IBJNews

Kite reports quarterly profit, smaller annual loss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. reported a profit in the fourth quarter, the first for the Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust in two years.

Kite earned $3.1 million compared with a loss of $1.2 million during the same period in 2010, the company said Wednesday evening. The gain primarily was due to $4.3 million earned from the sale of property Kite owned in a joint venture.

The company last reported a profit in February 2010, when it earned $600,000.

Revenue increased slightly, to $26.7 million, from $25.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2010. Kite attributed the gain to improved occupancy levels partially offset by a decline in construction activity and lower gains on land sales.

For the year, Kite narrowed its loss to $800,000, down from $8.6 million in 2010. Annual revenue was nearly flat at $101.9 million in 2011 compared to $101.4 million in 2010.  

Kite saw quarterly funds from operations, or FFO, of $8.6 million, or 12 cents per share, compared with $7.8 million, or 11 cents per share, in the 2010 period. FFO is a common measure of REIT performance.

FFO for 2011 was $31.8 million, or 44 cents per share, compared with $30.3 million, or 42 cents per share, the previous year.

The company, which owns interests in 54 retail properties totaling 8.4 million square feet, said the properties were 93.3-percent leased as of Dec. 31, compared with 92.2 percent at the end of 2010.

Kite shares were up slightly, by 4 cents, to $5.50 each in midday 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. 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