IBJNews

Property sales help boost Duke Realty’s profit

IBJ Staff
July 31, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Duke Realty Corp. reported a second-quarter profit late Wednesday afternoon of $61.5 million due in large part to gains from the sale of properties that included a large retail center in Florida.

The profit translates to 19 cents per share, compared to a loss of $28.5 million, or 11 cents per share, in the year-ago period.

Funds from operations, or FFO, for the quarter hit 27 cents per share, compared with 26 cents per share in the second quarter of 2012. FFO is a common measure of performance for real estate investment trusts.

The real estate developer’s quarterly revenue rose 5.6 percent, to $275.5 million. Rental income climbed more than $27 million, while general contracting and service-fee revenue decreased by nearly $13 million.

Duke Realty said its portfolio occupancy rate increased to 93.2 percent from 92.1 percent last quarter.

Highlights during the quarter included the acquisition of $405 million of bulk industrial buildings totaling 5.9 million square feet while generating $188 million of proceeds from the sale of a 391,000-square-foot retail center in South Florida.

Duke Realty also began $82 million of new developments, including a 206,000-square-foot suburban office project and three medical office buildings totaling 114,000 square feet.

Company shares closed Wednesday at $16.47 each, down 33 cents from the start of 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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. 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.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT