IBJNews

Kite reports narrow loss as revenue rises

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. reported a narrow first-quarter loss as a healthy revenue increase and a gain on the sale of an out-of-state shopping center were partially offset by a $1.3 million litigation charge.

The Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust was busy during the quarter, making moves both on the financing and property sides. Kite earned a $3.1 million profit on the $29.4 million sale of a shopping center in Marysville, Wash., and it sold land at one of its developments in North Carolina to Target for an undisclosed sum.

The company also issued 1.3 million shares of preferred stock for proceeds of $31.3 million, closed on a $115 million seven-year term loan, and amended a $200 million revolving credit facility with a lower interest rate.

Revenue for the quarter jumped 10.9 percent, to $26.4 million, from $23.8 million during the same period in 2011. Kite attributed the gain to higher occupancy levels and the movement of some development projects into the company's operating portfolio. On a same-property level, revenues rose 5.4 percent compared to last year's first quarter.

Kite's first-quarter loss narrowed to $31,000, compared to a loss of $2.2 million during the same period a year earlier.

The litigation charge involved a dispute with a former tenant, which won an arbitration order for damages and attorney's fees. The company's filing does not name the tenant or the property.

Kite saw quarterly funds from operations, or FFO, of $7.9 million, or 11 cents per share, excluding the litigation charge, compared with $6.9 million, or 10 cents per share, during the same period last 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 93.4-percent leased as of March 31, 2012, compared with 92.3 percent as of March 31, 2011.

Kite reported its results after the market closed Thursday. Its shares finished the day down slightly, at $5.10 each.

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