IBJNews

  • Home

Duke Realty’s quarterly results in line with expectations

IBJ Staff
April 26, 2012
Keywords
Commercial Real Estate, Duke Realty Corp., Financial Results, Real Estate & Retail, Real Estate Investment Trust
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indianapolis-based Duke Realty Corp.’s financial performance in the first quarter met analyst expectations even though the company suffered a $36 million loss and saw revenue decline by $65 million.

The real estate investment trust said Wednesday that core funds from operations for the quarter were $63.7 million, or 24 cents per share, compared with $72.6 million, or 28 cents per share, in the same quarter of 2011.

Twelve analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected core FFO of 24 cents per share for the quarter. FFO is a common performance measure used by real estate investment trusts.

Duke reported a loss attributable to shareholders of nearly $36.4 million, or 14 cents per share, compared with a profit of $47.6 million, or 19 cents per share, in the year-ago period. The company attributed much of the loss to a $73.3 million reduction in gains on the sale of depreciable properties.

Revenue for the quarter declined to $272.4 million, down from $337.5 million in the first quarter of 2011.

Duke completed $157 million in acquisitions during the quarter and signed 1.5 million square feet of new development starts, including two industrial projects totaling 1.4 million square feet.

The company said the overall occupancy rate in its real estate portfolio rose to 92.1 percent from 90.7 percent the previous quarter.




 

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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