IBJNews

Kite sells 3 area buildings in dealmaking blitz

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kite Realty Group Trust Inc. announced Thursday that it sold three buildings in the Indianapolis area and bought properties in South Carolina and Florida during a busy fiscal fourth quarter.

The Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust also reported a loss for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31 of $6.5 million, or 9 cents per share, on revenue of $26.7 million. That compares to a profit of $3.1 million, or 5 cents per share, on revenue of $24.6 million during the fourth quarter of 2011.

Kite blamed the loss primarily on its buyout, at a discount, of a partner in a shopping center development in North Carolina.

The local property sales included the Zionsville Place retail center along State Road 334 west of Ford Road, and the Indiana State Motor Pool and Pen Products commercial properties, which total 201,000 square feet. Together with the sale of two out-of-state retail buildings, the sales generated proceeds of $20.7 million.

Also during the quarter, Kite closed on an $18.4 million construction loan for its Rangeline Crossing redevelopment in Carmel at the corner of 116th Street and Rangeline Road. The project will be anchored by an Earth Fare grocery store.

Kite said it took an $8 million non-cash charge on its buyout of a partner in the development of a lifestyle center called Parkside Town Commons in North Carolina. The decrease also is a function of lower gains from the sale of properties in 2012, compared to 2011.

The company spent more than $50 million during the quarter to buy two shopping centers in South Carolina and another in Florida. It began construction on its Parkside Town Commons project, selling a parcel to Target, which will anchor the center, and inking a lease deal with a supermarket tenant.

Kite reported third-quarter funds from operations, or FFO, of $8.5 million, or 10 cents per share, compared with $8.6 million, or 12 cents per share, in the same quarter a year earlier. Funds from operations is a common measure of REIT performance.

The company, which owns interests in 54 retail properties totaling 8.4 million square feet, said the properties were 94.2-percent leased as of Dec. 31, compared with 93.3 percent at the end of the fourth quarter in 2011.

During the quarter, Kite completed a public offering of 12.1 million common shares at a price of $5.20 per share, generating proceeds of approximately $60 million. Kite said it used proceeds to repay borrowings and fund acquisitions and redevelopment costs.

Kite shares gained a penny Thursday prior to the earnings release, closing at $6.20 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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT