IBJNews

Duke Realty reports strong quarterly results

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The sale of several properties helped Duke Realty Corp. record strong earnings in the first quarter, the Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust announced Thursday morning.

Duke reported a profit in the three-month period of $47.6 million, or 19 cents a share, compared with a loss of $15.3 million, or 7 cents a share, in the same quarter a year earlier.

Revenue increased 19 percent, to $386.9 million.

Sales of properties totaling 2 million square feet generated $456 million overall and gains of $79.5 million, the company said. Nearly $275 million was generated by the sale of 13 office buildings located mostly in the Midwest to an existing joint venture with Los Angeles-based CB Richard Ellis.

“These dispositions in combination with our industrial acquisitions over the last few quarters are a major step in achieving our asset strategy,” Duke Realty CEO Dennis D. Oklak said in a prepared statement.

The company has undertaken a strategy to shed a slew of office space within its portfolio of properties in favor of industrial investments.

Duke Realty reported first-quarter funds from operations, a key measure for REITs, of $71.8 million, or 27 cents a share, compared with FFO of $63.9 million, or 28 cents a share, in the prior-year period.

Adjusted for preferred share buybacks, FFO for the quarter was 28 cents a share, the company said.

The company reaffirmed its 2011 FFO of between $1.06 and $1.18.

The occupancy rate for Duke Realty’s portfolio of projects, including those under development, was 88.9 percent at the end of March, down slightly from 89.1 percent at the end of December.

The price of company shares has increased nearly 50 percent since they hit a 52-week low of $10.19 in December. Shares opened trading Thursday morning at $15.21, down slightly from a 52-week high of $15.26 reached on Monday.
 

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT