
|
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 Companys
Taxable REIT Subsidiaries, or TRS during 2008;
|
|
|
|
an increase in depreciation expense primarily due to the
Companys 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
Companys 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
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
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. UDRs 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. UDRs 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
Companys 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
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
Companys 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
Companys 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
Companys 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
Companys 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 Companys 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 Companys 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
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
Companys 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 Hanovers interests in
the UDR/MetLife Partnership, UDR agreed to indemnify Hanover
from liabilities from Hanovers guaranty of
$333 million in loans which are secured by a
56
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 Partnerships 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.
Managements 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
its consolidated subsidiaries (including us) and the General
Partners 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 Partners 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
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
Partnerships 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 Partners
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 Partners 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 Partners 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
Partners 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 Partners 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 managements 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
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
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 Partnerships 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 Partners 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
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
Partners 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
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
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
|
|