IBJNews

Simon reports slight improvement in quarterly results

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc. reported slightly higher funds from operation for its fiscal third quarter, but FFO fell on a per-share basis thanks to the company's issuance of more than 50 million new shares so far this year.

The Indianapolis-based real estate investment trust on Friday reported $473.1 million, or $1.38 per diluted share, in funds from operations for the period ended Sept. 30, beating consensus analyst expectations of $1.33 per share. That compares to $463.9 million, or $1.61 per share, during the same period in 2008.

FFO is a common measuring stick of performance in the REIT  industry.

Simon sold about 40 million new shares in March and May to raise capital, and also has issued 10 million shares in lieu of dividend payments. The company plans to continue paying 80 percent of its 60-cents-per-share quarterly dividend in new stock, although shareholders may elect to receive all cash or all stock.

"We are encouraged to see continued improvements in the capital markets and from our retailers," CEO David Simon said in a statement.

The company raised the low end of its guidance for 2009 by 5 cents per share, and now expects FFO between $5.40 and $5.50 per share and net income between $1.17 and $1.27 per share. Third-quarter income clocked in at $105.5 million, or 38 cents per diluted share, compared to $112.8 million, or 50 cents per share, in the same period last year.

Simon's overall quarterly revenue fell to $924.9 million, down from $935.6 million.

Occupancy rates at Simon's regional malls and outlet centers fell by 1 percent each, to 91.4 percent and 97.5 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, rent rates rose for both categories, to $40.05 per square foot for regional malls (from $39.26) and $32.95 for outlet centers (from $27.12).

The company said it had more than $4 billion of cash on hand, including $3 billion available on a credit facility.

Shares closed Thursday at $68.17.

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT