IBJNews

Kite Realty reports profit on soaring revenue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. was back to profitability in the first quarter as revenue soared 37 percent, spurred by more retail developments becoming operational, the Indianapolis-based company said Thursday afternoon

Kite earned $2.2 million in profit, or 2 cents per diluted share, compared with a loss of $100,000 in the year-ago period.

Revenue jumped to $42.7 million, from $31 million in the year-ago period. Kite’s acquisition of nine properties in November also contributed to the gain. On the same-property level, revenue rose 4.7 percent compared with last year’s first quarter.

The company saw funds from operations, or FFO, of $12.4 million, or 9 cents per share, compared with $10.6 million, or $14 cents per share, for the same period in 2013.

Adjusted for $4.5 million in acquisition costs, FFO was $17.5 million, or 13 cents per share, compared with $11.6 million, or 14 cents per share last year.

Kite announced in February that it is buying privately held Inland Diversified Real Estate Trust Inc. for $1.2 billion in an all-stock deal.

The company’s performance was helped by healthy occupancy gains at its properties and higher rents from increasing tenant sales.

It opened five new anchor tenants last quarter totaling 239,000 square feet.

Kite, which owns interest in 64 retail properties totaling 11.3 million square feet, said the properties were 95.3 percent leased as of March 31, compared with 94.5 percent in the year-ago period.

Share of Kite closed Thursday at $6.21, up one cent in daily trading.
 
 

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. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT