IBJNews

Kite reports narrower loss on higher revenue, occupancy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. saw a narrower loss in its third quarter compared to one year ago, along with higher revenue and occupancy rates at its retail properties, the Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust announced Wednesday evening.

Kite lost $600,000 in the third quarter of 2011, compared to a net loss of $2.4 million during the same period in 2010. The smaller loss was due in large part to a $1.9 million reduction in depreciation and amortization expense.

Total revenue for the third quarter was $25.5 million compared to $25.3 million during the same period in 2010. The company attributed the increase in revenue to an improvement in occupancy levels and new property acquisitions, gains that were partially offset by a decline in construction volumes and lower gains on land sales.  

Kite saw funds from operations, or FFO, of $7.9 million, or 11 cents per share, compared to $7.8 million, or 11 cents per share, in the prior year. FFO is a common measure of REIT performance.

The company, which owns interests in 53 retail properties totaling 8.1 million square feet, said the properties were 93.1-percent leased as of Sept. 30, compared to 93 percent as of the end of the second quarter.

During the third quarter, Kite executed 47 new and renewed leases totaling nearly 202,100 square feet. 

In its report, Kite noted the opening of Nordstrom Rack and The Container Store at its renovated Rivers Edge shopping center at 82nd Street and Dean Road. A BuyBuy Baby store is slated to open at the end of November at the center, which is now 100-percent leased.

The company said it has no remaining 2011 debt maturities.

Kite shares closed at $4.04 apiece on Wednesday, up 9 cents.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Once a Marion Co. commuter tax is established, I'm moving my organization out of Indianapolis. Face it, with the advancement in technology, it's getting more cost effective to have people work out of their homes. The clock is running out on the need for much of the office space in Indianapolis. Establishing a commuter tax will only advance the hands of the clock and the residents of Indianapolis will be left to clean up the mess they created on their own, with much less resources.

  2. The 2013 YE financial indicates the City of Indianapolis has over $2 B in assets and net position of $362.7 M. All of these assets have been created and funded by taxpayers. In 2013 they took in $806 M in revenues. Again, all from tax payers. Think about this, Indianapolis takes in $800 M per year and they do not have enough money? The premise that government needs more money for services is false.

  3. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  4. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  5. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

ADVERTISEMENT