Kite reports smaller quarterly loss on much higher revenue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. recorded a smaller loss in the third quarter as revenue soared 34 percent, the Indianapolis-based company reported Thursday.

The real estate investment trust said it lost $900,000 in the quarter, compared with a loss of $3 million during the same period of 2012.

Revenue jumped to $32.7 million, from $24.3 million a year ago, partly due the acquisition of properties and because of development properties becoming operational. On the same-property level, revenue rose 4.9 percent compared with last year’s third quarter..

Kite saw funds from operations, or FFO, of $14 million, or 14 cents per share, compared with $7.9 million, or 11 cents per share, a year ago. The results beat analyst expectations by 2 cents per share. FFO is a common measure of REIT performance.

The company's performance was helped by higher operating income, in addition to a $1.2 million non-cash gain on debt extinguishment and the related reversal of a $1.2 million interest expense relating to Kite’s Kedron Village development.

Kite's lender foreclosed in June on Kedron Village, a 266,000-square-foot retail center in the upscale planned community of Peachtree City, Ga., after a Kite subsidiary defaulted on the project’s $29.5 million loan.

Also during the third quarter, Kite acquired Toringdon Market, a 60,500-square-foot retail center in Charlotte, which is 97-percent leased and anchored by Earth Fare.

Kite, which owns interests in 62 retail properties totaling 9.5 million square feet, said the properties were 95.9-percent leased as of Sept. 30, compared with 93.6 percent in the year-ago period.

Shares of Kite fell nearly 6 percent early Friday, to $6.03 each, but jumped back to $6.36 a short time later. Shares reached  a 52-week high of $6.91 in March.


Post a comment to this story

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

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.