IBJNews

Duke Realty reports strong year-end results

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Duke Realty Corp. reported a fourth-quarter profit almost 70 percent above last year's figure as it closed out its best leasing year since 2007 and finished with its highest annual portfolio occupancy rate since 2004.

The Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust on Wednesday reported a fourth-quarter profit of $25.8 million on revenue of $329.8 million, compared with a profit of $15.2 million on revenue of $327.6 million in the same period a year earlier.

For the year, the company earned $65.3 million on revenue of $1.4 billion, compared to a $271.5 million loss on revenue of $1.3 billion in 2009.

Duke Realty reported fourth-quarter funds from operations, a key measure for REITs, of $73.9 million, or 28 cents per share, compared with $72.6 million, or 31 cents per share, a year ago. The company reported $1.23 in FFO for the year, exceeding its forecast of between $1.11 and $1.15.

It expects 2011 FFO between $1.06 and $1.18.

During the quarter, the company reported closing on $441 million in acquisitions and generating $317 million from the sale of non-strategic assets. The acquisitions include a 4.9-million-square-foot office and industrial portfolio in Florida, a 190,000-square-foot medical office building in North Carolina and 582,000 square feet of industrial properties in Texas.

The sales included more than 1 million square feet of suburban office space and a 534,000-square-foot industrial building.

"Solid operational and financial performance, along with significant progress on our strategic plan to reposition our portfolio, resulted in a successful 2010 for Duke Realty despite a still challenging environment," Chairman and CEO Dennis D. Oklak said in a prepared statement.

The company’s overall portfolio occupancy rate rose in the fourth quarter to 89.1 percent, the best performance since 2004. Duke Realty leased 26 million square feet of space in 2010, its highest annual total since 2007.

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT