S&P-REITs-May 11

Current Environment ............................................................................................
1
Industry Profile.................................................................................................... 14
Industry Trends ................................................................................................... 14
How the Industry Operates............................................................................... 21
Key Industry Ratios and Statistics................................................................... 25
How to Analyze a REIT....................................................................................... 27
Glossary................................................................................................................ 32
Industry References........................................................................................... 34
Comparative Company Analysis ......................................................... Appendix
Thi s i ssue updat es t he one dat ed December 16, 2010.
The next updat e of t hi s Survey i s schedul ed f or November 2011.

Industry Surveys
Real Estate Investment Trusts
Robert McMillan and Royal Shepard, CFA
REIT Analysts

May 19, 2011
CONTACTS:
INQUIRIES & CLIENT RELATIONS
800.852.1641
clientrelations@
standardandpoors.com
SALES
877.219.1247
msa@standardandpoors.com
MEDIA
Michael Privitera
212.438.6679
michael_privitera@
standardandpoors.com
Standard & Poors
Equity Research Services
55 Water Street
New York, NY 10041

Topics Covered by Industry Surveys
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco
Apparel & Footwear:
Retailers & Brands
Autos & Auto Parts
Banking
Biotechnology
Broadcasting, Cable & Satellite
Chemicals
Communications Equipment
Computers: Commercial Services
Computers: Consumer Services &
the Internet
Computers: Hardware
Computers: Software
Computers: Storage & Peripherals
Electric Utilities
Environmental & Waste Management
Financial Services: Diversified
Foods & Nonalcoholic Beverages
Healthcare: Facilities
Healthcare: Managed Care
Healthcare: Products & Supplies
Heavy Equipment & Trucks
Homebuilding
Household Durables
Household Nondurables
Industrial Machinery
Insurance: Life & Health
Insurance: Property-Casualty
Investment Services
Lodging & Gaming
Metals: Industrial
Movies & Entertainment
Natural Gas Distribution
Oil & Gas: Equipment & Services
Oil & Gas: Production & Marketing
Paper & Forest Products
Pharmaceuticals
Publishing & Advertising
Real Estate Investment Trusts
Restaurants
Retailing: General
Retailing: Specialty
Savings & Loans
Semiconductor Equipment
Semiconductors
Supermarkets & Drugstores
Telecommunications: Wireless
Telecommunications: Wireline
Transportation: Commercial
Global Industry Surveys
Airlines: Asia
Autos & Auto Parts: Europe
Banking: Europe
Food Retail: Europe
Foods & Beverages: Europe
Media: Europe
Oil & Gas: Europe
Pharmaceuticals: Europe
Telecommunications: Asia
Telecommunications: Europe
Tobacco: Europe

Standard & Poors Industry Surveys
55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041
EXECUTIVE EDITOR: EILEEN M. BOSSONG-MARTINES ASSOCIATE EDITOR: CHARLES MACVEIGH STATISTICIAN: SALLY KATHRYN NUTTALL
CLIENT SUPPORT: 1-800-523-4534. ISSN 0196-4666. USPS NO. 517-780.
VISIT THE STANDARD & POORS WEBSITE: http://www.standardandpoors.com
STANDARD & POOR S I NDUSTRY SURVEYS (I SSN 0196- 4666) i s publ i shed w eekl y. Annual subscr i pt i on: $10, 500. Pl ease cal l f or speci al pr i ci ng: 1- 800- 852- 1641,
opt i on 2. Repr oduct i on i n w hol e or i n par t (i ncl udi ng i nput t i ng i nt o a comput er ) pr ohi bi t ed except by per mi ssi on of St andar d & Poor s. Execut i ve and Edi t or i al
Of f i ce: St andar d & Poor s, 55 Wat er St r eet , New Yor k, NY 10041. Of f i cer s of The M cGr aw - Hi l l Compani es, I nc. : Har ol d M cGr aw I I I , Chai r man, Pr esi dent , and
Chi ef Execut i ve Of f i cer ; Kennet h M . Vi t t or , Execut i ve Vi ce Pr esi dent and Gener al Counsel ; J ack F. Cal l ahan, J r . , Execut i ve Vi ce Pr esi dent and Chi ef Fi nanci al
Of f i cer ; J ohn Wei senseel , Seni or Vi ce Pr esi dent , Tr easur y Oper at i ons. Per i odi cal s post age pai d at New Yor k, NY 10004 and addi t i onal mai l i ng of f i ces.
Post mast er : Send addr ess changes t o St andar d & Poor s, I ndust r y Sur veys, At t n: M ai l Pr ep, 55 Wat er St r eet , New Yor k, NY 10041. I nf or mat i on has been obt ai ned
by St andar d & Poor s I NDUSTRY SURVEYS f r om sour ces bel i eved t o be r el i abl e. How ever , because of t he possi bi l i t y of human or mechani cal er r or by our sour ces,
I NDUSTRY SURVEYS, or ot her s, I NDUSTRY SURVEYS does not guar ant ee t he accur acy, adequacy, or compl et eness of any i nf or mat i on and i s not r esponsi bl e f or
any er r or s or omi ssi ons or f or t he r esul t s obt ai ned f r om t he use of such i nf or mat i on.

Copyr i ght 2011 St andar d & Poor s Fi nanci al Ser vi ces LLC, a subsi di ar y of The M cGr aw - Hi l l Compani es, Inc. Al l r i ght s r eser ved.
STANDARD & POOR S, S& P and S& P 500 ar e r egi st er ed t r ademar ks of St andar d & Poor s Fi nanci al Ser vi ces LLC. S& P M I DCAP 400 and S& P SM ALLCAP 600 ar e
t r ademar ks of St andar d & Poor s Fi nanci al Ser vi ces LLC.

INDUSTRY SURVEYS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS / MAY 19, 2011 1
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT
REITs make up lost ground
Real estate investment trusts (REITs) have continued to regain the ground lost following the financial crisis
that erupted in 2008, when the FTSE NAREIT All REIT Index fell 37.3% on fears that many REITs would
eventually fall into default. At that time, concerns mounted about the typically large debt burden of REITs
in an environment of tighter lending conditions and less readily available capital, as well as fears that many
commercial customers would simply abandon their leases. As investors gradually realized that these fears
were overblown, REIT shares bounced back. The FTSE NAREIT All REIT Index advanced 27.5% in 2009
and 27.95% in 2010. Through the first quarter of 2011, the index advanced 7.5%.
We think the continued interest from investors reflects, in part, an anticipated improvement in economic
conditions, and the success of REITs in managing the 2008 financial meltdown and demonstrating that
commercial property ownership is less cyclical
than many had feared. In addition, new and
continuing access to capital has given REITs a
competitive advantage, in our view, over many
privately held real estate investment vehicles.
Many REITs also offer an attractive yield in a
low interest rate environment. As the economic
recovery takes hold, we think REITs will focus
on stabilizing balance sheets, increasing
property-level cash flow, and eventually
increasing the payout to investors.
We think the operating fundamentals for many
property sectors bottomed in 2010, setting the
stagein a more favorable economic
environmentfor a rebound in 2011 earnings.
The apartment and retail sectors have been among the first, in our view, to benefit from higher tenant
demand. Rental demand for apartments has strengthened as potential homebuyers defer purchases. A
slowdown in multi-family construction starts should also limit competitive supply. We see retail REITs
benefitting from better retailer sentiment, while industrial REITs will likely see improvements over the
course of 2011 as excess space falls and demand for warehouse and distribution facilities picks up on a
rebound in industrial activity. Hotel REITs, one of the hardest hit sectors during the economic downturn,
are also beginning to experience a higher level of travel by core corporate clients. We think hotels could gain
traction on room rates in 2011. The office sector, in our view, found its bottom in the fourth quarter of
2010. Leasing volumes have stabilized while rents on new office leases are still beginning to rise in some
markets. Finally, healthcare REITs should continue to feel the positive effects of an aging population.
THE ECONOMYS HALO EFFECT: NO DOUBLE-DIP RECESSION
As late as September 2010, fears were rampant that the US would experience a double-dip recession as
manufacturing activity and hiring remained lethargic. In fact, the US has continued to show greater
momentum than many expected, despite significant increases in oil prices which have fluctuated near multi-
year highs on concerns about supply disruptions in Libya and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa.
According to Bloomberg News, crude for May delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange had touched
$108.78, the highest level since September 24, 2008; prices are up 27% from a year ago. Although Standard
& Poors expects higher crude prices to slow economic growth, we think the damage seems manageable.
Standard & Poors economic forecast is muted, but still suggests growth in employment and gross domestic
product (GDP) through 2015. After declining 2.6% in 2009 and advancing 2.9% in 2010, we look for real
Chart H02: REITs
vs. S&P 500
COMPOSITE
(50)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2011
S&P 500 All REITs
REITs vs. S&P 500 COMPOSITE INDEX
(Cumulative total return from December 1999, in percent)
Sources: Standard & Poor's; NAREIT.

2 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS / MAY 19, 2011 INDUSTRY SURVEYS
GDP to increase 2.9%, 2.6%, 2.7%, 3.6%, and 3.1% in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively.
The housing market, which has remained the biggest problem in Standard & Poors view, appears poised
for a rebound. After falling 23.2% and 3.3% in 2009 and 2010, Standard & Poors expects residential
construction to decline 1.5% in 2011, before advancing 20.3% and 26.5%, respectively, in 2012 and 2013.
We also see home prices gradually firming over the next 1218 months. We do not see nonresidential
construction advancing until sometime in 2013.
Consumers are remaining much more cautious than usual in this recovery. We think households were
caught out in this recession because of excessive debt and by the sharp drop in household wealth caused by
falling home prices and declining stock prices. We look for consumers to continue to rebalance their
personal balance sheets by cutting back on debt and increasing their savings. Standard & Poors expects
consumer spending to increase 2.7% and 2.2%, respectively, in 2011 and 2012.
If the economy and commercial real estate are to sustain their rebound, generating more jobs will be
imperative. We look for the labor market to show rising strength over the next 1218 months, after
languishing for some time. In March 2011, the US labor Department released its March payroll report,
which indicated that US nonfarm payrolls gained 216,000 new jobs in March, much stronger than the
185,000 expected by consensus and after February payrolls were tweaked up to 194,000 new job gains
(previously up 192,000). The unemployment rate edged down to 8.8% from 8.9% in February, better than
many expected. Average hourly earnings were flat in March, the same as the month before, while the
workweek held at 34.3 hours, also the same as Februarys upwardly revised reading (previously 34.2).
Private payrolls increased 230,000, while the government lost 14,000 jobs, solely in state and local
positions. Manufacturing gained 17,000 jobs while construction lost 1,000 jobs. The service-producing
sector gained the most, with a hefty 199,000 jobs added to the payrolls. Household employment was up
291,000, dwarfing the 160,000 new entries into the labor force. The employment outlook appears to be
improving faster than we previously envisioned. Standard & Poors expects the unemployment rate to fall
from 9.6% in 2010 and a projected 8.7% in 2011 to 7.0% in 2015.
REITS GET ACQUISITIVE AGAIN
After sitting on the sidelines for much of the past three years, it appears that REITs, like many other
corporations in the US, are rediscovering their animal spirits. During the first three months of 2011,
according to the Financial Times, total US merger and acquisition (M&A) activity jumped 84%, year to
year, to $267 billion. With all the money that REITs raised in 2009 to purchase distressed real estate at
once-in-a-lifetime prices, it was just a matter of time before they started putting this money to work. Well
before the start of the financial crisis, many equity REITs had curtailed their acquisitions because high
prices for properties threatened to hurt investment returns. As the crisis unfolded, distressed commercial real
estate was expected to flood the market and offer REITs and other institutional investors opportunities to
acquire attractive properties at attractive yields. However, there was often a wide gulf between what sellers
wanted and what many REIT buyers would pay, which stymied investment activity. In fact, many REITs
took to disposing of non-core/non-strategic real estate assets.
It seems that the gulf between buyers and sellers is narrowing (through the first quarter of 2011) as memory
of the financial crisis recedes and investors increasingly appreciate the demonstrated earnings power of
many of these assets. This is particularly true for healthcare real estate. The value of announced M&A deals
by publicly traded US REITs jumped 69%, year over year, to $66.2 billion for the six months ending
March 31, 2011. Standard & Poors Equity Research expects robust commercial real estate investment
activity to continue over the course of 2011. Nevertheless, as prices trend upward and cap rates decline, we
think publicly traded REITs will continue to remain somewhat cautious with their investment dollars.
Healthcare REITs. On the healthcare front, Standard & Poors Equity Research thinks that healthcare
REITs are poised to continue to increase their portfolios in 2011 and 2012 through major portfolio and
company acquisitions, property purchases, and partnerships. According to Capital IQ, which provides web-
based financial information services and is a unit of Standard & Poors, the value of announced M&A deals
for healthcare REITs surged from about $1.5 billion in the six months ending March 31, 2010, to $22.5

billion for the six months ending March 31, 2011. Several healthcare REITs, flush with cash following
equity offerings and other capital-raising transactions, have announced and/or completed several large
portfolio acquisitions over the past six months.
In April 2011, Health Care REIT Inc. completed its $2.4 billion acquisition of substantially all of
the real estate assets of privately owned Genesis HealthCare; the acquired portfolio consisted of
147 post-acute, skilled nursing, and assisted living facilities in 11 states with long-term, triple net
leases. In addition, in March 2011, Health Care completed the formation of an $890 million
partnership with Benchmark Senior Living; the partnership includes 34 private-pay senior housing
communities in six New England states.
In January 2011, HCP Inc. acquired its partners 65% interest in an $860 million senior housing
joint venture, consisting of 25 senior housing assets, for $137 million and assumed its partners
share of $650 million of debt. In December 2010, HCP agreed to acquire 338 post-acute, skilled
nursing, and assisted living facilities of privately held HCR ManorCare for $6.1 billion in stock,
debt, and cash.
In February 2011, Ventas Inc. agreed to acquire Nationwide Health Properties Inc. in a $7.4 billion
all-stock transaction. Nationwide, another large publicly traded REIT, had a portfolio of 667
healthcare properties.
Although Health Care, HCP, and Ventas are the dominant healthcare REITs, they account for only a
relatively small portion of the highly fragmented healthcare real estate market, even after their recent
acquisitions. In an April 2011 interview with the Financial Times, Debra Cafaro, chairman and CEO of
Ventas, noted that all REITs probably owned less than 8% of the $1 trillion US healthcare real estate
market. Given the highly fragmented nature of the industry and plethora of properties, we look for the
larger healthcare REITs to remain active on the acquisition path, even as they integrate recent purchases. We
think this tend will be helped by a desire of owner/operators, private equity, and pension funds to monetize
their investments. In February 2011, Health Cares management indicated that its 2011 pipeline would be
about $5 billion, compared with $3.2 billion in 2010. We expect many of the new transactions will be off-
market, non-brokered opportunities derived primarily from the existing industry relationships that the top
three healthcare REITs have developed. We also expect these acquirers to maintain their focus on broadening
the geographic diversity of their portfolios and attempting to restrict their portfolios reliance on
government reimbursements.
Industrial REITs. Even though many owners of industrial space continue to struggle with weak pricing,
demand for industrial properties has improved considerably. According to Real Capital Analytics, a
commercial real estate market research firm, transaction volume jumped from $2.5 billion in the fourth
quarter of 2009 to $6.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010, sending the cap rate from 8.7% to 8.1%.
Most of the transactions have been relatively small, with many REITs continuing to dispose of non-core
properties and opportunistically acquiring new properties. In February 2011, Liberty Property Trust noted
that it had sold five operating properties for $11.5 million and purchased two multi-tenant properties in the
fourth quarter of 2010. The current yield on these acquisitions was 4.9%, and Liberty expects to achieve an
8.4% return upon stabilization. First Industrial Realty Trust Inc., which was squeezed hard during the
financial downturn and has struggled to deleverage its balance sheet, sold four industrial properties and two
land parcels for $8.2 million in the 2010 fourth quarter.
As we noted earlier, many companies had raised capital during the financial crisis with the hope of making
deep discount acquisitions. However, a few companies, which had been very aggressive in making
acquisitions and had leveraged up prior to the financial crisis, were hobbled during the crisis and have
continued to see their companies garner discounts well after the financial crisis has ended as investors
remain wary of leverage. In late January 2011, AMB Property Corp. and ProLogis agreed to combine
through a merger of equals in which each ProLogis common share would be converted into 0.4464 of a
newly issued AMB common share. Upon completion of the merger, the company would be named ProLogis.
We believe that the new company, with projected gross assets owned and managed of about $46 billion,
would have a very strong portfolio of industrial properties around the world. In our view, the planned

merger of AMB and ProLogis appears to be a good match, in that it will allow AMB to use its capital to
address ProLogis leveraged balance sheet.
Retail REITs. In the shopping center space, we believe the price appreciation trend, especially for high-
quality properties with resilient cash flows, will continue to drive cap rates lower and lead to a lower rate of
return on shopping mall investments. Real Capital Analytics indicated in January 2011 that the volume of
transactions advanced from $6.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $7.8 billion in the same period of
2010, while cap rates dropped from 8.3% to 7.7%. We expect cap rates for high quality properties to fall
further over the course of 2011; lesser quality properties, which many publicly traded REITs try to avoid,
will, in our view, see a wide range of cap rates, though mostly higher.
We do not expect significant M&A activity in this area. We think retail landlords are more likely to grow
their portfolios through small property purchases as well as development and redevelopment programs.
Many retail REITs also continue to dispose of non-core properties at attractive prices. In the fourth quarter
of 2010, Regency Centers Corp. purchased one property for $64.0 million and a cap rate of 6.5%, while it
sold one wholly owned operating property at a gross sales price of $9.9 million and a cap rate of 7.9%.
Regency also sold three co-investment operating properties at a gross sales price of $56.6 million and a
weighted average cap rate of 7.7%. In January 2011, Equity One Inc. agreed to acquire three shopping
centers in California for $72.0 million. The company also completed its acquisition of Capital and Counties
USA Inc. through a joint venture with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC in which it acquired a portfolio
of 13 properties in California. Meanwhile, for all of 2010, National Retail Properties Inc., which was
somewhat aggressive in acquiring properties during the downturn, invested $256.6 million in 194 properties
(including 159 properties acquired in the fourth quarter) and sold 18 properties for $58.8 million.
Far fewer retailers went bankrupt than had been previously forecast during the recession, which has
attracted attention from investors desiring stable cash flows. Some retail REITs, such as National Retail
Properties Inc., Simon Property Group Inc., Equity One Inc., Macerich, and Federal Realty Investment
Trust, have indicated that they are continuing to look for acquisitions, but only at the right price, which we
think will restrict their overall activity. Nevertheless, there has been activity. In August 2010, Simon
Property Group completed its $2.3 billion acquisition of 21 outlet centers, totaling 8.0 million square feet,
from Prime Outlets Inc.
Office REITs. Amid an improving economy and better jobs environment, demand for office properties
has surged. According to Real Capital Analytics, transaction volume for office properties surged from $4.6
billion in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $18.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010, with the cap rate going
from 8.9% to 6.9%. In December 2010, Boston Properties Inc., purchased the John Hancock Tower,
Bostons tallest building, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $930.0 million. The purchase
price consisted of approximately $289.5 million of cash and the assumption of approximately $640.5
million of debt. In March 2011, Vornado Realty Trust (in a co-investment with its real estate fund) acquired
an office building at One Park Avenue in Manhattan. The purchase price for the 95% interest in the
building was about $374 million, consisting of $137 million of cash and Vornados 95% share of a new
$250 million 5-year mortgage. Vornados aggregate ownership interest in the building (including its 25%
ownership of the fund) is 46.5%.
Joint ventures are another option
We also note that in lieu of making outright purchases of other REITs or real estate companies, we think
many REITs will continue to use joint ventures. During the financial crisis, many equity REITs sold some of
their properties to joint ventures. With prices firming, we think equity REITs may increasingly pursue a
reverse strategy and focus on partnering with other investors to acquire attractive properties. For example,
Kimco Realty Corp. announced in May 2010 that it had formed a new joint venture with BIG Shopping
Centers, an Israel-based publicly traded company, to acquire high-quality neighborhood and community
shopping centers throughout the United States. The initial investment of $68.8 million included two
properties that Kimco purchased during the fourth quarter of 2009. As noted above, a January 2011
acquisition by Equity One was effected through a joint venture.

REITS ACCESS PUBLIC EQUITY AND DEBT MARKETS
Since the end of 2008, REITs have looked to public markets as a means of raising capital to address retiring
debt maturities, improve balance sheet metrics and, more recently, fund renewed acquisition and project
development activity. Generally, investors have responded enthusiastically by purchasing near-record
amounts of newly issued stock and unsecured debt. In addition, despite some isolated instances, we think
most equity REITs have emerged from the financial crisis in stronger financial condition. According to data
published by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), an industry trade group,
the debt ratio (total debt to enterprise value) for equity REITs had improved to 41.1%, as of September 30,
2010, versus 57.7% at the end of 2008.
In 2010, REITs raised $26.2 billion from 108 secondary common and preferred stock offerings, the highest
total since the $26.4 billion raised in 1997. During the first quarter of 2011, REITs were issuing stock at an
even more torrid pace, raising $16.6 billion in just three months. We note that several REITs have returned
to the equity markets a second time since early 2010, including retail REIT Developers Diversified Realty
Corp., Health Care REIT Inc., and lodging REIT LaSalle Hotel Properties.
Due to tightened underlying standards by traditional real estate lenders, such as banks and insurance
companies, many REITs have also turned to public debt markets as a source of capital. According to
NAREIT, a total of 56 unsecured debt offerings were completed in 2010 and raised $19.3 billion. During
the first quarter of 2011, another 13 deals have come to market and added gross proceeds of $5.7 billion.
The consolidating healthcare sector has accounted for much the recent activity. In January 2011, HCP Inc.
issued $2.4 billion in senior unsecured notes. In March 2011, Health Care REIT priced $1.4 billion in
senior unsecured notes.
Many REITs have used proceeds from new equity and debt offerings to pay down revolving credit lines or
buy back existing debt at a discount to par. These transactions can lower interest expense and overall
financial leverage. Going forward, we think access to relatively low-cost capital will provide public REITs
with a competitive advantage in seeking new investment opportunities. As discussed in the Industry
Trends section of this Survey (see REIT IPOs manage a modest comeback), the IPO market has
languished over the last two years and, therefore, has not provided a good alternative for monetizing
investments by private holders of commercial real estate. The issuance of shares by public REITs also
provides a vehicle for completing purchase transactions.
RESURGENT CMBS MARKET MAY ADD TO LIQUIIDITY
The strong up cycle in the commercial real estate market from 2004 through 2008 couldnt have happened
without ample access to credit. The commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) market was ideal for
meeting this need. It allowed acquisitions to be financed by pooling together newly issued mortgages for re-
sale to investors anxious to get in on the action. During the period from 2000 through 2009, $954 billion in
new US CMBS were issued, including $230 billion during 2007 alone. Due to the ensuing financial crisis,
however, issuance then dropped considerably, and $12 billion of CMBS were issued for all of 2008. In
2009, only $3 billion of CMBS were offered.
The year 2010 saw the CMBS market come slowly back to life, finishing the year with about $12 in new
issuances. We think that the US Treasury Departments Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF),
initiated in March 2009, played a role in encouraging investment in a variety of asset-backed securities. The
costs and restrictions related to TALF deals, including a lengthy approval process, may have discouraged
some potential new issuers. In November 2009, REIT Developers Diversified Realty Corp. closed on a $400
million loan as the only US CMBS transaction to use TALF. However, Standard & Poors believes it paved
the way for several non-TALF deals, which further promoted CMBS liquidity. In October 2010, JPMorgan
Chase & Co. completed a $1.1 billion CMBS offering, the first sponsored by multiple borrowers, the largest
of which was retail REIT Simon Property Group.
Standard & Poors Credit Market Services believes that the CMBS market is gaining momentum in early
2011. During the first quarter, eight deals were completed for a total issuance volume of $8.7 billion. Of the

total, five of the offerings were multiborrower transactions raising about $7.9 billion and secured by well
diversified pools of assets. For the remainder of 2011, Standard & Poors believes tighter credit spreads (i.e.,
more attractive pricing) and a slowdown in CMBS delinquency rates could accelerate new issuance volume.
In February 2011, 9.07% of existing CMBS loans were delinquent, a small 9-basis-point increase from
January and a marked slowdown in growth trends recorded during 2010. For the full year, we estimate that
$35 billion in new issuances will come to market, well above the $12 billion priced in 2010.
In 2011, Standard & Poors notes several emerging trends apparent in the CMBS market. First, transaction
structures are becoming more complex and underwriting standards are loosening somewhat. Second, multi-
borrower deal volume is easily outpacing single-borrower volume and providing more liquidity to the
CMBS market. Finally, competition among loan originators is intensifying. Standard & Poors estimates
that there are now about 25 active loan originators, compared with a small handful in 2009.
The CMBS market is a potentially attractive market for REITs to finance acquisitions or re-finance
maturing obligations. In our view, this could contribute to renewed transaction activity in the commercial
real estate sector.
RETAIL REITS ENJOY BETTER DEMAND FOR THEIR SPACE
The recession hit department stores harder than discounters, as consumers made mostly need-based
purchases. Most consumers can live without new fashion apparel and accessories, fine jewelry, and home
furnishings during an economic downturn, in our view. Since fall 2009, however, same-store sales have
rebounded at department stores, with a few chains actually outperforming discounters. In addition, sales at
apparel chains and luxury retailers have been very healthy.
Nevertheless, we believe that retailers face headwinds that will likely impact their businesses, both in the
short term and long term. During the first quarter, cotton prices rose 38%, year over year, following their
sharp 90% rise in 2010. In the short term, we
see rising commodity prices forcing retailers to
either increase prices and possibly risk a drop in
consumer demand for their products, or to eat
the costs of rising commodity prices and risk
their margins. With the crises in the Middle East
and North Africa, the tsunami and nuclear
disaster in Japan, and the ever-present global
thirst for energy, gasoline and home heating oil
prices are surging to multiyear highs. The hike in
energy prices will not only impact the entire
supply chain for retailers, but may also affect
consumer spending power and sentiment, by our
analysis. Although Standard & Poors sees higher
oil prices squeezing consumers, we expect
consumers to keep spending even as many
households work to increase their savings and decrease their debt burdens. In early April 2011, several
retailers reported March 2011 sales that exceeded expectations. Standard & Poors expects consumer spending
to rise 2.7% in 2011 and 2.2% in 2012, following a 1.7% advance in 2010 and a 1.2% drop in 2009.
We think the rising short-term costs, pressures stemming from increasing labor costs in Asia, as well as
higher freight expenses, will present longer-term structural challenges that will likely cause retailers to
rethink their business plans. However, despite these expected headwinds and the recent bankruptcy filings
by several retailers such as Blockbuster Inc. and Borders Group Inc., we believe that major retailers will
continue to open new stores in 2011 and 2012, although these plans will likely remain well below pre-
recession levels due to companies being more conservative as well as a sharp drop-off in new retail space
being developed. We also think that a heightened supply of cheap retail space in strip malls will allow room
for retailer expansion, especially among the dollar stores. In early April 2011, Standard & Poors Equity
Research was expecting Target Corp. to open 21 new stores in fiscal year 2012 (ending January 2012), up
Chart H10: VALUE
OF SHOPPING
MALL
CONSTRUCTION
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
1996 98 00 02 04 06 08 2010
VALUE OF SHOPPING MALL CONSTRUCTION
(Millions of dollars)
Source: US Census Bureau.

from 13 in fiscal 2011. At 99 Cents Only Stores, we forecast 16 net new stores in fiscal year 2012 (ending
March 2012) versus nine in fiscal 2011; and at Family Dollar Stores Inc., we look for 300 new stores in
fiscal year 2011 (ending August 2011) compared with 200 in fiscal 2010.
We believe that well-located owners of shopping centers will continue to attract consumers to their centers
and, thus, retailers. While retailer sales can be volatile (and were particularly so during the financial
downturn), sales at many of the better centers have rebounded sharply. At Taubman Centers Inc., whose
regional malls cater to more affluent consumers, sales per square feet jumped to $564 in 2010, after falling
to $502 in 2009, from $533 in 2008 and $555 in 2007. We continue to see highly productive regional malls
faring better than strip shopping centers, which generally lack the same barriers to entry that the large
regional malls possess.
The national vacancy rate (i.e., for the top 80 US markets) for large regional malls rose to 9.1% in the 2011
first quarter from 8.7% in the 2010 fourth quarter, and reversed the 2010 fourth quarters improvement,
which was the first quarter-to-quarter decline since the third quarter of 2007. Asking rents in regional malls
dipped 0.1% in the fourth quarter to $38.75 per square foot. According to Reis Inc., a commercial real
estate research firm, vacancies in shopping centers held steady at 10.9% in the 2011 first quarter,
unchanged over the 2010 fourth and third quarters, while asking rents fell 0.1% to $19.03. We continue to
believe that overall trends for shopping center owners are stabilizing.
We think the publicly traded REITs (many of which do not provide portfolio data to third-party research
providers) will continue to be early beneficiaries of improvements in retailer sentiment. Although some of the
pressure may be easing on smaller and more localized developers, especially as retailers seek out retail space
amid a lack of new developments, we still believe that many of these developers, which tend to lack the
diversification and strong retail relationships of their publicly traded counterparts, will feel more of the pain.
Portfolio occupancy at CBL & Associates Properties Inc., which operates a portfolio of regional malls in
secondary markets, rose to 92.4% at the end of the 2010 fourth quarter, from 90.4% in the year-earlier
period, while re-leasing spreads fell 8% in the fourth quarter of 2010. At Macerich, another mall operator,
occupancy rose to 93.1% from 91.3% and re-leasing spreads jumped 13.7%. The US operating portfolio
(consisting of regional mall and premium outlet centers) of Simon Property Group showed an occupancy
increase to 94.2% from 93.4%, while re-leasing spreads jumped 3.0%. Occupancy in the US portfolio at
Kimco Realty rose to 92.7% from 92.2%, while re-leasing spreads fell 2.8%.
Overall, we look for occupancies for publicly traded REITs to continue increasing over the course of 2011
and 2012. However, occupancies may dip for some landlords, in our view, as retailers normally close
underperforming stores or declare bankruptcy in the first quarter after the all-important holiday season is
over. Moreover, we note that in some cases, improvements in occupancy have been restricted by
management decisions to hold back space in order to obtain higher rents once pricing is firmer.
Several of the S&P sub-industry indices have shown gains, outpacing the broader market year to date
through March 31, 2011: apparel retail (+5.4%), general merchandise stores (-9.9%), home furnishings
(+7.2%), food retail (+9.8%), home improvement retail (+5.6%) and restaurants (+4.9%). Not surprisingly,
retail REITs have benefited from the improved retail sentiment. The S&P retail REIT sub-index gained
4.6% through March 31, 2011, after a 25.1% gain in 2010.
OFFICE REITS: A TALE OF TWO MARKETS
Nationally, Standard & Poors believes a slow recovery is underway for office demand, driven by renewed
job creation. In March 2011, the unemployment rate fell to 8.8%, well below 9.7% in March 2010.
Although discouraged workers have accounted for some of the drop in the unemployment rate, we expect
further gains in payroll employment to push the rate of unemployed workers down to 8.5% by the fourth
quarter of 2011.
We think office-leasing volumes stabilized during the fourth quarter of 2010, and are poised for a modest
rebound nationally in 2011. In our view, a lack of new supply may be helping the market come back into

better balance. Development pipelines, as reported by public REITs, were scaled back dramatically during
2009 and 2010 due to a challenging economic environment and tight credit market conditions.
Our view is supported by data published by Colliers International, a leading provider of real estate services.
Colliers estimates that fourth-quarter 2010 office vacancy fell 29 basis points, to 16.11%, the first drop
after 12 quarters of rising vacancy. During the quarter, 14.8 million square feet of office space were
absorbed and demand benefited from only 3.8 million square feet in completed new construction.
Moreover, at year-end 2010, just 22.3
million square feet in multi-year
construction projects were underway,
down from 46.0 million square feet at the
end of 2009. Reis Inc., a leading provider
of commercial real estate data, puts year-
end office vacancy at a somewhat higher
17.6%. However, Reis also reports that
initial leasing data for the first quarter of
2011 show a decline in the national
vacancy rate by 0.1%, to 17.5%. In
addition, Reis reports that average effective
rents (after landlord concessions) rose
0.5% in the first quarter, the second
consecutive quarter of improvement.
Despite the generally positive news, we
believe fortunes have diverged for
landlords, depending on the primary location of their properties. Central business districts (CBDs) are
experiencing more vibrant job markets and limited competition from new supply due to a lack of available
building sites. New York City, for example, has seen renewed hiring in the financial sector and a vibrant
local tourism economy. According to the New York State Department of Labor, the February 2011
unemployment rate in New York City was 9.2%, a full 100 basis points lower than February 2010.
Suburban office markets, on the other hand, are struggling from local job losses and relatively low barriers
to entry. Our observations are supported by data from Colliers that shows a 2010 year-end vacancy rate of
14.8% for office properties in downtown locations compared with 16.7% for suburban markets. Colliers
estimates that 3.1 million square feet of newly constructed space were added to suburban markets during
the fourth quarter, versus only 693,000 square feet in downtown markets.
Standard & Poors is also observing a similar dichotomy in the fortunes of public REITs. Boston Properties
is a leading office REIT focused almost exclusively on CBDs in Boston, New York, San Francisco, and
Washington, D.C. It ended 2010 with an overall occupancy level of 93.2%, well above national averages.
SL Green Realty Corp., a REIT focused on the recovering New York market, reported December 31, 2010
occupancy for its Manhattan portfolio of 94.6%. On the other hand, Brandywine Realty Trust and Duke
Realty Corp., two REITs focused on suburban office markets, have reported less robust leasing statistics.
Brandywine, with extensive suburban office holdings in Mid-Atlantic markets, reported year-end occupancy
of only 85.6%. Duke Realty, a diversified REIT with significant suburban office holdings in Midwestern
markets, ended 2010 with an office occupancy rate of 85.7%.
Standard & Poors thinks 2010 may prove to be a turning point for office property investment activity,
particularly by REITs with strong balance sheets and access to credit. We see, in particular, renewed interest
in high-quality properties located in central business districts. According to information published by the
Mortgage Bankers Association (based on data from Real Capital Analytics), about $40.3 billion in office
real estate transactions were completed in 2010, up from $16.0 billion in 2009. Among the largest
transactions completed by REITs was Boston Properties $930 million purchase in December of the John
Hancock Tower in Boston. In the second quarter, SL Green sold its 45% interest in New Yorks McGraw-
Hill Building in a total transaction valued at $1.28 billion. In view of steadily improving operating
Chart H04:
VACANCY
RATES
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Office Industrial Retail Rental housing units*
VACANCY RATES
(In percent)
Sources: National Association of Realtors; *US Department of Commerce.

fundamentals, primarily in CBDs, Standard & Poors anticipates that 2011 will again show a significant
step-up in transaction activity.
During the recession, most office REITs sharply curtailed new development plans, waiting for demand to
stabilize and credit market conditions to improve. Typically, new projects are going forward only on a
build-to-suit basis for specific tenants or for buildings that have been substantially subleased. Some
potential new projects, though, may move off the drawing board. We believe Vornado Realty, a leading
office REIT, is activity seeking potential tenants for a proposed new, 1,190-foot tower near Pennsylvania
Station in New York. Also in the New York City market, Boston Properties in early 2011 was discussing
restarting a long-stalled office project on West 55
th
street. Although we dont expect either project to go
forward without firm tenant commitments, it could signal that REITs are getting ready to build as demand
regains momentum.
INDUSTRIAL REITS: STILL WAITING FOR A REBOUND
Demand for space at industrial properties generally contracts in tandem with a recession, while the recovery
in demand is typically a long drawn-out process as users of industrial facilities try to ascertain the direction
of the economy and their businesses. The recovery from the 2001 recession was a multi-year process for
industrial landlords who at that time also had to contend with an increasing supply of industrial space that
was pressuring rents. With little new supply being added to the market as smaller developers have been
squeezed out of the market by stricter lending conditions, we believe that the recovery from the 2008-2009
recession for industrial REITs is approaching.
There are already signs that trends have started to stabilize, in our view, and this suggests to us that
operating trends in 2011 could improve meaningfully. In January 2011, CBRE Econometric Advisors (part
of CB Richard Ellis, a commercial real estate broker), commenting on the fourth quarter, observed that
national availability in US industrial markets declined to 14.3%, marking the second consecutive quarterly
decline. The decrease in availability, combined with a sharp gain in leasing activity at several of the
industrial REITs we follow, suggests to us that industrial users are looking to lock in low rents before they
start to rise again. CBRE noted that during the 2010 fourth quarter, 39 markets reported falling availability
rates, four saw no change, while the remaining 15 reported increases.
Retention at AMB Property rose to 69.6% for the four quarters ended December 31, 2010, from 61.2% in
the same period last year, while occupancy rose to 93.7% at the end of the fourth quarter from 91.2% at
the end of the 2009 third quarter. However, like other owners of industrial space, AMB has had to struggle
to maintain occupancy by lowering rents. During the fourth quarter, AMBs re-leasing spread on new and
renewal leases dropped 11.9% for the 12 months ended December 31, 2010. The situation was somewhat
similar at ProLogis and First Industrial Realty Trust Inc., where re-leasing spreads fell 10.5% and 17.2%,
respectively, in the fourth quarter. Spreads for the fourth quarter fell 22.1% at EastGroup Properties Inc.
and 5.0% (averaged) at Liberty Property Trust.
We do not see market rents improving materially until later in 2011 or sometime in 2012, as landlords
grapple with still-soft domestic demand for space due to a prolonged contraction in manufacturing and
inventory levels. Landlords have adopted several strategies to restrict the long-term impact of soft rents on
their portfolios. Some landlords, such as Liberty Property Trust, have sought to mitigate the weakness by
pursuing a blend and extend strategy: they reduce rents in exchange for the tenant extending the lease
beyond its stated expiration date. Managements at several industrial REITs also have indicated that they
were restricting the duration of low-rent/uneconomic leases. Still, others are increasing the automatic rent
bump-ups that are embedded in the leases. First Industrial indicated that it had been successful in raising the
average annual rent step-up in leases, with bumps commencing in 2010 to about 6.7%, from the typical
2.5% to 3.0% range.
Recent economic indicators, although relatively modest, suggests that the economy is improving, which
should help. We see economic growth driving demand for industrial space. As of April 2011, Standard &
Poors was looking for real GDP to advance 2.9% in 2011 and 2.6% in 2012, after a 2.9% gain in 2010. In
April, the Institute for Supply Chain Management said that its index of factory activity fell to 61.2% in

March 2011 from 61.4% in February (readings over 50 indicate more firms are expanding than
contracting); the index remained near 12-month highs. Having depleted inventories during the recession,
many manufacturers and retailers will likely need to continue rebuilding their inventories to satisfy
rebounding demand. Standard & Poors is looking for net gains in business inventories of $73.8 billion in
2011 and $53.1 billion in 2012, compared with a net decline of $113.1 billion in 2009 and a projected net
gain of $60.4 billion in 2010. We think that rising manufacturing activity will prompt demand for more
space.
We think that AMB Property and ProLogis, which have sizable properties related to global trade, are
particularly well positioned to benefit from a rebound in imports and exports. In contrast to the second
quarter of 2010, both REITs reported year-over-year gains in third-quarter occupancy levels. Although the
re-leasing spread at each firm declined, we believe that encouraging news from major customers, such as
United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. and the major trucking companies, suggest this area is
improving. Standard & Poors expects the global trade situation to remain fairly healthy, with imports into
the US projected to climb 6.1% in 2011 and 5.2% in 2012 (compared with a 12.7% gain in 2010) and
exports expected to rise 9.6% in 2011 and 9.8% in 2012 (versus a decline of 11.8% in 2010). Moreover,
we think the sharp drop in construction activity should lead to a more pronounced recovery in rent growth
once demand for industrial space picks up.
The S&P industrial REIT sub-industry index gained 11.1% through the 2011 first quarter, after a 12.2%
gain in 2010.
RESIDENTIAL REITS: APARTMENT OWNERS FILL VOID LEFT BY A SLUMPING HOUSING MARKET
The single-family housing market cant seem to break out of its slump. According to the US Commerce
Department, new home sales in February 2011 were at an annual rate of 250,000, 28.0% below the level in
February 2010, and at a 48-year record low. Existing home sales, as reported by the National Association
of Realtors, werent any more encouraging. In February 2011, existing home sales of 4.9 million were down
9.6% from Januarys rate of 5.4 million.
Recent trends in home ownership rates also
suggest many potential buyers remain on
the sidelines. During the fourth quarter of
2010, the nations home ownership rate
slipped to 66.6%, down from 67.3% in the
fourth quarter of 2009, and the lowest level
since 1998. According to data published by
the US Census Bureau, we are also well
below the peak ownership rate of 69.4 %
(seasonally adjusted) reached in the second
quarter of 2004.
The bad news for the for-sale housing
market is translating into good news for the
rental market. Young renters, in particular,
are finding a greater level of security in
leasing rather than committing to a new home purchase. And, as the economy recovers, the number of
potential renters continues to grow. S&P estimates 400,000 new households were formed in 2010 and we
forecast that pace to accelerate, with 600,000 additional households forming in 2011 and 1.3 million new
family units forming in 2012.
A review of the ten apartment REITs in our coverage universe shows average fourth-quarter 2010
occupancy of 95.4%, near full capacity and above 94.0% in the final period of 2009. According to national
statistics published by Reis, average occupancy for full-year 2010 was 93.4%, an improvement from 92.0%
in 2009. Initial numbers from Reis show first-quarter 2011 occupancy of 93.8%.
Chart H14:
RENTAL
VACANCIES
VERSUS HOME
OWNERSHIP
66.0
66.5
67.0
67.5
68.0
68.5
69.0
69.5
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Home ownership (left scale) Rental vacancies (right scale)
RENTAL VACANCIES VERSUS HOME OWNERSHIP RATES
(Percent of total households) (Percent of total rental properties)
Source: US Census Bureau.

Moreover, we believe REITs are regaining pricing flexibility as available space becomes scarce. We estimate
rents on new leases rose 3% to 5% during the fourth quarter of 2010. Average rents for our research
universe, reflecting leases signed over the last twelve months, rose 0.8%.
In 2011, Standard & Poors believes that the multi-family housing market will also benefit from a lack of
new supply. We believe many private developers have curtailed plans for new communities due to a lack of
available financing. New multi-family construction starts fell about 63% in 2009, as reported by the US
Census Bureau, before rebounding only 7% in 2010. This led to a sharp 44% drop in units actually
completed in 2010. In our view, this will provide less competition for owners of established properties,
including many REITs.
We expect some REITs in our coverage universe to fill the gap in new construction by expanding their own
development pipelines in 2011. New activity, in our view, may be concentrated on the healthiest markets
and particularly in supply-constrained metropolitan areas. We think Avalon Bay Communities could be a
leader in pursuing new opportunities. As of December 31, 2010, it had 14 communities under construction
with total construction costs estimated at $879.5 million. In addition, it has established development rights
for over 7,300 new apartment units.
LODGING REITS: BUSINESS TRAVELERS HIT THE ROAD
The lodging industry began to rebound in 2010, following a difficult year in 2009. Based on statistics
published by Smith Travel Research, we estimate total 2010 demand for hotel rooms rose 7.7%, after a 6.0%
dip in 2009. In our evaluation, business clientele, including both transient and group travelers, accounted for
most of the gain as economic conditions gradually improved. Domestic leisure travel did not decline nearly as
much in 2009, but we believe high unemployment continued to crimp demand in 2010.
Despite a 260 basis point improvement in occupancy, to 57.3%, hoteliers still had difficulty gaining traction
on pricing in 2010. We think many business travelers continued to comparison shop for the best deals. As a
result, average daily rates actually slipped 0.1%. Total revenue per available room (RevPAR) rose 5.5%,
driven by higher occupancy, after a decline of 16.7% in 2009.
The lodging industry slowdown in 2008 and 2009 resulted in a significant pullback in new construction
activity that may begin to benefit existing operators in 2011. The number of available room nights in 2009
increased 3.0%, reflecting construction and redevelopment projects already financed before the financial
crisis. For 2010, room night supply increased a lesser 2.0%. Moreover, in 2011, we forecast a further
deceleration in growth of room supply to about 1%.
We expect better economic conditions, increased travel by both business and leisure customers, and more
limited new competition to result in further expansion in industry revenue metrics in 2011. Our forecast
calls for an increase in demand of about 2.5% and moderately higher room rates to drive total RevPAR up
6%7%.
In our estimation, REITs, many of which have significantly pared operating costs, will see much of the
revenue improvement fall to their bottom lines in 2011. In addition, we expect fewer new debt and equity
offerings that diluted results on a per-share basis in 2009 and 2010.
The investment transaction market also began to revive in 2010, as investors looked to capitalize on a
recovery in industry operating conditions. Jones Lang LaSalle, a leading commercial real estate broker,
estimates 2010 transactions in the Americas region of $11.9 billion, up more than five fold from 2009.
Moreover, Jones Lang believes that improving fundamentals and more favorable credit market conditions
will lead to at least $13 billion in 2011 transactions.
US REITs are active participants in pursuing new investment opportunities. Host Hotels, the largest lodging
REIT as measured by market capitalization, completed four transactions in 2010 for an aggregate of $479
million. So far, in 2011, it has completed a $145 million purchase of properties in New Zealand and signed
agreements to acquire hotels in New York City and San Diego for a combined $883.5 million.

TIMBER REITS: NEW KID ON THE BLOCK
In September 2010, Weyerhaeuser Co. completed its conversion to a REIT by complying with IRS
regulations that require an initial special dividend to common shareholders to cover taxable income. The
conversion immediately propelled Timber REITs into the fifth largest REIT sector, as monitored by
NAREIT and based on equity market capitalization. As of March 31, 2011, timber REITs had a market
capitalization of $26.9 billion, about 49% of which comprised Weyerhaeuser. Other timber REITs include
Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc., Potlatch Corp., and Rayonier Inc.
We believe Weyerhaeuser, now one of the largest publicly held REITs in any sector, was motivated
primarily by the adoption of a more tax efficient structure. It expects the majority of its REIT income to
come from investments in timberlands, including the sale of standing timber through pay-as-cut sales
contracts. The trusts remaining assets will be held in a Taxable REIT Subsidiary (TRS), including
manufacturing business and real estate development. However, in accordance with IRS regulations, no more
than 25% of gross income may consist of dividends from the TRS or other non-real estate income.
Our fundamental outlook for the forest products industry is neutral over the next 12 months. Demand is
highly dependent on the construction industry, especially the home construction and remodeling segment.
Although there are some indications of improvement, the new home construction market remains well
below prior peaks. However, we think even modest improvement in residential construction could lead to
periods of stronger lumber and wood products prices over the coming year.
HEALTHCARE REITS: SLOW GROWTH AHEAD
The success of the Republican Party in the 2010 midterm elections has raised the hopesas well as fears
that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama in March 2010,
will be watered down or even repealed. With more than 59 million Americans without health insurance as
of November 2010, according to the US Centers for Disease Control, and an aging population, we believe
that there will continue to be a growing need for healthcare facilities, regardless of how the healthcare
reform debate plays out. However, healthcare costs continue to rise well above inflation and we see efforts
to restrict cost increases. In April 2011, Standard & Poors indicated that its Healthcare Economic
Composite Index, which measures the average per capita cost of healthcare services covered by commercial
insurance and Medicare programs, increased by 6.2% over the 12-month period ended February 2011.
Standard & Poors sees stable pricing among commercial insurers and favorable demographics, including a
rapidly expanding senior population, which we think should sustain the demand for hospital services as
positive industry trends. However, we see pressures on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement amid federal
and state budget deficits rising to worrisome levels and a lack of clarity over the timing of resumption of a
positive turn in hospital admission trends. We see the same factors affecting the skilled nursing area to a
lesser degree. We see senior housing, which does not rely on government reimbursements, benefiting from
an aging population, while an increase in the number of insured people should expand demand for medical
office buildings. (For a more detailed discussion of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, see the
Healthcare: Facilities Survey.)
Since healthcare REITs own the space and do not operate the facilities, they will likely remain indirect
beneficiaries of the demographic shift. However, we expect any benefits to be partially offset by continued
cost containment efforts. Shifts in government reimbursement rates will weigh on the ability of hospital and
skilled nursing home providers to pay rents and/or endure rent increases from their landlords (healthcare
REITs). Senior housing relies on private pay, but sharp drops in equity and home prices can negatively
affect the affordability of senior housing, which may reduce the ability of tenant/operators to pay rent or
endure rent increases. Fourth-quarter 2010 results of several healthcare REITs indicate to us that trends
remain healthy. In general, these companies showed improvements in coverage ratios, which measure the
ability of the operators to cover their rents. Owners of medical office buildings have generally benefited
from increasing demand for their space, which took occupancy levels and rents higher. Nevertheless, we

expect that organic growth in this needs-driven segment will continue to be slow; acquisitions of healthcare
assets should continue to help overall growth.
Ventas reported that cash flow coverage ratios for its hospital facilities remained healthy, year over year, in
the third quarter of 2010 as a decline in cash flow coverage (among its tenants) to 2.2X from 2.5X was
offset by a fall in occupancy to 54.6% from 57.3%. The ratio dipped to 1.8X from 1.9X in the skilled
nursing portfolio as occupancy slipped from 89.6% to 87.8%. In Ventas senior housing portfolio, the
coverage ratio remained steady at 1.3X, while occupancy advanced from 87.9% to 90.4%. At Healthcare
REIT, payment coverage and occupancy improved during the third quarter of 2010 in its same-store
hospital portfolio (11 properties), as well as skilled nursing home portfolio (183 properties), but declined in
the senior housing portfolio (146 properties). We look for most healthcare REITs to continue shifting their
investments away from hospitals and other facilities that rely heavily on Medicare and Medicaid. (For a
more detailed discussion of the impact of healthcare reform, see Healthcare reform could help healthcare
REITs in the Industry Trends section of this Survey.)
While we believe that healthcare reform will drive substantial growth in demand for services provided by
doctors, we also feel that payers will also be seeking ways to make the whole healthcare system more
efficient. The growing use of hospitalists (physicians whose primary professional focus is hospital medicine)
is one such measure, in our view. In addition, a growing number of retailers, such as CVS, Rite-Aid,
Walgreens, Target, and Wal-Mart, now provide in-store clinics staffed with health professionals who can
offer routine care. We see this affecting the overall demand for medical office buildings as well as easing the
strain on hospital emergency rooms. Going forward, hospitals and other healthcare providers, we believe,
will take a more varied approach in providing their services, which may increasingly include constructing
doctors offices in hospitals and on hospital campuses. Moreover, as technology improves, remote
healthcare monitoring may some day work as a means of providing efficient, effective, and reliable
healthcare services.
The NAREIT healthcare subsector index advanced 7.3% during the first three months of 2011, after gaining
19.2% in 2010. Year to date through March 31, 2011, the S&P Health Care Facilities sub-industry index was
up 12.5%; for 2010, the sub-index gained 22.9%.

INDUSTRY PROFILE
REITs renew focus on providing investors with total return
The US real estate investment trust (REIT) industry consisted of 144 publicly traded companies as of March
31, 2011. Total industry equity market capitalization was $427.1 billion, according to the National
Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts (NAREIT), an industry trade group.
As of March 31, 2011, retail REITs
comprised 23.4% of the industrys market
cap, followed by residential, at 13.9%;
office, 11.2%; healthcare, 11.4%; and
mortgage, 8.4%. (The remaining sectors
are listed in the Retail REITs lead in
Market Capitalization chart.) Most of
these sectors are represented among the
industrys 25 largest companies. (See the
table 25 Largest US REITs on the next
page for a listing of these companies.
INDUSTRY TRENDS
By law, US REITs are required to pay out
at least 90% of taxable income to their
shareholders in the form of dividends.
During the recent economic recession,
many REITs held their payouts to the bare
minimum as a prudent means to conserve
cash. Data published by the National
Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts (NAREIT) shows that average
dividend payouts fell in 2009. Since 1994,
NAREIT estimates that the average payout
ratio (as a percentage of funds from
operations) has been 72.6%. However, that
ratio was only 64% in 2009 (down from
67.8% in 2008), which represented the
lowest payout level since at least 2000.
Traditionally, however, most REITs have
paid in excess of 100% of taxable earnings
in order to provide an attractive total
return to investors. With many sectors of commercial real estate beginning to stabilize, many REITs began
the process of restoring higher payouts in 2010. NAREIT estimates the payout ratio rebounded to about
68.5% during 2010. We believe this positive trend continued into 2011 as operating fundamentals improve
across industry sectors. Recent examples of dividend hikes include the following. Vornado Realty Trust, a
diversified REIT, has increased its 2011 annual payout by $0.16 a share, to $2.76. Host Hotels & Resorts
Inc., a REIT in the hard hit hotel sector, doubled its first-quarter dividend (paid April 15) to $0.02 a share,
up from only $0.01 a share previously. Home Properties Inc., an apartment REIT, increased its first-quarter
payout (paid March 4) by 6.9%, to $0.62 a share. Finally, in the retail sector, Developers Diversified Realty
Corp. doubled its first-quarter 2011 dividend (paid April 5) to $0.04 a share.
Chart H01:
The REIT
Industry
Chart H13: RETAIL
REITs LEAD IN
MARKET CAP
0
100
200
300
400
500
1991 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 2011*
Market capitalization (Bil.$) Number of REITs
THE REIT INDUSTRY
*As of March.
Source: NAREIT.
2.1
6.3
7.5
8.4
11.4
13.9
4.6
11.2
23.4
5.9
5.3
0 5 10 15 20 25
Mixed*
Industrial
Self-storage
Lodging/resorts
Specialty
Diversified
Mortgage REITs
Office
Healthcare
Residential
Retail
*Office and industrial.
Source: NAREIT.
RETAIL REITS LEAD IN MARKET CAPITALIZATION
(Percent of market capitalization of US publicly traded REITs,
as of March 31, 2011)

In Standard & Poors view, a renewed focus on steady dividend payouts could help attract retail investors, a
group that we think may have drifted away from REITs during the recession. Ironically, we think US
government action may have inadvertently played a role in aggravating retail investors that are dependent
on a cash return. A ruling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in December 2008 allowed REITs to pay up
to 90% of their dividends in the form of stock, instead of cash. (Previously, REITs could pay stock
dividends only if they got a private ruling from the IRS). The IRS ruling (Revenue Procedure 2008-68) was
subsequently extended to include tax years ending on or before December 31, 2011. The ruling states that
the cash portion of declared distributions must be at least 10% of aggregate dividends, and each
shareholder may elect to receive the entire dividend in either cash or stock. If too many shareholders elect
the cash option, the cash payout may be prorated.
During 2009, several REITs took advantage of the new IRS rules in order to preserve funds for debt
reduction or potential future acquisitions. However, in 2010, we believe that only one REIT, Macerich Co.,
took advantage of the rule extension. Macerich, a leading retail REIT, paid a stock dividend in the first
quarter of 2010 before returning to an all-cash payout during the second quarter. For 2011, we expect
most, if not all REITs, to pay 100% of declared dividends in cash.
INVESTMENT CAPITAL FLOWS BACK INTO REITS
Historically, the investment performance of publicly traded REITs has followed a pattern that very much
mirrors the economy, the underlying job market, and prevailing credit market conditions. The combination
of low interest rates and vibrant economic growth sent investor dollars surging into US real estate
investment trusts (REITs) from 2004 to early 2007. The steady flow of capital bred strong competition to
buy a limited supply of commercial property,
pushing prices considerably higher. With property
fundamentals lagging behind price increases,
capitalization rates (cap rates)which measure a
propertys initial yield, or the return it generates in
the first yearwere low.
The shake-up in subprime lending markets created a
more challenging environment for REITs in late
2007 that carried over into 2008. High property
prices for assets, turmoil in the credit markets, and
less readily available capital spawned a decline in
sales of property portfolios that we think began to
thaw in 2009. In addition, private equity firms,
which have acquired numerous REITs since 2004,
have shown less interest as of late. In general, cap
rates climbed in 2009, but since then cap rates have
stabilized and, in some sectors, they have started to
fall again as investors gain increased confidence in
the cash flows generated by certain properties in the
currently low interest rate environment.
From 2008 to 2010, the equity market capitalization
of REITs more than doubled, to $389 billion. In
2011, through March 31, the value of REITs trading
in equity markets has increased another 9.8%, to
$427 million. Although the number of publicly
traded REITs has increased from 136 at the end of
2008 to 144 as of March 31, 2011, the majority of
the gain in market value has been through an
increase in the capitalization of existing trusts.
Standard & Poors thinks there could be a number of
Table B01: 25
LARGEST US REITs,
BY MARKET CAP
25 LARGEST US REITS, BY MARKET CAPITALIZATION*
(As of March 31, 2011)
MARKET
CAPITALIZATION
COMPANY SECTOR (MIL.$)
1. Simon Property Group Retail 31,386.5
2. Public Storage Storage 18,874.0
3. Equity Residential Residential 16,583.5
4. Vornado Realty Trust Diversified 15,917.4
5. General Growth Properties Retail 14,825.4
6. HCP Healthcare 14,071.8
7. Boston Properties Office 13,455.8
8. Weyerhaeuser Specialty 13,184.2
9. Host Hotels & Resorts Hotel 11,982.3
10. AvalonBay Communities Residential 10,337.2
11. ProLogis Industrial 9,092.8
12. Health Care REIT Healthcare 9,024.8
13. Ventas Healthcare 8,846.6
14. Kimco Realty Corp. Retail 7,443.0
15. Plum Creek Timber Co. Specialty 7,100.0
16. Macerich Co. Retail 6,442.3
17. AMB Property Corp. Industrial 6,047.1
18. SL Green Realty Office 5,852.7
19. Nationwide Health Properties Healthcare 5,369.4
20. Digital Realty Trust Diversified 5,313.7
21. Rayonier REIT Specialty 5,020.0
22. Federal Realty Investment Retail 5,019.0
23. UDR Residential 4,433.1
24. Alexandria RE Equities Office 4,301.7
25. Realty Income Corp. Retail 4,092.5
*Excluding mortgage and hybrid REITS.
Source: NAREIT.

factors at play, including a better economic environment and renewed job creation. In addition, we believe
institutional investors have taken a greater interest in public REITs as a proxy for the commercial real estate
markets. REITs offer a liquid trading vehicle for investors to increase exposure to the real estate market as
well as quickly rotate among individual
sectors. Finally, during a time of economic
uncertainty, REITs have offered a
significant dividend component for
investors seeking total return. Despite the
appreciation in market values, equity
REITs still yielded 3.5% on average, as of
March 31, 2011, according to statistics
published by NAREIT.
A surge in successful secondary stock
offerings provides further evidence of the
investor appetite for REITs. During 2010,
based on data published by NAREIT,
REITs sold $26.2 billion in 108 common
and preferred transactions. This compares
to $21.2 billion in total transactions in
2009, and is the highest total since the
$26.4 billion raised in 1997. Moreover,
since the beginning of 2010, many REITs
have accessed the public equity markets
more than once in order to fund the
refinancing of outstanding debt and
provide liquidity for acquisitions. These
include retail REITs CBL & Associates
and Developers Diversified Realty, health
care REITs HCP and Health Care REIT,
and hospitality REITs Hersha Hospitality
Trust and LaSalle Hotel Properties.
The recent rise in market valuations for
REITs may also reflect anticipated increases
in market prices for commercial property.
After two years of sharp declines, the
NCREIF Property Index (NPI), as
published by the National Council of Real
Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF),
was up 12.6% in 2010. However, this gain still does not offset the 6.3% and 17.9% yearly declines in 2008
and 2009. (The NPI is a measurement of total rate of return on investments by financial institutions in private
real estate markets. It includes both capital appreciation and income return components.)
REIT IPOS MANAGE A MODEST COMBACK
Despite the dramatic rebound in stock prices for many publicly traded REITs since 2008, the market for
initial public stock offerings (IPOs) has languished. Standard & Poors believes that many owners of
commercial real estate have been waiting for a sustained improvement in industry operating conditions that
will present their companies in a better light. As the economy improves in 2011, we think the size and
quantity of REIT IPOs could increase.
Over the last 10 years, the number of REIT IPOs peaked in 2004 with 29 public offerings raising $8.0
million. From 2005 to 2007, the wave of REIT privatizations was accompanied by a dramatic slowdown in
IPOs. This trend continued after the financial crisis hit in 2008 as only two offerings hit the market that
Chart H08:
CAPITALIZATION
RATES
Chart H15:
NCREIF
PROPERTY
INDEX
RETURNS
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Apartment Office Industrial Retail
CAPITALIZATION RATES
(In percent)
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association.
(15)
(10)
(5)
0
5
10
15
1992 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 2010
Hotel Apartment Retail Industrial Office
Source: National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries.
NCREIF PROPERTY INDEX RETURNS
(Quarter-to-quarter total return on investment, in percent)

year. As confidence in the economic
recovery began to emerge, nine offerings
hit the market in 2009. Interestingly, the
majority of these deals were mortgage
REITs formed to acquire distressed
securities. During 2010, an additional nine
IPOs priced, raising $2.0 billion. These
transactions included several hotel REITs,
such as Chesapeake Lodging Trust and
Chatham Lodging Trust, which are
targeting the acquisition of distressed hotel
properties.
Through March, only two IPOs have
priced in 2011, raising about $902
million. The largest transaction was
Januarys offering of 24.6 million shares,
raising $648 million for American Assets
Trust, a diversified owner of retail, office,
apartment, and hotel properties. However, the pipeline of potential deals appears to be growing. In
February, Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust Inc. filed with the SEC for a potential IPO of up to $350
million. Also in February, Cole Corporate Income Trust, an owner of single-tenant office and industrial
properties, filed for a public offering of up to 300 million common shares at an estimated price of $10 a
share. In addition, it has been widely speculated in the financial press that Archstone-Smith, a large
apartment REIT taken private in 2007, may be considering offering its shares to the public again.
FALLING NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVTY HAS A SILVER LINING
The 200809 commercial real estate downturn was different in some ways from the previous one that
occurred in the early 1990s. In our view, overbuilding was at the core of the crisis at that time, while more
recently a weak economy and high unemployment were the key culprits to depressing demand for commercial
space. the value of US commercial construction plunged 20.4% in 2009 and fell another 13.7% in 2010,
According to data from the US Census Bureau and S&P Economic Research. Commercial construction
starts are on track to rise an estimated 14% this year, but total nonresidential spending will still decline an
estimated 2.7%.
Our view for a modest rebound in 2011
new construction starts is echoed by the
Architectural Billings Index (ABI), a
monthly survey by the American Institute of
Architects (AIA) that serves as a nine- to 12-
month leading indicator. As of February
2011, the ABI stood at 50.6, suggesting a
slight improvement in demand for design
services in coming periods. (The ABI is a
diffusion index: a reading above 50 indicates
a rise in billings.) The AIA reports a higher
level of customer inquiries, suggesting that
demand may increase in coming months.
The recent decline in new construction was
perhaps most severe in the office sector,
where activity slowed in 2010 to its lowest
level in at least 50 years. In 2011, Standard
& Poors forecasts about a 12% gain in new office construction, to 58 million square feeta level well below
Chart H03: REIT
IPOs VERSUS ALL
IPOs
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
Q1
2007
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2008
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2009
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2010
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2011
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total IPOs (left scale)
REIT IPOs (left scale)
REIT % of total (right scale)
REIT IPOs vs. ALL IPOsUS ONLY
Sources: NAREIT; Thomson Reuters.
(Millions of dollars) (% of total)
Chart H16: NEW
PRIVATE
CONSTRUCTION
NEW PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION
(Year-to-year percent change)
(80)
(60)
(40)
(20)
0
20
40
60
80
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Hotel Office
Shopping center/mall Warehouse
Healthcare Apartment
Source: US Bureau of the Census.

the peak of 219 million square feet in 2007. In our view, the downturn could have been a lot worse if
developers had overbuilt as much as in the past.
Hotel construction also declined sharply, falling 64% in 2009 and another 40% in 2010. However, we
think a general upturn in occupancy and daily room rates will set the stage for about a 23% improvement
in 2011 hotel construction starts.
For existing landlords, the decline in new construction supply has its advantages. In our view, owners of
high quality, well located buildings could experience an increase in demand from tenants presented with a
more limited selection. Of course, market conditions can vary significantly by local metropolitan areas.
Even so, we think well financed REITs could seize on the change to take local market share through capital
improvements or the pursuit of build-to-suit opportunities. Moreover, the value on current properties may
begin to increase as investors look to capitalize on an eventual market recovery. In fact, owners of both
office and hotel properties are experiencing renewed demand for available space (as discussed in the
Current Environment section of this Survey).
LESS SPACE SHOULD HELP ABSORPTION TRENDS FOR RETAIL, INDUSTRIAL REITS
We think that falling supply of retail space will help the retail REIT group. Even before the latest recession
began, shopping center development was stymied by rising construction costs as well as local opposition to
the noise, traffic, and pollution associated with large shopping centers, especially regional malls. After
September 2008, many shopping center REITs sharply curtailed their development in response to the
financial crisis.
We believe that the annual growth in shopping center space in the US will continue to slow in 2011, before
picking up sometime in 2012 or 2013. Marcus & Millichap, a commercial real estate firm, noted in its 2011
National Retail Report that it expected record-low retail completions in 2011. It projected that between
2010 and 2011, new supply will total just 85 million square feet, down from an annual average of 202
million square feet between 2004 and 2008. As new supply drops, existing shopping center owners should
be able to generate higher returns as excess space is absorbed. However, we note that in markets with low
barriers to entry or generic strip malls, we expect that rent rates will remain soft, while regional malls and
shopping centers in high barrier to entry or affluent communities should enjoy pricing power.
Given the still-tight credit conditions and a desire by retailers for space in quality locations, we think that
many shopping center REITs will attempt to grow their portfolios by redeveloping and adding space to
existing properties or acquiring new properties. During the 2010 third quarter, Simon Property Group
started construction on an outlet center in New Hampshire and another in Malaysia. During the 2010 third
quarter, Simon Property Group started construction on an outlet center in New Hampshire and another in
Malaysia. Simon also said that it was looking at 16 regional mall assets as potential transformational
properties, where the scope of work would range from adding department stores, restaurants, or specialty
store tenants, to the redevelopment of the entire asset. The company planned to start work on some of these
properties in 2011. Although we feel that ground-up development will be restricted, we gradually expect to
see an uptick in new shopping center development as the economy improves. At Regency Centers Corp., one
project was started during the 2010 fourth quarter, with estimated net development costs of $6.1 million
and a completion yield of 10.6%. Four projects were completed during the quarter, representing $62.3
million of net development costs. At December 31, 2010, Regency had 29 projects under development with
estimated net development costs of $520.7 million. We are encouraged that retailers, in general, remain
averse to opening new stores in immature markets.
We believe that the sharp downturn in new developments, as well as an uncertain economic situation and
volatile sales and tight credit conditions, has caused many retailers (such as Wal-Mart) to re-think their
space needs.
Developers of industrial space in the US have also curtailed their development activities, largely as a result
of more stringent conditions and reduced demand. Even as the economy recovers, we look for the supply of
new space to remain at subdued levels. Marcus & Millichap, in its midyear 2010 Industrial Research

Market Report, projected that industrial builders will deliver 25 million square feet of new space in 2010,
down from nearly 75 million square feet in 2009 and 171 million square feet in 2008. It noted that the
short development timeline for industrial construction could potentially lead to increased construction in
2012 if space demand improves rapidly.
APARTMENT DEMAND IS OUTPACING NEW SUPPLY
According to statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau, a total of 6.3 million new units were added to
the nations housing stock from 2005 to 2010. This exceeded the number of new households formed over
the same perioda general measure of demandby about 55%. As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate
(empty homes on the for-sale market) reported by the Census Bureau for the fourth quarter of 2010 rose to
2.7%, close to record levels over the past two decades and up from 2.0% in 2005. During 2010, the Census
Bureau put gross vacancy (including rental units) for the US at 14.1%, up from 12.7% in 2005.
However, we think the tide began to turn for landlords in 2010. During the fourth quarter of 2010, the
homeowner vacancy rate held steady at 2.7% compared with the final period of 2009. Moreover, the
vacancy rate for rental units was 9.4%, down from 10.7% in 2009s fourth quarter. In our view, an
improving economy, higher employment levels, and a renewed level of household formations is driving
demand, particularly for rental properties. Standard & Poors estimates a net gain of 700,000 new family
units in 2011, up from only 400,000 new households in both 2009 and 2010.
Moreover, Americans appear to be showing an aversion to home ownership. In the wake of declining home
prices and high default rates on residential mortgages, many young adults (the key renting demographic)
now consider renting a more attractive alternative. During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Census Bureau
put the US home ownership rate at 66.6%, the lowest level in more than 10 years.
Despite what we view as positive trends nationally, the recovery in local apartment markets varies widely
across the country. In general, we think the weakest markets are those areas hit hardest by the recession as
well as over-built local housing markets with an ample land supply. Not surprisingly, Census Bureau data
for the fourth quarter of 2010 show high rental vacancy rates in such markets as Detroit (15.6% rental
vacancy), Orlando (23.6%), Phoenix (15.5%), and Las Vegas (13.5%). This compares to a national rental
vacancy rate of 9.4%. Conversely, many of the communities with the lowest vacancy rates are in the
Northeast and coastal markets on the West Coast, where there is little space for new construction.
Investment demand in the apartment sector has begun to revive after virtually disappearing when the
financial crisis began in late 2007. Default rates on loans made to finance transactions during 2006 and
2007 remain high. According to Standard & Poors Ratings Services, delinquency rates on mortgage-backed
securities used to finance multi-family properties was 16.1% as of February 28, 2011. However, we think
banks, insurance companies, and government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are now
making capital available for conservatively underwritten transactions.
Real Capital Analytics, a leading provider of commercial real estate data, estimates that $33.7 billion in
multi-family property transactions were completed in 2010, an increase of 96% from an inactive 2009. A
number of recent transactions have been completed by REITs. During 2010, Equity Residential reports that
it acquired 16 properties, with 4,445 apartment units, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.5 billion. UDR
Inc. invested $505 million in new properties in 2010 and, in March 2011, announced the purchase of 10
Hanover Square in New York City for $261 million in one of the largest single-property transactions to
date.
Standard & Poors thinks apartment valuations are also rising. During 2010, Marcus & Millichap, a
commercial broker specializing in apartments, estimates that average cap rates were 7.2% and about 100
basis points below their peak in 2009. In our view, higher-quality properties in supply-constrained locations
are getting the most attention from investors looking for stable investment returns.

HEALTHCARE REFORM COULD HELP HEALTHCARE REITS
In response to the rising numbers of uninsured Americans, as well as rising healthcare costs, the US
Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed into law in
March 2010. While the changes will gradually phase in over the next several years (assuming they are not
watered down or even repealed), their effect on the healthcare system in the US promises to be dramatic and
costly. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the bill at about $940 billion over the 10
years from 2010 to 2019, and they estimated that it would reduce deficits by $143 billion over that period.
The Congressional Budget Office sees the bill reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion in its second decade.
Certain elements of the bills (collectively referred to as the Acts) will become effective within six months
of passage: insurance companies are barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions
and prohibited from cancelling policies of people who get sick; children are permitted to stay on their
parents insurance policies until their 26th birthday; and seniors will receive a $250 rebate to aid in closing
the Medicare Part D coverage gap (the so-called donut hole).
However, most of the legislations more sweeping featuresthose with far greater impact on the sectordo not
become effective until 2014. These include the establishment of subsidies for the 32 million currently uninsured
to help them purchase insurance; the establishment of state health insurance exchanges where individuals and
small businesses can buy insurance; and generally mandating that individuals who lack health insurance purchase
it or face a penalty. Although the implementation of healthcare reform faces many logistical hurdles (described
below), it appears that broad-based universal coverage for most Americans will become a reality in short order.
As noted above, healthcare reform will extend healthcare insurance coverage to approximately 32 million of the
previously uninsured by 2019, but will also impose a number of requirements and responsibilities on individuals,
employers, and the states (who fund a portion of coverage via Medicaid).
Standard & Poors believes that healthcare facilities companies would be direct beneficiaries of any move
toward universal coverage at either the state or federal level. Any plan that extends coverage to the
previously uninsured would help lessen or eliminate the instances of bad debt and charity care now
delivered to the uninsured or underinsured, thereby easing pressure on the operators of healthcare facilities.
In our view, the continued rise in uninsured patients represents a significant challenge to acute care hospital
operators. Total uncompensated care, consisting of bad debt expense, charity care and self-pay discounts,
remains near historic highs and, while we did begin to see more hopeful signs on this trend, it began to rise
again in the second quarter of 2009. We believe continued federal budget deficits are likely to pressure
reimbursement rates for acute care providers and long-term care operators, but we think this will be
partially offset by modest increases in rates paid by managed care providers and federal aid to supplement
state Medicaid reimbursement.
Although universal (or near-universal) healthcare legislation is generally considered favorable for healthcare
facilities providers, due to its potential to reduce the costs associated with bad debts and uncompensated care,
Standard & Poors believes that caution is warranted. Although the goal of recent legislation is to provide
insurance coverage to 94% of all non-elderly residents, excluding undocumented immigrants, by reducing the
uninsured by 32 million by 2019, this might still leave an estimated 27 million people uncovered, and there is
no guarantee that the estimates of those who will purchase coverage will prove correct. In addition, all of the
rules and regulations regarding coverage do not take effect at once, but are phased in over a multi-year period,
leading to an uneven reduction in the uninsured. Although concessions and reimbursement cuts will be needed
to fund reform in the near term, any extension of health insurance coverage to the currently uninsured is
unlikely to provide any meaningful benefits before 2014 at the earliest, in our view. Thus, we do not see the
newly insured with coverage for hospital services, preventive care, or other forms of treatment as aiding
facilities in reducing their uncompensated care costs or bad debt charges before then.
In addition, even after coverage is in place for the previously uninsured, Standard & Poors Equity Research
expects margin degradation, as we see a large ramp-up in administrative costs to ensure that sufficient
administrative facilities and capacity are in place to handle and process these newly insured in a timely and
compliant fashion. (We note that there were significant reimbursement issues with improperly rejected
claims when Medicare Part D was implemented.)

Moreover, since we continue to expect employer-sponsored plans to be the primary means by which
Americans obtain health insurance coverage and given that we forecast high levels of unemployment
through 2011, we expect the numbers of those who lack coverage to grow. Approximately 8.2 million
Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began in December 2007, and many of those are now
losing their extended coverage under COBRA. Therefore, we expect the ranks of the uninsured and the size
of the uncompensated-care problem to rise well into 2011. In November 2010, the US Center for Disease
Control noted that nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of
2010, many of them with conditions or diseases that needed treatment; this was an increase of four million
over the same period for 2008. As a result, we see the near-term weak fundamentals in the facilities industry
outweighing the long-term beneficial aspects of healthcare reform.
Longer term, post-2014after the establishment of health insurance exchanges to cover eight million
individuals (rising to approximately 23 million in 2017)we see healthcare reform as being beneficial to
hospitals as this would help reduce, though not eliminate, the uncompensated-care problem healthcare
facilities now face. We note, however, that we also see the potential for further reimbursement cuts, in
addition to the ones already outlined, as the actual costs of implementing reform exceed expectations; this
would be a negative for the industry.
HOW THE INDUSTRY OPERATES
President Dwight Eisenhower launched the real estate investment trust (REIT) industry in 1960 by signing
the Real Estate Investment Trust Act, legislation intended to make it easier for individuals to invest
collectively in large-scale, income-producing commercial real estate. In addition to giving the public access
to professional real-estate management and greater investment diversification, the law increased the tax
appeal of real estate. More than 40 years later, the tax benefits remainmaking REITs a high-yielding
investment vehicle that is especially popular when interest rates are low.
Before 1960, anyone buying shares in a company investing in real estate effectively paid taxes twice on the
profits: earnings were taxed at both the corporate and individual levels. After the law took effect in 1961,
REITs that distributed 90% or more of their income to shareholders paid taxes only on their retained
earnings.
BOOM PERIODS IN SECTORS HISTORY
The original act permitted only equity REITstrusts that invest directly in properties. Changes to the law in
the late 1960s ushered in the rise of mortgage REITstrusts that originate or acquire mortgages or other
loans that are secured by real estate. The advent of mortgage REITs led to the first of three booms in the
sector through the 1990s. With the economy expanding rapidly, newly launched mortgage REITs invested
in land, construction, and development loans, funding themselves largely with short-term debt. Total REIT
assets rose from $1.03 billion in 1968 to $14.17 billion in 1972, according to the National Association of
Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), an industry trade group.
By 1978, however, assets had slumped to $7.27 billion, as the combination of skyrocketing interest rates
and a mid-1970s recession caused many builders to defaultleaving REITs to take over unfinished
properties in a weak real estate market. A lack of liquidity in money markets prevented lenders from
offering long-term mortgages for many of the projects builders managed to complete. Therefore, REITs
were forced to roll over loans to those borrowers even as short-term interest rates were increasing, which
boosted the REITs borrowing costs.
Many REITs went bankrupt. The NAREIT share price index (January 1972=100) plunged from 104.29 in
November 1972 to 35.05 in December 1974. Not until October 1983 did the index rise above 100 again.
A major shakeup of federal tax lawthe Tax Reform Act of 1986positioned the industry for a second
boom. Until the law took effect, investors in limited real estate partnershipsREITs main rival for real
estate investment capitalhad been able to use so-called passive losses from those partnerships to reduce

their tax liability on other earned income, making the partnerships popular as a tax shelter. Following the
tax law changes, the passive losses could only be used to offset passive income. At the same time, the law
permitted REITs to manage their own properties, rather than hiring third parties to do it. This eliminated
conflicts of interest for REIT operators that also owned equity in real estate management companies.
Between 1985 and 1987, the number of publicly traded REITs increased by more than one-third, to 110
from 82. The industrys market capitalization increased 26% to $9.7 billion during the same period,
according to NAREIT.
The third REIT boom came in the early 1990s. At that time, private real estate partnerships were having
trouble getting loans from banks and raising capital from private investors due to the decline in commercial
real estate prices and the real estate credit crunch in the late 1980s. (The failure of hundreds of thrift
institutions and the imposition of new risk-based capital standards on banks contributed to the real estate
credit crunch.) To address their funding issues, many private partnerships converted to REITs and raised
capital by selling stock.
The number of equity REITs more than doubled from 89 in 1992 to 175 in 1994. Market capitalization for
equity REITs soared from $11.1 billion to $38.8 billion during the same period. REITs used the new capital
to take advantage of the weak real estate market, buying large amounts of properties at low prices from
banks, insurers, and the Resolution Trust Corp. (the US governments agent for liquidating the assets of
insolvent savings & loans).
The number of equity REITs fell slightly from 178 in 1995 to 167 in 1999, but their market capitalization
blossomed from $49.9 billion to $118.2 billion during that period. In 1997 and 1998, initial public
offerings of REITs totaled 26 and 27, respectively, corresponding with broad investor support for stocks.
In late 1999, President Clinton signed the REIT Modernization Act (RMA), which gave REITs the right to
own taxable subsidiaries starting in 2001 and completed the regulatory framework that now governs the
industry. The law also restored the required REIT payout ratio to 90% (it had been raised to 95% in 1980).
In the early 2000s, there was another period of robust growth in REITs market capitalization. Partly as a
result of the bursting of the technology bubble in 2000, the recession in 2001, and the weak backdrop for
stocks during this period, no new REITs launched initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2000 or 2001.
Nevertheless, the market capitalization of REITs grew as investors rotated out of technology-related issues into
REIT shares. By 2003, the market capitalization of equity REITs reached $204.8 billion, up from $118.2
billion in 1999. Over the next three years, it nearly doubled again, reaching $400.7 billion at the end of 2006.
From 2004 through 2006, consolidation and interest from private equity firms, along with the strong
performance of underlying real estate markets, helped fuel investor interest in REITs. A number of REITs
were taken private, particularly in the period from 2005 through mid-2007. As a result, the number of
publicly traded REITs declined from 183 at the end of 2006 to 152 as of December 31, 2007. However,
turmoil in the residential real estate market has created a weak economy, a credit crunch, and a general
decline in commercial real estate prices. Market capitalization totaled $190.3 billion as of December 31,
2008, compared with $312.0 billion a year earlier and $435.5 billion at the end of 2006.
The recent economic recovery, a low interest rate environment, and modestly rebounding property prices
have spurred renewed interest in REITs during 2009 and 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the market
capitalization of publicly held REITs stood at $389 billion.
REIT REGULATION TODAY
Although REITs are required to pay 90% of taxable income as dividends, rules in effect as of mid-2004 create
an incentive to do more. REITs are allowed to deduct dividends paid to shareholders from their taxable
income, so paying out 100% of taxable earnings allows REITs to avoid corporate taxes entirely. As might be
expected, REITs taxable subsidiariescompanies that provide services to tenants in REIT buildingsare

required to pay taxes on their earnings, but REITs can avoid this requirement to a degree by structuring their
business relationships with their subsidiaries in order to minimize profits at the subsidiary level.
According to information provided by NAREIT, other key requirements for REIT status include having a
minimum of 100 shareholders, investing at least 75% of assets in real estate, and receiving at least 75% of
gross income from rents or interest on mortgages. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
increased the ceiling for taxable REIT subsidiaries from 20% to 25% of total assets. In addition, healthcare
REITs are now able to establish taxable REIT subsidiaries, something not previously allowed under the
RMA, provided that an independent contractor is hired to manage the healthcare facilities. Still, REITs must
continue to focus on owning and financing real estate as their main businesses, and income from taxable
subsidiaries does not count toward the 75% income requirement.
HOW REITS MAKE MONEY
Because REITs have to pay out 90% of taxable earnings as dividends, they find it difficult to build up large
reserves of capital to fund acquisitions or new buildings on their own. As a result, they depend heavily on
capital raised through debt and equity issuance.
REITs continually adjust the blend of equity and debt, as well as the combination of long- and short-term
debt, that they use to fund their businesses. Following the real estate and banking crises of the 1980s, the
industry generally scaled back its reliance on borrowing. Debt levels jumped significantly prior to the 2008-
2009 financial crisis, but they have more recently declined as managers have sought to reduce leverage. We
note that REITs generally take on mortgage debt to purchase income-producing property and that a high
debt-to-assets ratio does not necessarily mean that a REIT is unsafe, especially if it has a high quality
portfolio with a relatively predictable earnings stream. Furthermore, it is also better that the debt maturities
be staggered to avoid onerous debt repayment schedules; lease expirations are also generally staggered.
However, many REITs tend to maintain diverse funding sources, such as loans from banks and insurance
companies, as well as corporate bonds, securitizations, equity, and preferred equity.
In the recent past, equity issuance took on a bigger role, especially as rapid gains in REIT share prices
boosted the returns that companies could get by selling stock. In both 2003 and 2004, the industry raised
more capital through equity than through debt issuance. However, debt issuance outpaced that of capital
raised through equity offerings in 2005 and 2006, as REITs took advantage of favorable conditions in the
debt markets. During 2007, turmoil in the financial and credit markets began to limit the level of public
capital available to REITs. According to statistics compiled by NAREIT, the total amount of capital raised
by REITs declined by 50% in 2008, to $18.0 billion, following a 26% dip in 2007. Debt issuances
accounted for approximately 29% of the 2008 total, down from 50% in 2007 and 45% in 2006. By 2009,
both debt and equity markets began to revive, allowing REITs to raise total capital of $34.7 million, 70% in
the form of equity issuances. During 2010, access to public markets opened further, allowing $47.5 billion
in total new capital to flow into the REIT sector.
REIT profits depend on managements ability to find and create investments that yield more than their cost
of capital. If a REIT can lock in a wide enough spread to offer returns that are attractive to investors, it can
obtain more capital and continue to make more investments.
Minimizing capital costs is critical to maintaining wide spreads. Rising interest rates boost REIT costs,
although the impact can be limited if a REIT locks in low borrowing costs by issuing long-term debt when
rates are low. In times of low interest rates, REIT stocks can benefit because their high dividend yields make
them especially appealing when bond yields are low.
A REITs choice of how to invest its capital also determines profitability. REITs may or may not be
geographically diversified, but they tend to specialize in a given part of the real estate industry, such as
shopping centers, apartments, self-storage space, or warehouses. Also, public REITs strive to add higher-
quality, better-located properties to their portfolios, which generally allows them to charge higher rents than
generic properties.

TYPES OF REITS
Industry analysts classify REITs according to whether they invest directly or indirectly, by their ownership
structure, and by the sectors of the real estate market that they serve.
Direct versus indirect investment
Equity REITs invest directly, by owning and operating real estate. These companies develop real estate,
operate buildings, and provide tenant services. As of December 2010, equity REITs accounted for 119
of the 143 publicly traded REITs in the FTSE NAREIT All REIT Index.
Mortgage REITs, which accounted for 24 of the 143 REITs, invest indirectly, by lending to real estate
owners or operators, or by buying loans or mortgage-backed securities. Mortgage REITs now invest
largely in completed properties, avoiding the construction and development loans that created problems
for the industry in the early 1970s.
REIT ownership structures
According to information provided by NAREIT, REITs may be structured in one of three ways: traditional,
UPREITs, or downREITs.
Traditional REITs own their assets directly, rather than through an operating partnership.
Umbrella Partnership REITs (UPREITs) consist of operating partnerships between a limited real estate
partnership and a newly formed REIT and are a tax-efficient way for investors in a limited real estate
partnership to obtain liquidity. The REIT contributes cash from a stock offering to the operating
partnership; the real estate partnership contributes a real estate portfolio. Both the REIT and the real
estate partnership obtain ownership units in the operating partnership.
After a set period (generally a year), owners of the real estate partnership can exchange their operating-
partnership units for cash or for stock in the REIT. Making this exchange generates a tax liability for
the real estate partnershipjust as selling the original portfolio wouldbut partners can spread out
their tax payments by turning in their units over several years.
UPREITs became popular in the early 1990s, after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had eliminated many of
the benefits of real estate partnerships. At the time, many banks were hesitant to make real estate loans,
which forced owners of partnerships to try to raise equity capital. Raising capital by going public
directly (through initial public offerings) would have triggered huge tax liabilities.
DownREITs differ from UPREITs in that they own some property directly, whereas UPREITs hold
most of their property in operating partnerships. DownREITs can be formed by a property owner
contributing its properties to a REIT in exchange for shares. According to a paper on DownREITs by
Arnold & Porter LLP, a law firm, the REITs contribution may include putting cash into the
DownREIT to pay off some of the debt on the contributed properties.
Real estate market sectors
REITs invest in various property types or specialize in a given sector, such as office buildings, industrial
space, residential properties, retail space, hotels, timber, or healthcare facilities.
Office buildings. Office REITs own office buildings. They benefit when employment rises, forcing
companies to find more space for their workers, and they suffer when companies lay off staff or move
operations elsewhere. Office space generally is leased for periods of several years; therefore, the impact
of changes in supply and demand flows through to earnings after a lag.
Industrial space. These REITs invest in industrial properties, but their focus is more on warehouse space
than on manufacturing facilities.
Residential properties. Like office REITs, REITs that operate apartment buildings also benefit from
population growth and rising employment. A healthy job market makes it easier for consumers to pay
rent, stimulating new household formation. Apartment REITs suffer when interest rates fall, because
declining rates encourage potential tenants to buy their own homes. However, occupancy rates can

benefit when potential homebuyers are nervous about further declines in home values. Lease terms are
shorter than for office REITs, so earnings more closely follow swings in demand.
Retail space. REITs focused on retail properties benefit when strength in consumer demand boosts retail
sales, allowing retailers to keep existing stores open and launch new ones.
Hotels. Demand for hotel rooms comes from both business and leisure travel; therefore, lodging REITs
suffer when economic growth slows, which forces companies to cut their travel budgets to maintain
profits and discourages consumers from taking expensive vacations.
Healthcare facilities. REITs investing in hospitals and nursing homes stand to benefit over the long term
from the aging of the US population. Government reimbursement rates for healthcare services, funded
through Medicare and Medicaid, play a critical role in determining the financial health of hospital and
nursing home operators, which are healthcare REITs tenants.
Self-storage space. REITs focused on self-storage retail properties benefit from moving activity, which
frequently results in people needing short-term and/or long-term storage space.
Timber. REITs focused primarily on the growing and harvesting of lumber. Demand for forest products is
driven largely by the residential construction market and related prices for lumber and wood products.
KEY INDUSTRY RATIOS AND STATISTICS
Gross domestic product (GDP). GDP measures the value of the goods and services produced in a given
area during a defined period. Percentage changes in inflation-adjusted GDP show whether (and how fast) a
given economy is growing or shrinking. This economic indicator is reported on a quarterly basis by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), part of the US Department of Commerce. The BEA issues advance and
preliminary estimates of GDP prior to reporting the final GDP figure for the quarter.
GDP is essential to understanding trends that affect real estate investment trusts (REITs) and the real estate
industry in general. For example, rapid economic growth can encourage companies to hire workers and
increase inventories, adding to demand for office and warehouse space. Slow growth or recessions can
undermine consumer spending, harming the prospects of REITs that specialize in retail space.
In the fourth quarter of 2010, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.1%, according
to the BEA. As of April 2011, Standard & Poors was estimating a real GDP gain of 2.9% in both 2010 and
2011, versus the 2.6% decline posted by the US economy in 2009.
Interest rates. Changes in economic growth play a major role in determining monetary policy. The
Federal Reserve and other central banks reduce short-term interest rates to encourage investment when
growth slows, and raise them when growth picks up enough to create inflation. Interest rate levels are
critical to REITs.
Starting in August 2007, the Federal Reserve responded to the credit crisis in the subprime lending market
by lowering the federal funds rate in a series of actions, to a range of 0% to 0.25% on December 16, 2008,
where it has remained since.
Data on short-term interest rates are available from the Federal Reserve. Newspapers such as the Wall Street
Journal publish yields on Treasury bonds with longer maturities, on a daily basis. Freddie Mac, the government-
backed housing finance company, publishes average rates on 30-year and 15-year mortgages each week.
Mortgage rates have the most direct impact on REITs. Residential REITs suffer when rates fall, because
reductions in borrowing costs make people more likely to buy their own homes, undermining demand for
rented apartments. Conversely, rising rates benefit these companies.
Increases in interest rates can harm other REITs by slowing economic growth, which reduces demand for
office, industrial, and retail space. The fact that most nonresidential leases run for several years limits the

potential damage. Increases in rates also add to REITs borrowing costs to the extent that they have not
locked in low rates by issuing long-term debt.
A good benchmark for REITs borrowing costs is the 10-year Treasury note. These government securities are
used as the base rate for pricing commercial real estate loans that some mortgage REITs and other real estate
firms repackage and sell to investors as fixed-rate commercial mortgage-backed securities. After posting an
average yield in 2007 of 4.6%, rates on 10-year Treasury notes declined significantly in 2008. Yields for 10-
year Treasury notes averaged 3.7% in 2008, and decreased to 3.3% in 2009. As of April 2011, Standard &
Poors estimated that the average yield was 3.2% in 2010, and forecast an increase in the average yield to
3.9% in 2011 due to a steady economic recovery.
Unemployment rate. This statistic, defined as the percentage of the civilian workforce seeking jobs but
unable to find work, is most important to office REITs. Because employers need more office space as they
add to their workforces, declines in unemployment point to better conditions for these companies. Each
month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a division of the US Department of Labor, releases figures on
both unemployment and the net creation of nonfarm jobs.
Nonfarm payroll employment declined about 1 million jobs in 2010, leaving the unemployment rate at an
estimated 9.6% during the fourth quarter, according to the BLS. As of April 2011, Standard & Poors was
estimating that the unemployment rate would average 8.7% for 2011, reflecting the creation of an
estimated 1.7 million new jobs.
Retail sales. The US Census Bureau (part of the US Department of Commerce) publishes estimates of
retail sales each month, offering an indication of both the strength of consumer demand and the prosperity
of the retail sector. The figures matter to retail REITs because retailers are more likely to maintain existing
outlets, and open new ones, when sales are rising. Declining retail sales can also make it harder for retailers
to keep up with their lease payments.
In mid-March 2011, the US Census Bureau announced advance estimates of US retail and food services sales
for February. Adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences, but not for price
changes, US retail sales totaled $387.1 billion, an increase of 1.0% (0.5%) from the previous month, and a
strong 9.5% (0.7%) rise from February 2010.
New residential construction. Housing starts, reported monthly by the Census Bureau, provide an
indication of the amount of new housing that will be available in the future. Increases in the supply of
housing force landlords to compete more aggressively for tenants, making it harder for residential REITs to
raise or maintain rents. Statistics on both single-family and multifamily housing are available. The single-
family figures provide an indication of the outlook for competition from homes for sale, while statistics on
multifamily housing (buildings with five or more units) herald changes in the supply of rental space.
Illustrating the continued weakness the housing market faced in 2008, total housing starts for the year fell
about 33%, to 903,400 million. The slump deepened in 2009, with an average of just 553,300 starts, an
additional decline of around 39% from 2008. In 2010, total housing starts were just 586,900, a modest
rebound of 5.9%. Single-family starts were also up about 5.9% in 2010 from a year earlier, while
multifamily unit starts gained 7.2%, according to the Census Bureau.
Standard & Poors also provides forecasts of housing starts. As of April 2011, we were projecting that starts
would gain a modest 3.9%, to 610,000, in 2011, and a more robust 61%, to 980,000 million, in 2012.
Vacancy rates. Calculated as the ratio of unleased space to total available space, vacancy rates show the
strength of the rental market for a particular type of real estate in a particular area. Higher vacancy rates
put pressure on landlords to reduce rents or offer incentives (such as charging no rent for the first month of
a lease), in order to attract tenants. Real estate industry research firms, such as Reis Inc. and Smiths Travel
Research, and commercial real estate brokers, such as CB Richard Ellis, Cushman & Wakefield and Marcus
Millichap, provide occupancy statistics and projections for the United States as a whole and/or for
individual markets.

Net absorption. Net absorption is the amount of square feet leased during the period minus the space
that is vacated. Absorption statistics show how rapidly demand is soaking up new supplies of space. Figures
on absorption are available from groups such as Reis and CB Richard Ellis Econometric Advisors unit.
HOW TO ANALYZE A REIT
In evaluating a real estate investment trust (REIT), an analyst first should examine the real estate industrys
current health and future prospects relative to general economic conditions, using both qualitative and
quantitative factors. On the quantitative side, it is important to examine a variety of ratios and metrics
before determining the appropriate valuation.
QUALITATIVE FACTORS
There are key qualitative factors to analyze. These factors include the firms lines of business, its
geographical diversification, and its leasing arrangements.
Lines of business
REITs are a varied lot. Although grouped in the same industry, these companies often have operations that
are driven by different sectors of the economy. Therefore, when assessing a REIT, it is important to
understand the sources of a firms revenues and the factors that could affect earnings and dividends,
including seasonality and cyclicality.
Simon Property Group Inc., for example, is a large owner and operator of regional malls and premium
outlet centers; therefore, its business depends heavily on the state of the retail sector. An analyst must
ascertain where the company is in the retail cycle. Is consumer spending likely to be robust, which would
motivate retailers to expand, thereby increasing demand for space and rental rates? Or is consumer
spending likely to be sluggish in an overcrowded retail environment, which could herald an increase in
bankruptcies, store closings, and higher vacancies?
For other kinds of REITs, revenues may be influenced by different factors. For example, hotel REITs are
heavily dependent on consumer and business travelers who tend to stay in hotels for short time periods, so
they have more volatile income streams. Healthcare REITs are dependent upon the fate of their tenants,
such as hospitals, with success heavily tied to government reimbursements. Because these reimbursement
levels are relatively modest, the tenant operators of healthcare facilities tend to have very thin operating
margins, making it harder for healthcare REITs to raise rents on their properties than it might be for other
kinds of REITs.
Geographical diversification
In evaluating a REIT, it is important to look at the locations of the properties in a companys portfolio. Are
the companys assets concentrated in one market or section of the country? If so, then its performance could
be overly dependent upon the health of that region. If properties are dispersed around the country, the
operations should be less subject to regional economic shifts. Are the properties in supply-constrained
markets (such as New York or San Francisco), where land is relatively expensive and difficult to obtain, or
in places like Dallas or Atlanta, where the supply of developable land is greater and barriers to entry lower?
Industrial and apartment REITs with properties in the latter two cities might have more difficulty raising
rental rates on expired leases than those in New York or San Francisco.
Leasing arrangements
An analyst should also determine how soon a companys leases expire, the terms of the leases, and the
difference between current market rental rates and the rents the company is receiving under leases already in
place. Companies stand to benefit if many of their leases are due to expire at a time when rents are rising.
Conversely, revenue can stagnate or fall if a REIT must renegotiate many of its leases when rents are declining.
Retail, office, and industrial REITs tend to write multiyear lease agreements with their corporate tenants;
these agreements typically include early termination penalties to ensure that the tenant fulfills its

obligations. Such REITs renew only 5% to 10% of their portfolios each year; therefore, they are generally
less sensitive to short-term changes in market conditions than are hotel and apartment REITs. Hotels tend
to lease their rooms on a daily basis, and apartment REITs rent their apartments on an annual basis, so
their income is much more sensitive to changes in demand and rental rates.
QUANTITATIVE FACTORS
Several measures should be analyzed to assess a firms potential for financial success. These include funds from
operations, adjusted funds from operations, earnings per share, dividend yield, and a number of ratios.
Funds from operations
The most commonly accepted and reported measure of a REITs operating performance is funds from
operations, or FFO: a REITs net income, excluding gains or losses from sales of depreciated operating
property (but including sales of undepreciated land), and adding back real estate depreciation. Adding back
depreciation of real estate assets allows analysts to get around the fact that, although US accounting standards
assume that the value of buildings diminishes predictably over time, it actually rises or falls depending on
market conditions. Historically, the value of real estate assets has appreciated over the long term.
Adjusted funds from operations
The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, a trade association for REITs, defines adjusted
funds from operations (AFFO) as FFO minus two items: normalized recurring expenditures that a REIT
capitalizes, and rents calculated on a straight-line basis (that is, averaged over the life of each lease).
AFFOs are often referred to as funds available for distribution (FAD) or cash available for distribution
(CAD) to shareholders. If AFFO has risen annually for several consecutive years, the increase indicates that
a company may have positioned itself to achieve sustainable growth.
Earnings per share
Earnings per share (EPS) are equal to a companys total earnings, divided by the number of shares
outstanding. Although real estate experts believe EPS are not as accurate a performance measure as FFO,
EPS does allow comparisons with companies in other sectors. Equity analysts may use both EPS and FFO.
Dividend yield
To arrive at this measure, annual dividends per share are divided by a companys share price. This is a
particularly important measure for REITs, because a relatively high average dividend yield is one reason
why the sector is attractive to investors. US REITs are required to distribute 90% of taxable earnings to
shareholders.
Ratios
Several financial ratios are of particular interest when analyzing a REIT.
Debt as a percentage of capitalization. This ratio allows investors to compare the level of borrowing used
by different REITs. This comparison is important because REITs that rely too heavily on borrowing may be
especially vulnerable during difficult times, as illustrated by the real estate and banking crises of the 1980s.
Many US REITs still remember the trouble that REITs had in the 1980s and tend to maintain diverse
funding sources and not place too much reliance on debt, especially short-term debt. This has helped them
weather the storm during the current crises in the real estate and credit markets.
Interest coverage. This is recurring earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization divided
by interest payments plus preferred dividends; it provides a measure of a REITs ability to meet payments on
financial obligations.
Ratio of fixed-rate to floating-rate debt. Companies that rely more on variable-rate borrowings stand to benefit
when interest rates are falling, but they may be squeezed when rates rise. Investors expectations for rising rates may
undermine prices for REITs that rely on floating-rate debt, even if actual borrowing costs do not increase.

REIT VALUATION
Any discussion of valuation should be prefaced by a mention of how REITs differ from other companies,
and how these differences affect valuation. We focus on both elements below.
REIT tests
In order to qualify as a REIT and avoid taxation of profits, companies must meet a series of tests, some of
which are instrumental in selecting valuation models and formulating assumptions. The most important of
these are the ownership and payout tests.
The ownership test. REITs are required to hold at least 75% of assets in real estate or real estaterelated
securities. The ownership test means that REITs typically hold assets that have demonstrated a propensity
to appreciate in value over time. Most other kinds of companies, in contrast, hold intangible assets or assets
that depreciate in value over time due to wear or obsolescence. Because REIT shares are backed by positive
net asset value, REIT stocks tend to be somewhat less risky than those of other companies.
The payout test. REITs are required to pay out at least 90% of taxable income in the form of dividends, either
common or preferred. In order to meet the payout test, REITs typically pay out more than 100% of earnings in
the form of common dividends, making the stocks particularly attractive to investors interested in yield. These
trusts may have other cash sources, which enable the REITs to pay out dividends in excess of 100%.
Because the dividend portion of total return can never be negative, REIT shares typically have a relatively low
correlation with most stocks and bonds; i.e., they tend to behave differently under identical market conditions.
Because of their high dividend yields, REITs tend to have a lower standard deviation of returns than many
stocks, meaning they are less volatile over the long term. As a result of these factors, Standard & Poors
typically assigns a lower risk premium to REIT stocks than to the broader market. REITs with longer lease
terms, which provide some protection during down cycles, tend to be less risky than the sector as a whole.
Intrinsic valuation
As opposed to book value (i.e., the value of a company according to its balance sheet), the intrinsic value of
a company reflects what the companys actual sale price would be based on other value considerations.
There are different ways of measuring the intrinsic value of a REIT company, including net asset value, the
dividend discount model, the discounted cash flow model, and replacement value.
Net asset value. One measure of intrinsic value that we believe has taken on added importance is net asset
value (NAV) per share. While the book value of many companies can be valued using generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP), we believe this approach presents problems for REIT-valuation purposes.
In the United States, GAAP requires buildings to be depreciated on a straight-line basis over a defined
period, typically about 30 years. Historically, however, the value of land and buildings has appreciated over
the long term. As a result, a divergence between book value and the actual market value of the companys
portfolio develops and tends to grow wider over time, resulting in the understatement of a REITs potential
break-up value. What we try to estimate in the NAV calculation is the potential value per share if the
company were to liquidate its property portfolio.
The first step in calculating NAV is to estimate the total net operating income (NOI) of the properties
owned by the REIT. NOI measures the forward annualized cash flow (primarily rental income) that a
property or portfolio of properties will generate. We do this by subtracting estimated property operating
expenses from assumed rents. We also make an adjustment for other itemssuch as straight-line rents
recorded but not received, as well as estimated recurring capital expenditures, such as tenant installation
costs and leasing commissionsthat would be incurred to reach the estimated rent.
We then determine the cash rate of return, or capitalization (cap) rate, at which properties are generally
trading in private property transactions. Applying the cap rate to our estimated portfolio NOI, we can
calculate an approximate value at which the properties could be sold to other investors. (For this calculation,
we ignore non-operating corporate expenses, because it is assumed that only the assets are being sold.)

To the estimated value of the property portfolio, we add all tangible assets on the balance sheet, including
properties under construction, cash, and so forth, but we generally avoid intangible assets, assuming little
value could be derived from them if the company were to liquidate. From this sum, we subtract liabilities,
minority interest, and mezzanine financing (a kind of hybrid financing that fills the gap when the
combination of equity and primary debt falls short of the capital needed) to arrive at a NAV. We divide this
by the number of shares outstanding to calculate NAV per share.
Dividend discount model. REITs generate substantial cash flow, and the stocks are relatively high-
yielding investments due to the 90% payout test. Therefore, we find the dividend discount model (DDM)
particularly useful in valuing REIT shares.
The first step in utilizing the DDM is to forecast earnings for the REIT over the next several years. Standard
& Poors tries to estimate both operating EPS and FFO per share, two metrics that are instrumental in
forecasting future dividend payments. Because of the 90% payout test, we assume that future dividends will
be at least 90% of our EPS forecasts. If a REIT is generating taxable EPS that exceed its stated dividend, we
assume a dividend increase is imminent. FFO per share represents the maximum dividend payment that a
REIT should reasonably be expected to pay. If a REIT pays out 100% or more of its FFO over several
quarters, we would begin to question the security of the dividend. Using EPS and FFO as guideposts, we
forecast dividend payments for the next several years and apply a terminal growth rate to the final payment
to provide an estimate of future income streams.
We then formulate an appropriate discount rate to apply to the dividend stream. This discount rate, which
allows us to put todays price tag on the value of expected future dividend payments, could be as simple as
the individual investors risk-adjusted required rate of return. Another method is to add the risk-free rate
as measured by the yield on the 10-year Treasury, for exampleto an appropriate risk premium. We also
could calculate a risk-free rate under the assumption that commercial property will appreciate in value at a
rate equivalent to gross domestic product (GDP) plus inflation. We could use the average yield of a REITs
peers as the average industry risk premium. This does not always work, however: for example, after the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, many lodging REITs reduced dividend payments. In such cases,
lower yields do not equate to less risk; therefore, we recommend that analysts and investors make
adjustments to discount rates as necessary.
Having forecast our dividend stream and decided on a discount rate, we then apply the discount to future
payments to derive the net present value (NPV) of each payment. The sum of the NPVs of future dividend
payments gives us our DDM valuation of the REIT.
Discounted cash flow model. For some REITs, a discounted cash flow (DCF) model is more useful. In
particular, we suggest using a DCF model for REITs that have a lower-than-average FFO payout ratio. The
underlying assumption here is that the REIT is retaining more cash flow than its peers and thus would be
penalized using our DDM. If the company is redeploying the cash to fund future growth, assuming the
redeployed cash would earn returns commensurate with the companys current level of profitability, this
penalty may be unwarranted.
In our DCF model, we start with estimated cash flow from operations, deduct capital expenditures, and add back
capital gains or losses. We then discount the cash flows using methodology similar to our DDM, and then divide
the NPV by the number of fully diluted shares and equivalents outstanding. (Equivalents are partnership interests
that are issued in lieu of shares for tax reasons, but which can later be converted to shares.)
Replacement value. Compared with the other measures described here, replacement value may be more
difficult to calculate. However, it is extremely useful for instances in which properties have recently suffered
a decline in market value. Companies often will discuss aggregate construction costs in per-room or per-
square-foot terms. To determine the replacement value of a companys real estate holdings, we simply
multiply the construction cost per square foot by the aggregate net rentable square feet of space. We then
use a similar methodology to the NAV calculation to arrive at a portfolio-replacement value per share. The
result of this calculation may be higher or lower than book value or NAV.

The logic behind using replacement value is that economic conditions may cause supply and demand for a
particular property type to fall out of equilibrium, potentially resulting in declining property values. Applying
basic economic theory, we assume that, if it is less expensive to buy properties than to construct new ones,
development of new buildings will diminish. This should cause supply and demand to return to equilibrium,
assuming a normal economic cycle results in recovery. As demand rises, fundamentals should improve, raising
the value of the properties until the market value of the properties exceeds construction costs.
Relative valuation
As the name implies, relative valuation aims to assess the value of a company compared with its peer
companies. Common methods of measuring relative REIT valuations include price-to-funds from operations
(P/FFO); enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EV/EBITDA);
current yield; and yield spreads. These can be valuable tools when choosing companies in which to invest.
P/FFO. One of the most common relative valuation metrics is price-to-funds from operations (P/FFO). This
is similar to the much more common price/earnings (P/E) ratio used to value companies relative to their peers.
In order to calculate P/FFO, we simply divide the market price of the stock by our forward estimate of FFO.
Comparing the result with the average for peer companies reveals whether a stock is trading at a premium or
discount relative to shares of other REITs. Of course, shares of individual companies often trade at a discount
or premium for valid reasons, such as higher growth rates, geographic concentration in stronger or weaker
markets, or concentration in property types with stronger or weaker fundamentals than other REITs.
EV/EBITDA. Enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
(EV/EBITDA) attempts to determine what one company may be willing to pay for another. EV is calculated
by multiplying the current market price of the shares by the number of shares and equivalents outstanding,
and then adding debt; it gives an idea of what it would cost to purchase the company given todays market
capitalization. We divide this by an estimate of forward EBITDA to arrive at a normalized multiple similar
to P/E or P/FFO. EBITDA is used because it closely matches cash flow from operations and assumes no
taxation, since the tax rate of the acquiring entity is not known.
If there is significant merger and acquisition activity in a particular property type, it will be easy to perform
the EV/EBITDA calculation on actual market transactions, thus arriving at a benchmark market multiple.
By comparing this multiple to a particular companys EV/EBITDA, we can determine if its shares are
trading at a premium or discount to the market. If a company is trading at a significant discount, it may be
a takeover candidate. By applying the market multiple to the companys EBITDA, and then reversing the EV
calculation, we can determine what the shares might be worth to an acquiring entity.
Current yield. This is the companys stated annual dividend divided by its price per share. This
normalizes dividend payments and gives us a percentage that can be compared with the average of peers to
determine if a companys stock is trading at a premium or discount relative to peers. As with P/FFO or P/E
comparisons, there are often logical reasons for a companys stock to trade out of line with peer averages,
so we must consider other factors to determine whether todays market price is in line with our own
assessment of relative value.
Yield spreads. Because REITs are high-yield instruments, it is worthwhile to check the spread between a
REITs current yield and that of alternative income-oriented investment instruments, such as utility stocks
or Treasury bonds. Although REIT yields have historically traded at a positive yield spread to the 10-year
Treasury, for example, this spread varies widely and has periodically dipped to negative territory. REITs
have historically been able to grow dividend payments at a rate exceeding inflation, while the yield on a
Treasury is static once purchased.
In a period of improving fundamentals, REITs will often be able to increase dividends in future periods,
making the stocks more attractive than fixed income investments and contributing to periodic narrowing of
yield spreads. Utility companies can also raise dividends over time based on their fundamentals, which must
be considered when making yield comparisons with REITs.

GLOSSARY
Absorption The amount of space l eased or sol d i n a gi ven l ocat i on over a set peri od. Net absorpt i on i s t he amount of square
f eet l eased duri ng t he peri od, mi nus t he space t hat i s vacat ed.
Absorption rate Absorpt i on expressed as a percent age of t he t ot al square f oot age avai l abl e.
Apartment REIT A REIT t hat speci al i zes i n i nvest i ng i n mul t i f ami l y housi ng, al so known as mul t i f ami l y resi dent i al propert y.
Availability The percent age of space i n a gi ven propert y or market t hat i s avai l abl e f or l ease.
Cap rate Rat i o of current net operat i ng i ncome t o t he val ue of a propert y.
Diverisified REIT A REIT t hat owns a di versi f i ed port f ol i o i n several real est at e sect ors.
Equity REIT A REIT t hat owns or hol ds equi t y i n rent al real est at e; di f f ers f rom a mort gage REIT.
Funds from operations (FFO) The most commonl y accept ed and report ed measure of a REIT s operat i ng perf ormance. FFO, as
def i ned by t he Nat i onal Associ at i on of Real Est at e Invest ment Trust s (NAREIT), i s equal t o a REIT s net i ncome, excl udi ng gai ns
or l osses f rom sal es of propert y, and addi ng back real est at e depreci at i on. Addi ng back depreci at i on of real est at e asset s al l ows
anal yst s t o get around t he f act t hat hi st ori cal account i ng st andards assume t hat t he val ue of real est at e asset s di mi ni shes
predi ct abl y over t i me.
Healthcare REIT A REIT t hat owns heal t hcare propert i es, i ncl udi ng l ong-t erm care f aci l i t i es and hospi t al s.
Hybrid REIT A REIT t hat bot h hol ds equi t y i n rent al real est at e and i nvest s i n l oans secured by real est at e, t hus combi ni ng t he
i nvest ment st rat egi es of equi t y REITs and mort gage REITs.
Industrial REIT A REIT t hat speci al i zes i n i ndust ri al propert i es.
Interest coverage ratio The rat i o of earni ngs bef ore i nt erest , t axes, depreci at i on, and amort i zat i on (EBITDA) t o i nt erest
expense. Used t o compare f i nanci al l everage among REITs, t he rat i o measures t he amount of t i mes EBITDA can servi ce debt . A
hi gher rat i o means t he REIT i s i n a bet t er posi t i on t o meet i t s debt obl i gat i ons.
Lodging REIT A REIT t hat speci al i zes i n owni ng hot el s and mot el s.
Mark-to-market The di f f erence bet ween rent s on i n-pl ace l eases and current market rent s f or t he same or comparabl e space.
Mortgage REIT A REIT t hat ori gi nat es or acqui res mort gages or ot her l oans secured by real est at e col l at eral . Di f f ers f rom
equi t y REITs i n t hat i t does not own real est at e.
Occupancy rate The percent age of space i n a gi ven propert y or market t hat i s occupi ed.
Office REIT A REIT t hat speci al i zes i n commerci al propert i es.
Positive spread investing The act of buyi ng a propert y or i nvest ment t hat has a hi gher i ni t i al yi el d t han t he REIT i s current l y
payi ng on i t s capi t al .
Re-leasing spread The di f f erence bet ween rent s on expi ri ng l eases and new or renewal l eases f or t he same or comparabl e
space.
Real estate investment trust (REIT) A pri vat e or publ i c corporat i on t hat pays no i ncome t ax as l ong as i t s operat i ons are
rest ri ct ed t o cert ai n commerci al real est at e act i vi t i es. To qual i f y as a REIT, a company must pay out 90% of i t s t axabl e i ncome t o
i nvest ors each year.

Real Estate Investment Trust Act of 1960 The f ederal l aw t hat aut hori zed REITs. It was desi gned t o al l ow smal l i nvest ors t o
pool t hei r real est at e i nvest ment s, t hus gai ni ng t he benef i t s of prof essi onal management whi l e ret ai ni ng most of t he benef i t s of
di rect ownershi p, accordi ng t o NAREIT.
Real estate operating company A company t hat speci al i zes i n owni ng and operat i ng real est at e propert i es, but has not
chosen t o be t axed as a REIT.
REIT Modernization Act of 1999 Federal l aw, ef f ect i ve i n 2001, t hat reduced t he di st ri but i on requi rement f or REITs t o 90%
f rom 95%. The act al so al l owed REITs t o own 100% of t axabl e subsi di ari es whi ch can perf orm servi ces, such as t rash
col l ect i on and val et parki ng at f aci l i t i es owned by REITs.
Tax Reform Act of 1986 Federal l aw t hat permi t t ed REITs not onl y t o own but al so t o operat e commerci al real est at e
propert i es.
Tenant Improvements Somet i mes cal l ed i mprovement al l owances or si mpl y T.I. , t hi s i s an al l owance l andl ords budget f or
carpet i ng, t i l e, bat hrooms, and ot her addi t i ons t o a basi c l eased area.
Vacancy rate The percent age of space i n a gi ven propert y or market t hat i s not occupi ed.

INDUSTRY REFERENCES
PERIODICALS
Commercial Property Executive
ht t p:/ / www.cpnonl i ne.com
Weekl y e-newsl et t er on devel opment s i n t he commerci al
real est at e i ndust ry.
Multi-Housing News
ht t p:/ / www.mul t i -housi ngnews.com
M ont hl y; nat i onal publ i cat i on coveri ng i ssues rel at ed t o
mul t i f ami l y housi ng.
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS/MARKET RESEARCH
International Council of Shopping Centers
ht t p:/ / www.i csc.org
Trade associ at i on of t he shoppi ng cent er i ndust ry, wi t h
members around t he worl d, i ncl udi ng shoppi ng cent er
owners, devel opers, managers, market i ng speci al i st s,
i nvest ors, l enders, ret ai l ers and ot her prof essi onal s as wel l
as academi cs and publ i c of f i ci al s.
National Association of Industrial and Office
Properties
ht t p:/ / www.nai op.org
Trade group f or owners and devel opers of i ndust ri al and
of f i ce real est at e i n Nort h Ameri ca. Web si t e of f ers wi de
range of l i nks t o US and i nt ernat i onal real est at e
i nf ormat i on.
National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts (NAREIT)
ht t p:/ / www.narei t .com
Nat i onal associ at i on f or REITs and publ i cl y t raded real
est at e compani es. Excel l ent source of st at i st i cs and
i ndust ry vi ews on regul at ory devel opment s.
Smith Travel Research Inc.
ht t p:/ / www.st rgl obal .com
Leadi ng i nf ormat i on and dat a provi der f or t he l odgi ng
i ndust ry.
ONLINE RESOURCES
Colliers International
ht t p:/ / www.col l i ers.com
Real est at e research servi ce t hat of f ers suppl y and demand
st at i st i cs f or t he maj or sect ors of t he real est at e market s;
al so provi des l ocal market i nf ormat i on.
COMPARATIVE COMPANY ANALYSIS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS
Operating Revenues
Million $ CAGR (%) Index Basis (2000 = 100)
Ticker Company Yr. End 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2000 10-Yr. 5-Yr. 1-Yr. 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 372.0 340.6 D 359.8 D 421.1 D 538.7 D 499.0 D 303.9 2.0 (5.7) 9.2 122 112 118 139 177
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC 238.0 D 207.2 224.4 D 171.5 D 342.9 D 196.7 D 164.1 3.8 3.9 14.8 145 126 137 105 209
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC 759.2 D 757.9 D 762.3 D 710.3 A,C 677.7 D 691.9 D 533.0 3.6 1.9 0.2 142 142 143 133 127
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC 279.4 272.2 D 285.7 276.6 249.7 D 225.1 D 150.6 6.4 4.4 2.7 185 181 190 184 166
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC 3,109.6 A,C 2,671.5 D 2,633.6 D 3,568.8 D 2,974.0 D 2,769.5 D 962.9 12.4 2.3 16.4 323 277 274 371 309
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC 654.4 D 651.5 D 729.0 D 699.5 D 762.6 D 693.4 D 477.7 3.2 (1.2) 0.5 137 136 153 146 160
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC 173.8 173.0 D 169.2 D 151.3 D 133.8 D 126.8 D 98.1 5.9 6.5 0.5 177 176 172 154 136
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC 937.9 D 1,211.8 D 5,615.6 D 6,344.3 A,C 2,642.6 D 1,938.0 A,C 643.5 3.8 (13.5) (22.6) 146 188 873 986 411
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC 487.3 D 480.1 D 460.7 D 405.4 D 316.8 D 244.1 D 106.9 16.4 14.8 1.5 456 449 431 379 296
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC 385.0 359.1 301.3 266.2 D 222.6 136.8 NA NA 23.0 7.2 ** ** ** ** NA
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC 1,595.8 1,536.7 1,301.8 1,502.7 D 1,502.1 1,442.5 D 881.1 6.1 2.0 3.8 181 174 148 171 170
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC 575.4 D 771.7 D 589.9 D 410.0 D 361.3 D 329.1 D 108.7 18.1 11.8 (25.4) 529 710 543 377 332
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC 1,402.1 D 1,355.2 D 1,000.1 D 935.4 A,C 919.3 D 794.0 D 801.5 5.8 12.0 3.5 175 169 125 117 115
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC 124.4 D 130.5 D 123.9 128.9 D 118.2 A,C 99.4 A,C NA NA 4.6 (4.6) ** ** ** ** NA
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC 473.5 D 467.7 D 470.7 D 456.6 D 430.6 D 427.1 D 566.4 (1.8) 2.1 1.2 84 83 83 81 76
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC 302.9 280.7 D 289.9 D 260.1 D 252.9 D 242.3 D 187.1 4.9 4.6 7.9 162 150 155 139 135
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC 364.6 D 253.4 D 397.9 D 478.2 D 211.6 A,C 203.4 D 80.0 16.4 12.4 43.9 456 317 497 598 264
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC 789.8 D 759.5 739.6 807.1 D 737.8 D 644.4 D 576.2 3.2 4.2 4.0 137 132 128 140 128
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC 258.1 D 270.3 267.6 D 249.8 216.1 A,C 197.4 A,C 122.5 7.7 5.5 (4.5) 211 221 218 204 176
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC 1,143.0 D 1,077.8 D 1,154.0 D 1,101.3 A,C 596.5 D 501.1 D 233.8 17.2 17.9 6.0 489 461 494 471 255
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC 1,133.0 D 1,193.1 D 1,470.4 D 1,763.4 D 1,721.2 C,D 1,549.8 C,D 1,172.3 A (0.3) (6.1) (5.0) 97 102 125 150 147
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC 896.0 D,F 853.0 D,F 858.8 D,F 871.9 D,F 744.8 D,F 677.9 D,F 580.6 4.4 5.7 5.0 154 147 148 150 128
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC 347.6 D 351.0 D 356.0 D 347.3 D 331.1 D 303.2 D 244.7 3.6 2.8 (1.0) 142 143 145 142 135
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC 626.3 D 635.5 D 636.7 D 627.7 D 628.4 D 554.4 A,C 403.5 4.5 2.5 (1.4) 155 157 158 156 156
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC 1,995.1 D 1,953.1 D 2,117.9 D 2,054.5 D 2,020.9 D 2,023.9 D 2,048.0 A,C (0.3) (0.3) 2.1 97 95 103 100 99
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC 441.9 425.1 D 432.1 D 402.0 D 352.7 D 354.9 D 178.7 9.5 4.5 3.9 247 238 242 225 197
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC 516.6 D 503.6 D 510.0 D 505.2 D 454.0 D 443.8 D 319.0 4.9 3.1 2.6 162 158 160 158 142
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC 401.9 378.1 369.5 D 353.1 D 326.6 D 298.0 224.6 6.0 6.2 6.3 179 168 164 157 145
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC 304.7 202.1 D 283.8 D 309.9 D 303.2 D 299.2 D 399.8 (2.7) 0.4 50.8 76 51 71 78 76
UDR UDR INC DEC 642.4 D 596.6 587.0 D 500.2 D 697.3 D 685.1 D 622.2 0.3 (1.3) 7.7 103 96 94 80 112
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC 163.3 D 142.0 D 160.6 D 108.2 D 105.3 D 91.5 D 97.4 5.3 12.3 15.0 168 146 165 111 108
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC 157.7 D 181.3 D 175.7 A 154.3 D 127.2 79.0 3.2 47.6 14.8 (13.0) 4,903 5,637 5,464 4,799 3,955
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC 286.7 D 281.9 A,C 250.4 D 254.3 D 242.9 D 256.4 D 34.4 23.6 2.3 1.7 832 818 727 738 705
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC 546.0 D 534.2 D 523.1 D 488.2 D 454.2 D 413.0 D 279.3 6.9 5.7 2.2 195 191 187 175 163
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC 88.6 D 85.1 D 81.6 D 80.4 D 74.3 73.0 54.3 H 5.0 4.0 4.1 163 157 150 148 137
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC 162.7 D 154.3 D 195.1 D 194.2 D 183.8 D 188.7 D NA NA (2.9) 5.4 ** ** ** ** NA
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC 1,019.2 D 919.9 D 1,099.7 D 1,033.4 D 891.8 D 744.4 D 504.0 7.3 6.5 10.8 202 183 218 205 177
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC 101.6 115.7 D 143.7 D 139.8 D 132.2 99.6 D NA NA 0.4 (12.2) ** ** ** ** NA
MAC MACERICH CO DEC 838.1 D 873.8 D 995.3 894.7 D 915.7 D 843.7 A,C 350.4 C 9.1 (0.1) (4.1) 239 249 284 255 261
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC 269.6 D 249.2 D 230.6 D 191.5 D 162.7 D 148.4 A,C 76.9 C 13.4 12.7 8.2 350 324 300 249 212
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC 464.7 D 473.2 D 481.1 471.2 D 470.2 D 437.1 D 102.9 16.3 1.2 (1.8) 452 460 468 458 457
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC 345.0 D 327.6 D 330.2 D 296.5 D 240.1 D 196.7 D 118.3 11.3 11.9 5.3 292 277 279 251 203
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC 476.3 D 466.6 D 503.4 D 472.7 D 424.6 D 396.4 D 366.4 C 2.7 3.7 2.1 130 127 137 129 116
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC 163.5 D 161.1 160.3 150.6 138.0 127.0 79.0 7.5 5.2 1.5 207 204 203 191 175
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC 4,033.6 A 3,815.4 3,815.4 3,688.9 D 3,443.0 3,248.7 D 2,104.5 C 6.7 4.4 5.7 192 181 181 175 164
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC 275.8 D 270.2 C 246.2 230.2 D 213.0 D 203.7 A,C 108.8 9.7 6.3 2.1 253 248 226 212 196
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC 700.0 677.6 706.9 667.3 612.8 515.9 419.4 5.3 6.3 3.3 167 162 169 159 146
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT 85.8 82.9 81.2 76.4 D 74.2 70.0 D 31.3 10.6 4.2 3.5 274 265 260 244 237
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC 577.4 C,D 589.1 D 631.5 D 627.4 D 585.1 D 550.7 D 252.2 8.6 1.0 (2.0) 229 234 250 249 232
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS INDUSTRY SURVEY Data by Standard & Poor's Compustat A Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies
Operating Revenues
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC 625.2 576.0 694.9 713.3 D 496.5 231.0 NA NA 22.0 8.5 ** ** ** ** NA
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC 315.2 D 271.8 289.0 D 237.7 D 197.4 165.5 F 55.4 F 19.0 13.7 16.0 569 491 522 429 356
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC 294.0 293.9 288.4 254.6 204.4 139.5 A NA NA 16.1 0.0 ** ** ** ** NA
HCP [] HCP INC DEC 1,259.9 D 1,161.9 D 1,157.3 D 1,063.8 A,C 619.1 A,C 477.3 D 329.8 14.3 21.4 8.4 382 352 351 323 188
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC 687.2 D 569.0 D 551.2 D 486.0 A,C 322.8 A,C 281.8 D 135.3 17.6 19.5 20.8 508 421 407 359 239
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC 260.8 D 254.5 C,D 216.7 D 212.6 D 264.9 D 254.5 D 195.3 2.9 0.5 2.5 134 130 111 109 136
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 1,085.7 1,037.2 1,252.7 1,285.5 A,C 1,039.4 834.4 263.0 15.2 5.4 4.7 413 394 476 489 395
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC 4,444.0 A,C 4,133.0 D 5,298.0 D 5,474.0 D 4,915.0 A,C 3,901.0 D 1,473.0 11.7 2.6 7.5 302 281 360 372 334
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC 600.5 D 596.2 683.5 663.8 D 667.3 396.2 86.3 21.4 8.7 0.7 696 691 792 770 774
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC 73.5 D 69.9 69.4 74.8 D 73.2 D 73.0 D 87.1 (1.7) 0.1 5.2 84 80 80 86 84
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 123.4 D 129.8 D 117.6 D 96.7 51.0 D 33.6 NA NA 29.7 (5.0) ** ** ** ** NA
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC 444.7 D 395.6 D 374.6 D 329.9 D 261.7 D 217.2 D 171.4 10.0 15.4 12.4 259 231 219 192 153
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC 254.7 197.5 194.0 159.8 D 136.1 D 106.4 D 275.8 (0.8) 19.1 29.0 92 72 70 58 49
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 1,247.0 1,349.0 1,629.0 1,675.0 1,627.0 1,576.0 214.5 19.2 (4.6) (7.6) 581 629 759 781 758
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 539.4 476.2 440.0 D 1,654.0 D 1,607.8 1,496.1 1,808.8 (11.4) (18.5) 13.3 30 26 24 91 89
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC 1,685.1 D 1,680.9 D 1,766.0 D 1,829.1 D 1,393.6 A,C 1,085.8 D 757.3 8.3 9.2 0.2 223 222 233 242 184
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 1,315.2 1,168.6 1,232.1 D 1,224.7 1,229.8 1,180.7 D 1,226.9 C 0.7 2.2 12.6 107 95 100 100 100
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC 340.2 297.8 235.5 188.0 174.1 163.2 68.4 17.4 15.8 14.2 497 435 344 275 254
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC 192.4 D 195.3 D 203.4 D 194.8 167.3 139.0 92.3 7.6 6.7 (1.5) 208 212 220 211 181
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC 31.8 F 35.0 F 31.2 F 30.8 D,F 36.8 F 37.9 F 30.2 0.5 (3.5) (9.1) 105 116 103 102 122
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC 1,016.2 D 936.1 D 929.8 D 771.8 A,C 428.3 A 333.0 D 242.3 15.4 25.0 8.6 419 386 384 318 177
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC 6,552.0 5,528.0 8,018.0 D 16,308.0 D 21,896.0 D 22,629.0 D 15,980.0 C (8.5) (22.0) 18.5 41 35 50 102 137
Note: Data as originally reported. CAGR-Compound annual growth rate. S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600. #Of the following calendar year.
**Not calculated; data for base year or end year not available. A - This year's data reflect an acquisition or merger. B - This year's data reflect a major merger resulting in the formation of a new company. C - This year's data reflect an accounting change.
D - Data exclude discontinued operations. E - Includes excise taxes. F - Includes other (nonoperating) income. G - Includes sale of leased depts. H - Some or all data are not available, due to a fiscal year change.
Net Income
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC (38.6) 5.2 (90.0) 273.2 86.7 63.6 50.0 NM NM NM (77) 10 (180) 546 173
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC (24.6) 27.2 21.2 14.5 146.2 48.2 62.6 NM NM NM (39) 43 34 23 234
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC 120.3 32.4 125.2 125.9 153.7 213.8 161.4 (2.9) (10.9) 270.8 75 20 78 78 95
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC 81.3 75.4 70.0 68.7 62.9 59.6 51.2 4.7 6.4 7.8 159 147 137 134 123
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC 668.3 57.7 240.6 510.2 526.7 507.2 235.1 11.0 5.7 1,058.6 284 25 102 217 224
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC 2.9 (137.7) (50.8) 242.6 171.9 135.3 121.8 (31.2) (53.7) NM 2 (113) (42) 199 141
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC 18.3 26.8 32.0 28.7 22.4 21.0 36.5 (6.7) (2.7) (31.5) 50 73 88 79 61
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC (1,582.0) (266.2) (195.4) 987.1 717.7 317.8 214.5 NM NM NM (738) (124) (91) 460 335
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC 135.0 129.4 107.3 85.2 72.0 63.3 26.0 17.9 16.4 4.3 519 497 412 327 277
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC 38.8 58.7 64.9 70.9 35.0 17.0 NA NA 17.9 (33.9) ** ** ** ** NA
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC 159.1 231.0 125.2 1,098.1 873.6 393.0 153.3 0.4 (16.5) (31.1) 104 151 82 716 570
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC 40.6 55.1 56.5 32.9 34.8 35.2 15.3 10.2 2.9 (26.4) 265 361 370 215 228
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC 30.0 (265.7) 96.3 159.2 153.6 139.8 261.9 (19.5) (26.5) NM 11 (101) 37 61 59
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC 17.9 27.4 32.0 36.1 44.0 40.1 NA NA (14.9) (34.8) ** ** ** ** NA
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC 68.2 36.0 12.9 55.4 36.5 31.2 138.2 (6.8) 16.9 89.5 49 26 9 40 26
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC 13.2 29.2 43.6 40.6 43.3 6.5 46.8 (11.9) 15.4 (54.9) 28 62 93 87 92
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC (8.2) (158.4) 9.1 (10.8) (0.7) 18.2 22.0 NM NM NM (37) (721) 42 (49) (3)
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC 50.9 54.6 53.7 73.1 86.4 88.5 185.3 (12.1) (10.5) (6.8) 27 29 29 39 47
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC (11.3) (11.6) (12.5) 19.5 20.0 15.8 34.9 NM NM NM (32) (33) (36) 56 57
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC 260.4 58.6 23.8 166.5 122.5 123.1 87.1 11.6 16.2 344.4 299 67 27 191 141
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC (118.6) (149.6) (129.3) (48.1) (42.7) (27.9) 99.2 NM NM NM (120) (151) (130) (48) (43)
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC 99.3 77.8 114.4 247.7 168.0 107.7 210.6 (7.2) (1.6) 27.7 47 37 54 118 80
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC 8.3 38.6 64.4 67.2 77.9 42.3 41.3 (14.9) (27.9) (78.6) 20 93 156 163 189
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC 10.1 (69.0) (13.7) 47.1 129.0 156.2 74.4 (18.1) (42.1) NM 14 (93) (18) 63 173
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC (17.6) 27.8 40.9 93.0 100.5 152.5 544.0 NM NM NM (3) 5 8 17 18
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC 35.9 29.1 63.5 41.7 35.3 51.4 44.5 (2.1) (6.9) 23.3 81 66 143 94 79
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC 20.4 18.5 32.5 30.1 28.0 26.6 41.5 (6.8) (5.2) 10.2 49 45 78 73 68
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC 29.8 31.3 29.1 30.2 20.3 20.1 30.0 (0.1) 8.1 (5.0) 99 104 97 101 68
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC (7.0) (87.5) (95.8) 114.2 30.9 6.6 100.5 NM NM NM (7) (87) (95) 114 31
UDR UDR INC DEC (107.6) (90.0) (50.2) 13.2 (27.4) 18.3 75.8 NM NM NM (142) (119) (66) 17 (36)
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC 30.0 28.6 19.9 18.1 15.8 21.6 19.9 4.2 6.8 4.8 151 144 100 91 79
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC (2.6) (14.6) 18.4 21.1 15.3 13.2 0.0 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC 22.7 75.9 35.4 48.8 57.0 80.7 11.3 7.3 (22.4) (70.1) 201 673 314 433 506
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC 122.1 96.8 115.3 96.4 95.1 85.2 60.5 7.3 7.5 26.1 202 160 191 159 157
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC 50.1 41.4 39.2 28.1 42.7 45.4 11.1 16.3 2.0 21.0 452 374 354 254 386
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC (1.7) 5.7 32.9 41.1 38.7 46.0 NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC 125.5 (4.1) 225.2 361.9 345.1 334.1 205.0 (4.8) (17.8) NM 61 (2) 110 177 168
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC (8.3) 3.5 7.4 11.8 10.2 12.4 NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
MAC MACERICH CO DEC 25.4 151.9 100.0 82.0 70.3 68.2 58.2 (8.0) (17.9) (83.3) 44 261 172 141 121
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC 70.8 56.1 103.7 85.2 73.5 54.1 38.6 6.3 5.5 26.2 183 145 269 220 190
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC (71.8) (97.7) (10.4) 17.3 26.2 49.5 32.3 NM NM NM (223) (303) (32) 54 81
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC 121.4 122.1 116.8 127.4 106.1 89.2 54.8 8.3 6.4 (0.6) 222 223 213 233 194
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC 4.4 (42.6) 109.2 176.4 155.1 101.1 87.6 (25.9) (46.6) NM 5 (49) 125 201 177
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC 33.3 36.7 39.7 36.7 32.7 29.2 14.0 9.0 2.6 (9.3) 237 261 283 261 233
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC 617.0 309.4 463.7 519.3 563.4 320.6 236.3 10.1 14.0 99.4 261 131 196 220 238
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC 34.3 58.0 28.0 28.5 25.6 8.4 4.3 23.1 32.5 (40.8) 796 1,346 650 660 594
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC 62.2 (55.1) (72.0) 63.1 45.1 71.7 112.5 (5.8) (2.8) NM 55 (49) (64) 56 40
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT 27.5 27.7 28.5 32.8 25.0 23.5 8.6 12.4 3.2 (0.7) 321 323 332 381 291
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC 45.6 112.2 79.5 151.2 151.6 149.7 79.0 (5.4) (21.2) (59.4) 58 142 101 191 192
Net Income
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC (9.2) (11.1) 52.9 62.9 35.2 (7.3) NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC 117.7 8.0 129.9 100.6 82.3 69.1 24.2 17.1 11.3 1,369.8 487 33 537 416 340
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC 26.3 32.0 46.9 34.6 14.9 (5.0) NA NA NM (17.7) ** ** ** ** NA
HCP [] HCP INC DEC 307.9 90.4 204.3 160.8 106.6 159.1 133.5 8.7 14.1 240.6 231 68 153 120 80
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC 84.0 161.9 150.2 125.2 103.5 79.2 68.1 2.1 1.2 (48.1) 123 238 221 184 152
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC 4.0 28.2 18.2 16.7 35.5 37.1 79.8 (25.9) (36.0) (85.9) 5 35 23 21 44
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 21.4 193.3 134.0 227.8 169.0 129.9 126.3 (16.3) (30.3) (89.0) 17 153 106 180 134
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC (126.0) (242.0) 402.0 550.0 309.0 138.0 159.0 NM NM NM (79) (152) 253 346 194
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC 2.8 7.6 33.1 59.2 99.1 35.4 5.4 (6.2) (39.8) (63.1) 53 142 619 1,107 1,851
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC 45.3 44.1 42.9 47.7 45.5 51.1 31.6 3.7 (2.4) 2.9 143 139 136 151 144
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 13.1 39.2 27.2 40.0 29.7 19.6 NA NA (7.7) (66.5) ** ** ** ** NA
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC 138.9 124.5 108.1 146.0 75.5 71.6 71.2 6.9 14.2 11.5 195 175 152 205 106
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC 58.4 82.1 77.7 67.6 56.0 32.2 (49.6) NM 12.6 (28.8) NM NM NM NM NM
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 202.0 236.0 233.0 280.0 315.0 331.0 131.9 4.4 (9.4) (14.4) 153 179 177 212 239
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 40.3 81.4 68.8 93.2 139.1 33.0 (33.2) NM 4.1 (50.5) NM NM NM NM NM
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC 664.5 843.5 936.4 457.5 311.8 450.0 297.1 8.4 8.1 (21.2) 224 284 315 154 105
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 217.6 312.5 159.6 174.3 171.1 207.8 78.2 10.8 0.9 (30.4) 278 400 204 223 219
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC 116.5 109.7 106.5 85.3 66.1 58.0 58.4 7.1 15.0 6.2 199 188 182 146 113
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC 33.1 20.7 36.6 39.2 36.6 34.8 25.9 2.5 (1.0) 59.8 128 80 141 151 141
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC 16.3 18.6 11.7 19.7 34.7 25.4 16.3 0.0 (8.5) (12.2) 100 114 72 121 213
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC 218.4 194.7 181.8 146.7 131.4 125.2 (61.2) NM 11.8 12.1 NM NM NM NM NM
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC 1,281.0 (545.0) (1,819.0) 51.0 355.0 582.0 840.0 4.3 17.1 NM 153 (65) (217) 6 42
Note: Data as originally reported. CAGR-Compound annual growth rate. S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600.
#Of the following calendar year. **Not calculated; data for base year or end year not available.
Return on Revenues (%) Return on Assets (%) Return on Equity (%)
Ticker Company Yr. End 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NM 1.5 NM 64.9 16.1 NM NM NM 6.8 1.5 NM NM NM 19.8 4.4
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC NM 13.1 9.4 8.5 42.6 NM 0.9 0.4 NM 11.0 NM 3.1 1.9 NM 30.5
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC 15.8 4.3 16.4 17.7 22.7 2.3 0.6 2.3 2.4 3.3 5.7 1.6 6.7 6.8 8.6
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC 29.1 27.7 24.5 24.8 25.2 2.2 3.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 5.9 11.6 5.5 3.8 3.1
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC 21.5 2.2 9.1 14.3 17.7 3.0 0.0 0.8 2.2 3.0 11.2 0.0 3.6 8.5 9.6
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC 0.4 NM NM 34.7 22.5 NM NM NM 3.2 2.3 NM NM NM 10.0 8.5
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC 10.5 15.5 18.9 19.0 16.7 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.2 4.3 6.3 7.4 6.3 5.0
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC NM NM NM 15.6 27.2 NM NM NM 5.4 4.8 NM NM NM 14.6 12.4
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC 27.7 26.9 23.3 21.0 22.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 4.7 6.2 6.2 5.8 6.2
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC 10.1 16.4 21.5 26.6 15.7 0.6 1.3 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.2 2.8 3.7 4.5 3.6
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC 10.0 15.0 9.6 73.1 58.2 1.2 2.0 1.1 10.5 9.4 3.6 5.8 3.5 31.9 28.5
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC 7.0 7.1 9.6 8.0 9.6 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.9 2.2 4.0 4.6 2.3 3.1
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC 2.1 NM 9.6 17.0 16.7 NM NM 0.5 1.3 1.5 NM NM 2.0 5.4 5.5
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC 14.4 21.0 25.8 28.0 37.2 1.5 2.5 3.2 3.7 5.4 1.9 3.1 3.7 4.0 5.6
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC 14.4 7.7 2.7 12.1 8.5 2.1 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 6.0 2.8 0.3 4.4 1.9
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC 4.4 10.4 15.0 15.6 17.1 0.1 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 0.4 3.1 6.1 5.5 7.1
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC NM NM 2.3 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC 6.4 7.2 7.3 9.1 11.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.2 3.3 4.6 5.6
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC NM NM NM 7.8 9.3 NM NM NM 1.0 1.0 NM NM NM 3.6 3.3
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC 22.8 5.4 2.1 15.1 20.5 2.1 0.4 0.0 1.8 2.6 5.3 1.0 0.1 5.1 6.1
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC 11.1 9.1 13.3 28.4 22.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 3.8 2.9 3.1 2.6 3.5 8.5 6.2
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC 2.4 11.0 18.1 19.4 23.5 NM 0.9 1.8 1.7 2.2 NM 2.7 5.6 5.1 6.0
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC 1.6 NM NM 7.5 20.5 0.2 NM NM 1.0 2.8 0.6 NM NM 2.9 8.3
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC NM 1.4 1.9 4.5 5.0 NM 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 NM 0.3 0.5 1.2 1.1
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC 8.1 6.9 14.7 10.4 10.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.2 1.3 3.1 2.6 6.8 4.8 5.3
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC 3.9 3.7 6.4 6.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.7 3.0 2.8 4.9 3.9 3.5
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC 7.4 8.3 7.9 8.6 6.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 3.8 4.4 4.0 3.8 1.6
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC NM NM NM 36.8 10.2 NM NM NM 4.9 1.1 NM NM NM 10.6 2.5
UDR UDR INC DEC NM NM NM 2.6 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC 18.4 20.1 12.4 16.7 15.0 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.3 9.5 10.7 8.6 7.5 6.8
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC NM NM 10.5 13.7 12.1 NM NM 0.6 0.9 0.7 NM NM 2.3 2.8 1.9
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC 7.9 26.9 14.1 19.2 23.5 0.9 3.4 1.7 2.3 2.8 1.9 7.7 3.9 5.3 6.0
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC 22.4 18.1 22.1 19.7 20.9 3.8 3.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 10.5 8.5 10.4 10.2 11.2
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC 56.5 48.7 48.0 35.0 57.5 11.7 10.1 10.0 8.0 14.0 19.2 20.0 18.7 12.8 18.8
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC NM 3.7 16.9 21.1 21.1 NM 0.5 2.6 3.2 3.2 NM 1.5 9.3 11.1 9.5
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC 12.3 NM 20.5 35.0 38.7 0.7 NM 1.9 4.0 5.0 1.5 NM 4.5 9.4 11.6
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC NM 3.0 5.1 8.5 7.7 NM 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.1 NM 1.1 2.7 4.5 3.7
MAC MACERICH CO DEC 3.0 17.4 10.0 9.2 7.7 0.3 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.1 9.4 7.6 5.3 3.9
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC 26.3 22.5 45.0 44.5 45.2 2.4 1.9 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.4 3.4 7.0 6.9 7.9
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC NM NM NM 3.7 5.6 NM NM NM 0.3 0.4 NM NM NM 1.1 1.3
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC 35.2 37.3 35.4 43.0 44.2 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.7 4.2 5.9 6.5 6.0 6.7 7.4
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC 0.9 NM 21.7 37.3 36.5 NM NM 2.2 4.0 3.7 NM NM 5.9 9.9 8.8
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC 20.4 22.8 24.8 24.4 23.7 1.9 2.4 3.3 4.0 3.7 34.2 47.4 55.6 71.0 113.5
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC 15.3 8.1 12.2 14.1 16.4 2.4 1.1 1.8 2.0 2.2 13.3 8.1 15.7 15.7 15.4
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC 12.4 21.5 11.4 12.4 12.0 2.4 4.6 2.1 2.2 2.0 7.7 19.4 13.7 12.2 10.2
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC 8.9 NM NM 9.5 7.4 1.8 NM NM 1.6 0.8 NA NA NA 104.6 9.8
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT 32.1 33.5 35.1 42.9 33.7 2.7 2.9 3.3 5.1 3.4 6.3 6.8 7.1 10.4 7.1
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC 7.9 19.0 12.6 24.1 25.9 0.2 1.5 0.9 2.7 3.5 0.5 4.6 3.1 9.7 12.4
Return on Revenues (%) Return on Assets (%) Return on Equity (%)
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC NM NM 7.6 8.8 7.1 NM NM 2.5 3.2 2.5 NM NM 5.0 6.7 5.6
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC 37.3 2.9 44.9 42.3 41.7 3.1 NM 4.2 4.1 4.7 5.7 NM 8.9 8.3 9.3
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC 9.0 10.9 16.3 13.6 7.3 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.9 1.0 3.0 3.6 6.3 5.5 2.6
HCP [] HCP INC DEC 24.4 7.8 17.7 15.1 17.2 2.2 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 4.4 1.3 4.2 4.1 4.1
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC 12.2 28.5 27.3 25.8 32.1 0.8 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.6 4.3 5.1 5.4 5.9
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC 1.5 11.1 8.4 7.8 13.4 0.2 1.5 1.1 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.6 2.5 2.3 4.1
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 2.0 18.6 10.7 17.7 16.3 NM 2.9 1.8 4.2 4.6 NM 6.7 4.5 8.4 7.8
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC NM NM 7.6 10.0 6.3 NM NM 3.3 4.6 2.9 NM NM 7.3 10.3 7.9
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC 0.5 1.3 4.8 8.9 14.8 NM NM 0.5 1.5 4.0 NM NM 1.0 2.8 7.5
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC 61.6 63.0 61.8 63.8 62.2 5.6 5.9 5.2 5.5 4.9 9.9 11.1 10.2 11.0 10.4
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 10.6 30.2 23.1 41.4 58.2 1.0 3.0 2.3 4.5 4.8 1.7 6.1 4.8 9.3 8.5
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC 31.2 31.5 28.9 44.2 28.9 3.6 3.4 3.0 4.5 2.6 6.5 6.5 6.6 10.9 7.4
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC 22.9 41.6 40.0 42.3 41.2 2.5 4.8 5.5 4.9 4.2 6.0 10.2 12.2 14.2 13.8
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 16.2 17.5 14.3 16.7 19.4 4.6 5.1 4.9 6.0 6.7 14.2 15.5 13.4 14.0 14.3
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 7.5 17.1 15.6 5.6 8.7 5.0 9.2 5.6 6.3 9.0 18.6 38.0 17.7 16.1 21.7
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC 39.4 50.2 53.0 25.0 22.4 4.1 6.0 6.9 1.8 0.5 7.2 11.0 13.5 3.8 1.2
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 16.5 26.7 13.0 14.2 13.9 9.4 14.4 7.7 8.6 9.0 18.1 30.2 16.8 18.4 19.0
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC 34.2 36.8 45.2 45.4 38.0 3.7 4.0 5.1 5.2 4.3 5.8 6.0 7.1 7.5 6.8
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC 17.2 10.6 18.0 20.1 21.9 2.8 1.7 3.1 3.4 3.7 5.2 3.6 7.1 7.4 7.8
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC 51.2 53.1 37.3 63.9 94.4 7.3 8.3 5.5 10.0 17.7 11.4 13.0 7.6 12.1 21.7
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC 21.5 20.8 19.6 19.0 30.7 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.2 4.5 9.0 8.4 9.2 11.2 19.1
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC 19.6 NM NM 0.3 1.6 8.9 NM NM 0.2 1.3 29.6 NM NM 0.6 3.8
Note: Data as originally reported. S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600. #Of the following calendar year.
Debt as a % of
Current Ratio Debt / Capital Ratio (%) Net Working Capital
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.6 56.4 58.1 52.2 54.0 NA NA NA NA NA
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 37.5 40.9 64.8 52.6 30.2 NA NA NA NA NA
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 50.3 51.7 49.4 56.1 51.2 NA NA NA NA NA
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC NA NA NA NA NA 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.1 4.3 NA NA NA NA NA
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 53.2 57.9 62.5 61.4 54.9 NA NA NA NA NA
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 47.3 46.8 51.8 46.5 53.4 NA NA NA NA NA
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC NA NA NA NA NA 61.6 60.2 61.0 52.7 49.4 NA NA NA NA NA
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC NA NA NA NA NA 45.8 49.2 62.0 55.6 54.6 NA NA NA NA NA
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 45.7 53.4 62.2 62.5 58.1 NA NA NA NA NA
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 31.8 42.7 33.9 51.3 51.7 NA NA NA NA NA
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 62.3 58.6 59.2 53.1 54.2 NA NA NA NA NA
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 65.4 66.7 62.2 61.6 63.2 NA NA NA NA NA
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 56.4 56.1 58.4 58.8 59.3 NA NA NA NA NA
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 16.4 8.1 8.7 0.0 NA NA NA NA NA
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 52.9 53.5 52.6 58.9 54.4 NA NA NA NA NA
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 55.2 51.1 58.9 56.0 51.9 NA NA NA NA NA
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.5 61.7 58.3 62.8 51.3 NA NA NA NA NA
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 54.3 56.1 53.2 51.3 51.8 NA NA NA NA NA
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.7 61.2 65.7 62.5 58.2 NA NA NA NA NA
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 51.5 52.3 55.1 55.8 42.1 NA NA NA NA NA
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC NA NA NA NA NA 81.9 80.7 77.4 75.4 70.1 NA NA NA NA NA
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 54.5 55.7 53.5 44.9 49.7 NA NA NA NA NA
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.1 63.1 63.7 66.5 59.8 NA NA NA NA NA
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.4 60.4 62.8 60.0 51.9 NA NA NA NA NA
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC NA NA NA NA NA 60.2 62.4 64.5 62.3 54.7 NA NA NA NA NA
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 63.3 61.3 58.5 55.7 57.5 NA NA NA NA NA
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 76.9 76.3 70.9 68.6 65.3 NA NA NA NA NA
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 71.8 76.5 74.4 72.9 71.1 NA NA NA NA NA
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 51.2 46.7 51.8 49.6 48.6 NA NA NA NA NA
UDR UDR INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 65.1 67.8 63.6 72.9 72.4 NA NA NA NA NA
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 59.6 67.5 55.4 50.8 52.2 NA NA NA NA NA
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 49.0 62.7 62.2 54.7 47.3 NA NA NA NA NA
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 45.7 50.7 49.2 55.7 53.3 NA NA NA NA NA
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC NA NA NA NA NA 60.6 60.4 60.4 58.8 67.8 NA NA NA NA NA
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 16.9 45.7 38.7 38.4 16.7 NA NA NA NA NA
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 64.5 48.1 69.4 65.4 66.5 NA NA NA NA NA
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 43.6 44.9 47.9 46.2 45.1 NA NA NA NA NA
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 56.7 60.9 65.5 65.6 61.6 NA NA NA NA NA
MAC MACERICH CO DEC NA NA NA NA NA 48.1 65.1 76.7 76.4 67.7 NA NA NA NA NA
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC NA NA NA NA NA 39.5 38.2 40.5 40.2 40.7 NA NA NA NA NA
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 77.3 81.6 78.4 68.2 64.2 NA NA NA NA NA
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 46.4 47.7 46.5 47.1 36.9 NA NA NA NA NA
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC NA NA NA NA NA 52.8 47.7 54.0 50.5 41.2 NA NA NA NA NA
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 70.9 73.4 70.7 77.1 78.7 NA NA NA NA NA
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 77.1 76.6 81.5 78.1 72.6 NA NA NA NA NA
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC NA NA NA NA NA 65.8 54.3 75.6 60.5 68.3 NA NA NA NA NA
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 120.3 116.3 106.2 98.7 94.4 NA NA NA NA NA
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT NA NA NA NA NA 18.8 19.6 17.4 17.3 21.0 NA NA NA NA NA
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 59.0 57.1 65.5 66.9 70.5 NA NA NA NA NA
Debt as a % of
Current Ratio Debt / Capital Ratio (%) Net Working Capital
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC NA NA NA NA NA 35.4 39.9 45.0 43.2 51.7 NA NA NA NA NA
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC NA NA NA NA NA 41.9 39.1 48.9 48.6 43.5 NA NA NA NA NA
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 50.1 56.0 53.0 65.1 58.0 NA NA NA NA NA
HCP [] HCP INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 35.1 48.1 49.8 61.2 63.9 NA NA NA NA NA
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 49.1 38.7 46.7 52.2 51.3 NA NA NA NA NA
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 57.3 57.0 54.1 55.3 50.6 NA NA NA NA NA
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 40.6 41.4 50.5 48.0 32.9 NA NA NA NA NA
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 45.0 44.5 49.7 48.7 50.8 NA NA NA NA NA
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC NA NA NA NA NA 35.8 32.7 45.2 42.6 39.5 NA NA NA NA NA
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 10.5 3.7 2.5 7.1 9.4 NA NA NA NA NA
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 29.1 46.2 50.8 43.6 50.2 NA NA NA NA NA
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 29.9 38.6 43.8 50.8 52.2 NA NA NA NA NA
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 54.0 46.0 41.0 49.4 59.2 NA NA NA NA NA
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 1.1 2.8 2.3 1.5 1.8 63.8 65.0 64.0 55.3 51.0 NM 811.9 716.1 NM 947.4
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 2.5 2.1 0.7 1.2 1.8 64.0 61.6 52.7 33.8 33.8 379.6 582.7 NM 652.4 200.6
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC NA NA NA NA NA 4.8 5.4 6.5 8.4 16.6 NA NA NA NA NA
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 2.5 2.9 2.0 1.8 1.5 34.9 37.6 45.4 41.4 41.7 185.3 207.7 469.6 390.5 622.9
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC NA NA NA NA NA 36.2 35.4 29.7 25.5 34.8 NA NA NA NA NA
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 40.6 42.4 53.4 45.3 45.2 NA NA NA NA NA
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC NA NA NA NA NA 31.6 26.9 27.1 15.2 13.7 NA NA NA NA NA
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC NA NA NA NA NA 49.9 47.6 55.3 59.5 74.8 NA NA NA NA NA
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC NA NA NA NA NA 50.2 50.3 45.6 36.6 37.5 NA NA NA NA NA
Price / Earnings Ratio (High-Low) Dividend Payout Ratio (%) Dividend Yield (High-Low, %)
Ticker Company Yr. End 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 9 - 4 37 - 30 NM NM NM 237 194 5.8 - 3.0 25.7 - 5.6 51.0 - 6.4 63.7 - 26.3 6.5 - 5.3
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC NM - NM 64 - 27 NM - 67 NM - NM 15 - 11 NM 336 NM NM 189 6.0 - 4.1 12.6 - 5.2 16.9 - 4.6 7.1 - 3.6 17.5 - 12.6
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC 33 - 26 NM - 53 33 - 9 40 - 20 31 - 24 179 633 175 180 144 7.0 - 5.4 12.0 - 5.3 19.9 - 5.3 9.0 - 4.6 6.0 - 4.7
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC 44 - 31 22 - 11 52 - 29 93 - 59 NM - 70 124 67 153 194 166 4.0 - 2.8 6.2 - 3.1 5.3 - 2.9 3.3 - 2.1 2.4 - 1.6
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC 27 - 18 NM - NM 90 - 31 46 - 28 40 - 25 77 NM 304 116 98 4.2 - 2.8 11.8 - 4.3 10.0 - 3.4 4.2 - 2.5 3.9 - 2.5
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 29 - 21 35 - 26 NM NM NM 87 102 5.1 - 3.5 12.3 - 4.1 17.9 - 2.6 4.2 - 3.0 4.0 - 2.9
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC 64 - 49 40 - 19 42 - 18 52 - 33 64 - 48 306 200 170 180 223 6.3 - 4.8 10.3 - 5.0 9.3 - 4.1 5.5 - 3.5 4.6 - 3.5
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 20 - 14 24 - 16 NM NM NM 49 57 6.1 - 3.8 14.4 - 4.2 94.1 - 3.1 3.6 - 2.5 3.5 - 2.4
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC 35 - 25 26 - 12 44 - 13 49 - 35 47 - 36 69 71 121 128 129 2.7 - 2.0 6.1 - 2.7 9.6 - 2.7 3.6 - 2.6 3.6 - 2.7
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC NM - 70 37 - 13 44 - 9 38 - 25 51 - 38 332 154 200 149 184 4.7 - 3.2 11.5 - 4.2 22.8 - 4.5 5.9 - 4.0 4.9 - 3.6
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC 80 - 54 41 - 17 NM - 36 14 - 10 16 - 10 175 124 262 95 107 3.3 - 2.2 7.4 - 3.0 7.2 - 2.1 9.9 - 6.5 11.1 - 6.9
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC NM - 84 60 - 30 52 - 24 NM - 86 NM - 94 413 225 170 361 319 4.9 - 3.7 7.5 - 3.8 7.0 - 3.3 4.2 - 2.3 3.4 - 2.3
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - 14 69 - 35 63 - 47 NM NM 715 273 270 6.7 - 4.7 18.7 - 5.5 50.1 - 7.1 7.9 - 3.9 5.7 - 4.3
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC 68 - 48 40 - 25 36 - 18 41 - 27 33 - 27 330 200 222 243 188 6.9 - 4.8 7.9 - 4.9 12.3 - 6.2 9.1 - 5.9 6.8 - 5.6
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC 41 - 31 82 - 36 NM - NM 68 - 41 NM - 88 198 395 NM 243 531 6.5 - 4.8 10.9 - 4.8 11.6 - 4.4 5.9 - 3.6 6.1 - 4.1
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC NM - NM 73 - 31 53 - 20 94 - 54 78 - 57 NM 347 221 231 196 5.3 - 3.8 11.2 - 4.8 11.2 - 4.2 4.2 - 2.5 3.5 - 2.5
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM NM NM NM NM 8.0 - 4.6 33.2 - 10.0 39.1 - 5.6 25.2 - 15.9 10.5 - 9.0
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC 62 - 45 53 - 19 54 - 17 53 - 29 41 - 31 290 280 324 242 187 6.5 - 4.6 14.5 - 5.3 19.5 - 6.0 8.4 - 4.5 6.0 - 4.6
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 61 - 36 56 - 40 NM NM NM 274 274 2.3 - 1.3 15.4 - 6.0 22.0 - 5.4 7.6 - 4.5 6.8 - 4.9
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC 24 - 15 96 - 14 NM - NM 64 - 35 62 - 33 14 121 NM 116 109 0.9 - 0.6 8.3 - 1.3 35.3 - 2.7 3.3 - 1.8 3.3 - 1.7
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM NM NM NM NM 2.0 - 1.1 8.8 - 2.3 106.7 - 17.1 12.7 - 6.6 6.4 - 4.1
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC 98 - 61 91 - 40 84 - 31 49 - 29 63 - 41 303 368 398 112 145 5.0 - 3.1 9.3 - 4.1 13.0 - 4.8 3.8 - 2.3 3.5 - 2.3
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC NM - NM 70 - 34 51 - 18 77 - 42 56 - 39 NM 375 218 226 174 4.9 - 3.2 11.0 - 5.3 12.5 - 4.3 5.4 - 2.9 4.5 - 3.1
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 99 - 55 36 - 25 NM NM NM 341 116 5.0 - 3.3 12.5 - 4.6 16.6 - 5.0 6.2 - 3.5 4.6 - 3.2
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM NM NM 813 852 4.7 - 2.8 10.5 - 4.5 9.1 - 3.9 5.5 - 3.3 4.6 - 2.9
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC NM - 67 32 - 18 60 - 28 NM - 71 NM - 70 362 151 190 282 256 5.4 - 3.5 8.4 - 4.7 6.7 - 3.1 4.0 - 2.5 3.6 - 2.5
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC NM - 76 88 - 42 59 - 24 80 - 51 92 - 59 414 479 260 322 372 5.5 - 4.1 11.5 - 5.4 10.6 - 4.4 6.4 - 4.0 6.4 - 4.0
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC NM - 79 78 - 34 NM - 39 96 - 66 NM - NM 432 378 410 384 881 5.4 - 3.8 11.1 - 4.9 10.4 - 4.1 5.8 - 4.0 4.9 - 3.6
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 23 - 14 93 - 74 NM NM NM 73 333 4.7 - 2.2 8.9 - 4.0 15.4 - 3.5 5.3 - 3.2 4.5 - 3.6
UDR UDR INC DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM NM NM NM NM NM 5.0 - 3.0 9.9 - 3.9 17.3 - 6.1 6.7 - 3.8 5.3 - 3.7
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC 27 - 20 24 - 11 45 - 15 53 - 39 55 - 40 96 100 236 188 154 4.8 - 3.6 8.8 - 4.2 15.4 - 5.2 4.9 - 3.6 3.9 - 2.8
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC NM - NM NM - NM 58 - 15 57 - 33 80 - 61 NM NM 375 300 391 5.5 - 3.2 13.5 - 2.6 24.6 - 6.4 9.0 - 5.3 6.4 - 4.9
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC 83 - 61 20 - 10 56 - 20 46 - 32 37 - 26 367 123 250 179 286 6.0 - 4.4 12.4 - 6.3 12.5 - 4.5 5.7 - 3.9 10.9 - 7.7
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC 43 - 31 45 - 23 48 - 22 58 - 41 58 - 40 134 164 129 139 164 4.3 - 3.1 7.1 - 3.6 5.8 - 2.7 3.4 - 2.4 4.1 - 2.8
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC 18 - 9 16 - 8 18 - 8 28 - 21 20 - 15 107 113 118 164 105 12.3 - 5.9 14.3 - 7.2 14.3 - 6.5 7.8 - 5.8 7.1 - 5.3
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC NM - NM NM - 72 34 - 16 34 - 21 35 - 22 NM 883 196 155 168 7.9 - 5.5 12.2 - 5.4 12.0 - 5.8 7.2 - 4.6 7.6 - 4.8
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC 97 - 65 NM - NM 69 - 14 39 - 25 34 - 23 347 NM 243 112 99 5.3 - 3.6 11.4 - 3.4 17.6 - 3.5 4.5 - 2.8 4.3 - 2.9
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC NM - NM 92 - 29 65 - 8 53 - 34 56 - 40 NM 682 342 193 216 7.4 - 4.0 23.5 - 7.4 42.3 - 5.2 5.7 - 3.6 5.4 - 3.8
MAC MACERICH CO DEC NM - NM 21 - 3 59 - 6 NM - 69 NM - NM 789 44 248 290 423 5.1 - 3.0 14.7 - 2.1 38.5 - 4.2 4.2 - 2.8 4.1 - 3.2
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC 37 - 25 37 - 20 19 - 8 22 - 17 20 - 16 196 242 113 119 112 7.9 - 5.4 12.2 - 6.6 14.8 - 5.9 6.9 - 5.4 7.0 - 5.5
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 88 - 50 NM - NM NM NM NM 400 713 7.2 - 3.5 33.6 - 8.1 103.2 - 7.7 8.0 - 4.5 6.2 - 5.1
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC 39 - 27 30 - 15 38 - 16 30 - 22 27 - 20 187 182 181 152 138 6.8 - 4.8 12.0 - 6.0 11.1 - 4.8 6.9 - 5.1 6.8 - 5.1
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC NM - NM NM - NM 64 - 18 41 - 27 41 - 30 NM NM 227 117 120 5.8 - 4.1 10.2 - 4.5 12.4 - 3.5 4.3 - 2.8 4.1 - 2.9
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC 49 - 32 33 - 15 38 - 15 38 - 26 39 - 24 145 127 128 109 116 4.6 - 3.0 8.3 - 3.9 8.4 - 3.4 4.2 - 2.8 4.8 - 2.9
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC 51 - 33 79 - 23 57 - 18 59 - 40 47 - 35 124 255 191 161 138 3.8 - 2.4 11.1 - 3.2 10.7 - 3.4 4.1 - 2.7 4.0 - 2.9
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC 81 - 58 29 - 17 64 - 34 60 - 44 61 - 43 241 106 208 192 203 4.2 - 3.0 6.2 - 3.7 6.1 - 3.2 4.4 - 3.2 4.7 - 3.3
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC 59 - 36 NM - NM NM - NM 69 - 50 NM - 85 214 NM NM 167 315 5.9 - 3.7 13.4 - 4.3 9.5 - 2.5 3.4 - 2.4 3.7 - 2.5
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT 36 - 25 28 - 16 32 - 19 21 - 16 31 - 23 170 163 148 99 143 6.8 - 4.8 9.9 - 5.9 7.8 - 4.6 6.4 - 4.7 6.2 - 4.6
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC NM - NM 33 - 11 78 - 16 36 - 21 30 - 23 NM 182 412 135 116 5.9 - 4.0 16.0 - 5.5 25.4 - 5.2 6.3 - 3.8 5.1 - 3.9
2006 2010 2009 2008 2007
Price / Earnings Ratio (High-Low) Dividend Payout Ratio (%) Dividend Yield (High-Low, %)
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC NM - NM NM - NM 27 - 4 33 - 22 36 - 23 NM NM 134 145 141 0.0 - 0.0 12.6 - 3.6 32.6 - 4.9 6.6 - 4.4 6.2 - 3.9
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC 26 - 17 NM - NM 21 - 5 24 - 14 24 - 14 135 NM 101 105 102 7.8 - 5.2 21.9 - 7.0 18.7 - 4.9 7.6 - 4.4 7.1 - 4.3
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC 59 - 36 33 - 13 29 - 10 39 - 25 70 - 53 133 103 164 176 337 3.7 - 2.3 7.7 - 3.1 16.7 - 5.6 7.1 - 4.5 6.4 - 4.8
HCP [] HCP INC DEC 41 - 29 NM - 60 55 - 19 63 - 37 65 - 43 200 736 236 266 293 7.0 - 4.9 12.3 - 5.5 12.8 - 4.3 7.1 - 4.2 6.8 - 4.5
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC NM - 78 38 - 21 40 - 22 38 - 28 32 - 25 559 223 199 179 217 7.1 - 5.3 10.5 - 5.8 9.0 - 5.0 6.5 - 4.7 8.8 - 6.7
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC NM - NM 49 - 25 91 - 41 NM - 51 56 - 41 NM 321 440 NM 347 6.1 - 4.8 12.8 - 6.5 10.8 - 4.8 38.0 - 15.5 8.4 - 6.2
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC NM - NM 16 - 6 33 - 6 23 - 15 23 - 18 NM 51 277 140 134 9.5 - 6.4 9.0 - 3.2 44.8 - 8.3 9.5 - 6.2 7.5 - 5.7
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC NM - NM NM - NM 25 - 6 28 - 16 43 - 31 NM NM 87 96 127 0.4 - 0.2 8.1 - 2.0 13.6 - 3.5 6.0 - 3.5 4.0 - 2.9
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC NM - NM NM - NM NM - 26 65 - 40 26 - 19 NM NM 720 253 84 1.3 - 0.9 1.1 - 0.2 27.4 - 5.2 6.3 - 3.9 4.3 - 3.2
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC 24 - 19 22 - 12 25 - 12 22 - 14 23 - 17 133 123 126 113 119 6.9 - 5.5 9.9 - 5.5 10.6 - 5.0 7.9 - 5.1 7.2 - 5.1
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 97 - 67 22 - 6 30 - 8 20 - 12 21 - 13 667 167 230 129 132 10.0 - 6.9 29.0 - 7.6 27.5 - 7.8 11.0 - 6.5 10.5 - 6.3
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC 37 - 27 32 - 16 39 - 18 24 - 15 40 - 25 161 159 171 112 197 5.9 - 4.4 9.7 - 4.9 9.7 - 4.4 7.2 - 4.7 7.8 - 5.0
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC 46 - 33 23 - 13 21 - 10 22 - 14 23 - 14 263 138 128 123 122 8.1 - 5.7 10.8 - 6.0 12.8 - 6.0 9.0 - 5.6 8.6 - 5.3
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 35 - 26 27 - 16 47 - 20 30 - 23 23 - 18 134 116 123 105 91 5.1 - 3.8 7.3 - 4.3 6.1 - 2.6 4.5 - 3.5 5.1 - 4.0
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 41 - 29 16 - 9 31 - 12 21 - 16 14 - 9 202 100 117 83 453 6.9 - 4.9 11.3 - 6.0 10.1 - 3.7 5.1 - 4.0 51.3 - 31.8
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC 46 - 32 24 - 13 24 - 12 NM - 58 NM - NM 131 62 66 169 625 4.1 - 2.9 4.9 - 2.6 5.3 - 2.7 2.9 - 1.7 3.0 - 2.0
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 20 - 15 11 - 6 24 - 13 22 - 17 21 - 16 75 51 99 86 84 5.1 - 3.7 9.0 - 4.4 7.5 - 4.0 5.1 - 3.9 5.2 - 4.0
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC 28 - 21 25 - 12 25 - 10 26 - 16 27 - 18 159 158 139 133 143 7.5 - 5.7 13.3 - 6.2 14.3 - 5.6 8.4 - 5.1 7.9 - 5.3
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC 35 - 26 44 - 19 28 - 11 35 - 22 32 - 24 150 251 151 138 130 5.8 - 4.3 13.3 - 5.7 13.2 - 5.4 6.3 - 3.9 5.4 - 4.1
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC 29 - 23 23 - 16 40 - 21 25 - 17 14 - 10 182 153 239 139 77 7.9 - 6.3 9.8 - 6.7 11.2 - 6.0 8.1 - 5.5 7.6 - 5.6
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC 40 - 29 35 - 15 40 - 13 42 - 21 34 - 23 154 160 158 165 125 5.3 - 3.8 10.7 - 4.6 11.8 - 3.9 7.9 - 4.0 5.3 - 3.7
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC 13 - 4 NM - NM NM - NM NM - NM 52 - 37 666 NM NM NM 152 176.8 - 49.6 3.2 - 1.3 8.4 - 3.3 4.0 - 2.8 4.1 - 2.9
Earnings per Share ($) Tangible Book Value per Share ($) Share Price (High-Low, $)
DIVERSIFIED REITS
CLP COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC (0.65) (0.06) (2.09) 5.60 1.40 14.16 17.35 20.70 24.16 32.22 19.79 - 10.36 12.41 - 2.72 27.44 - 3.43 50.59 - 20.86 51.80 - 41.73
CUZ COUSINS PROPERTIES INC DEC (0.37) 0.22 0.12 (0.01) 2.58 5.54 6.00 5.40 6.65 7.89 8.68 - 6.00 14.10 - 5.85 29.28 - 8.05 40.75 - 20.77 38.77 - 27.87
LRY LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST DEC 1.06 0.30 1.34 1.38 1.72 18.22 J 18.84 J 19.44 J 20.06 J 20.59 J 35.35 - 27.18 36.18 - 15.88 44.62 - 11.83 54.65 - 27.66 52.50 - 41.07
PSB PS BUSINESS PARKS DEC 1.42 2.62 1.15 0.83 0.70 24.12 24.17 20.26 21.15 22.65 61.88 - 44.34 56.44 - 28.29 60.25 - 32.99 77.60 - 49.35 74.75 - 49.10
VNO [] VORNADO REALTY TRUST DEC 3.38 0.00 1.20 2.98 3.30 28.23 27.46 27.79 30.60 33.16 91.67 - 61.25 73.96 - 27.01 108.15 - 36.66 136.55 - 82.82 131.35 - 83.28
INDUSTRIAL REITS
AMB AMB PROPERTY CORP DEC (0.08) (1.02) (0.69) 2.30 1.80 18.36 18.20 23.27 25.61 21.67 32.18 - 21.80 27.43 - 9.12 60.17 - 8.73 66.86 - 48.10 63.02 - 46.26
EGP EASTGROUP PROPERTIES DEC 0.68 1.04 1.22 1.11 0.88 15.01 16.42 16.17 16.64 17.43 43.29 - 33.11 41.86 - 20.12 51.07 - 22.30 57.55 - 36.50 56.50 - 42.54
PLD [] PROLOGIS DEC (3.27) (0.73) (0.85) 3.74 2.81 12.30 15.04 20.96 25.44 23.09 14.97 - 9.15 16.68 - 4.87 66.58 - 2.20 73.35 - 51.64 67.52 - 46.29
OFFICE REITS
ARE ALEXANDRIA R E EQUITIES INC DEC 2.18 2.59 2.63 2.37 2.22 46.38 44.33 40.46 43.48 40.14 76.19 - 55.54 68.24 - 30.33 116.50 - 33.12 116.23 - 83.73 105.45 - 79.46
BMR BIOMED REALTY TRUST INC DEC 0.19 0.45 0.67 0.83 0.63 15.88 16.08 17.27 17.76 18.57 19.50 - 13.36 16.59 - 6.02 29.50 - 5.88 31.20 - 20.89 32.41 - 23.75
BXP [] BOSTON PROPERTIES INC DEC 1.14 1.76 1.04 9.20 7.62 31.19 32.01 29.14 30.70 27.43 91.45 - 61.50 72.23 - 29.30 132.00 - 37.52 133.02 - 87.78 118.22 - 72.98
OFC CORP OFFICE PPTYS TR INC DEC 0.39 0.68 0.84 0.36 0.37 16.63 15.85 16.25 15.07 13.68 43.61 - 32.69 40.59 - 20.49 43.50 - 20.39 56.45 - 30.81 51.45 - 34.91
DRE DUKE REALTY CORP DEC (0.22) (1.70) 0.27 0.70 0.70 8.09 8.52 12.16 13.72 12.15 14.35 - 10.19 13.71 - 4.07 27.21 - 3.85 48.42 - 24.25 44.05 - 32.88
FSP FRANKLIN STREET PROPERTIES DEC 0.23 0.38 0.45 0.51 0.66 11.32 11.76 12.05 12.64 13.16 15.70 - 10.99 15.36 - 9.57 16.20 - 8.13 21.15 - 13.69 21.98 - 18.11
HIW HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC DEC 0.86 0.43 0.05 0.70 0.32 13.98 14.68 16.02 15.51 16.19 35.38 - 26.25 35.24 - 15.53 38.25 - 14.65 47.36 - 28.62 41.31 - 28.08
KRC KILROY REALTY CORP DEC 0.05 0.47 1.05 0.96 1.08 17.51 16.99 16.13 17.40 16.94 37.21 - 26.29 34.16 - 14.61 55.59 - 20.76 90.15 - 52.28 84.05 - 61.30
LXP LEXINGTON REALTY TRUST DEC (0.25) (1.75) (0.18) (0.58) (0.33) 5.11 5.03 7.02 0.75 6.19 8.97 - 5.17 6.41 - 1.93 20.99 - 2.99 22.68 - 14.30 22.90 - 19.53
CLI MACK-CALI REALTY CORP DEC 0.62 0.71 0.79 1.06 1.35 21.77 J 22.88 J 22.88 J 23.69 22.95 38.74 - 27.77 37.63 - 13.73 43.00 - 13.15 56.52 - 30.41 55.37 - 42.17
PKY PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC DEC (0.82) (0.85) (1.15) 0.95 0.95 15.23 15.52 17.72 20.58 22.40 23.25 - 13.30 21.83 - 8.46 42.27 - 10.32 57.94 - 34.02 53.40 - 38.25
SLG SL GREEN REALTY CORP DEC 2.95 0.56 0.07 2.50 2.30 49.60 51.62 61.81 57.05 43.07 70.89 - 43.33 53.75 - 8.10 101.07 - 7.75 158.86 - 87.39 143.00 - 75.83
RESIDENTIAL REITS
AIV [] APARTMENT INVST & MGMT CO DEC (1.48) (1.75) (1.51) (1.14) (1.29) 2.73 4.97 J 6.21 J 9.82 14.82 26.24 - 15.01 17.09 - 4.57 43.67 - 7.01 65.79 - 33.97 59.17 - 37.76
AVB [] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC DEC 1.18 0.97 1.35 3.04 2.15 38.54 37.41 37.82 39.14 34.46 116.09 - 71.75 87.82 - 38.34 113.07 - 41.43 149.94 - 88.94 134.60 - 88.95
BRE BRE PROPERTIES INC DEC (0.06) 0.50 1.03 0.95 1.18 19.73 18.55 18.47 18.11 19.35 46.38 - 30.37 35.21 - 17.04 52.50 - 18.06 72.95 - 39.58 66.30 - 45.50
CPT CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST DEC 0.14 (1.09) (0.25) 0.81 2.28 23.30 22.96 21.38 23.40 26.68 54.38 - 36.08 45.00 - 16.38 55.54 - 16.86 79.99 - 44.76 81.35 - 57.40
EQR [] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL DEC (0.11) 0.05 0.10 0.23 0.21 16.85 17.28 17.55 18.00 18.73 52.64 - 31.40 36.38 - 15.68 49.00 - 21.27 56.46 - 33.79 61.50 - 38.84
ESS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST DEC 1.14 2.72 2.15 1.32 1.31 35.91 35.64 31.06 30.76 25.08 117.12 - 76.35 88.35 - 49.19 129.57 - 60.77 148.54 - 94.08 133.99 - 92.10
HME HOME PROPERTIES INC DEC 0.56 0.56 1.02 0.81 0.69 18.96 19.06 19.90 20.43 20.91 56.93 - 42.56 49.23 - 23.35 60.39 - 24.93 64.97 - 41.10 63.78 - 40.45
MAA MID-AMERICA APT CMNTYS INC DEC 0.57 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.27 14.75 14.66 14.45 15.43 17.69 64.48 - 45.14 50.58 - 22.22 60.66 - 23.63 60.74 - 41.75 65.98 - 48.13
PPS POST PROPERTIES INC DEC (0.30) (2.10) (2.35) 2.45 0.54 19.77 20.95 22.33 24.15 21.99 36.56 - 16.95 20.11 - 8.99 44.68 - 10.08 55.90 - 33.67 50.47 - 39.69
UDR UDR INC DEC (0.71) (0.66) (0.42) (0.02) (0.32) 8.08 8.12 9.50 6.28 6.47 24.10 - 14.47 17.26 - 6.73 28.50 - 10.00 34.10 - 19.51 33.75 - 23.41
RETAIL REITS
AKR ACADIA REALTY TRUST DEC 0.75 0.75 0.59 0.55 0.49 7.44 7.28 6.24 6.98 7.22 20.17 - 14.88 17.69 - 8.50 26.78 - 9.04 29.00 - 21.19 27.13 - 19.51
CDR CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS INC DEC (0.20) (0.49) 0.24 0.30 0.23 7.21 8.79 9.95 10.76 11.31 8.39 - 4.91 7.69 - 1.50 14.02 - 3.66 16.99 - 10.04 18.42 - 13.96
EQY EQUITY ONE INC DEC 0.24 0.91 0.48 0.67 0.77 11.87 11.60 11.63 12.07 12.51 20.00 - 14.58 17.88 - 9.06 26.69 - 9.58 30.88 - 21.21 28.40 - 20.25
FRT FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TR DEC 1.98 1.60 1.96 1.71 1.50 18.53 19.06 18.73 18.84 14.17 85.00 - 61.93 71.92 - 36.92 95.00 - 43.46 98.92 - 70.13 87.19 - 59.64
GTY GETTY REALTY CORP DEC 1.79 1.67 1.58 1.13 1.73 10.52 8.39 8.31 8.57 9.11 32.20 - 15.52 26.32 - 13.25 28.58 - 13.12 32.10 - 23.80 33.85 - 25.42
IRC INLAND REAL ESTATE CORP DEC (0.02) 0.08 0.50 0.63 0.57 4.09 4.84 4.92 5.12 5.42 10.29 - 7.17 13.03 - 5.79 16.97 - 8.20 21.14 - 13.50 19.88 - 12.70
KIM [] KIMCO REALTY CORP DEC 0.19 (0.15) 0.69 1.36 1.39 12.14 11.96 14.66 15.40 13.42 18.41 - 12.40 20.90 - 6.33 47.80 - 9.56 53.60 - 33.74 47.13 - 32.02
KRG KITE REALTY GROUP TRUST DEC (0.14) 0.07 0.24 0.41 0.35 5.57 5.95 8.34 8.96 9.36 5.97 - 3.24 6.46 - 2.03 15.65 - 1.94 21.80 - 13.95 19.70 - 14.05
MAC MACERICH CO DEC 0.19 1.83 1.29 1.01 0.65 21.64 18.36 16.07 14.03 19.36 49.86 - 29.30 38.22 - 5.45 76.50 - 8.31 103.59 - 69.44 87.10 - 66.70
NNN NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES DEC 0.77 0.62 1.31 1.18 1.18 17.17 17.86 18.49 18.13 16.05 28.11 - 19.19 22.80 - 12.26 25.00 - 10.03 26.15 - 20.20 24.10 - 18.81
PEI PENNSYLVANIA RE INVS TRUST DEC (1.43) (2.40) (0.30) 0.57 0.32 11.52 12.10 14.35 16.70 21.39 17.35 - 8.35 9.13 - 2.20 29.70 - 2.21 50.39 - 28.48 44.53 - 36.75
O REALTY INCOME CORP DEC 0.92 0.94 0.92 1.03 1.05 15.16 13.87 14.52 14.80 15.23 35.97 - 25.28 28.23 - 14.25 34.86 - 15.00 30.70 - 22.87 28.45 - 21.25
REG REGENCY CENTERS CORP DEC (0.19) (0.82) 1.28 2.26 1.98 17.20 19.50 20.11 22.66 22.69 44.95 - 31.71 47.13 - 20.72 82.43 - 23.36 93.49 - 61.41 81.42 - 58.63
BFS SAUL CENTERS INC DEC 0.99 1.20 1.47 1.63 1.45 3.27 2.52 2.55 2.75 1.85 48.35 - 31.53 39.60 - 18.42 55.71 - 22.30 62.74 - 41.86 57.00 - 35.35
SPG [] SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC DEC 2.10 1.06 1.88 2.09 2.20 15.71 15.25 10.72 12.02 13.15 106.54 - 68.76 83.82 - 24.27 106.43 - 33.78 123.96 - 82.60 104.08 - 76.14
SKT TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CTRS DEC 0.32 0.72 0.36 0.37 0.33 4.53 J 4.81 J 2.42 J 2.78 3.22 26.00 - 18.40 20.89 - 12.39 23.15 - 12.31 22.22 - 16.16 20.17 - 14.34
TCO TAUBMAN CENTERS INC DEC 0.87 (1.31) (1.64) 0.92 0.41 (6.66) (6.07) (3.80) (0.38) 1.94 51.01 - 31.50 38.63 - 12.43 65.99 - 17.47 63.87 - 45.67 51.30 - 34.75
UBA URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES OCT 0.57 0.59 0.64 0.93 0.63 8.41 8.02 8.36 8.75 8.29 20.35 - 14.17 16.32 - 9.70 20.50 - 12.11 19.73 - 14.48 19.50 - 14.62
WRI WEINGARTEN REALTY INVST DEC 0.08 0.70 0.51 1.47 1.61 14.89 15.78 16.30 17.43 13.13 J 26.07 - 17.71 23.00 - 7.96 40.00 - 8.27 52.30 - 31.44 47.94 - 36.77
Earnings per Share ($) Tangible Book Value per Share ($) Share Price (High-Low, $)
SPECIALIZED REITS
DRH DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY CO DEC (0.06) (0.10) 0.56 0.66 0.51 9.14 9.46 11.30 11.40 10.30 12.12 - 7.61 9.10 - 2.61 15.33 - 2.30 22.00 - 14.50 18.24 - 11.68
EPR ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES TR DEC 1.93 (0.61) 3.32 2.89 2.69 33.68 34.19 38.48 35.29 31.85 49.73 - 33.41 37.00 - 11.88 69.02 - 17.96 68.93 - 40.26 63.65 - 38.73
EXR EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC DEC 0.30 0.37 0.61 0.53 0.27 10.02 10.16 10.13 9.42 10.03 17.70 - 10.78 12.23 - 4.93 17.90 - 5.98 20.55 - 13.10 19.00 - 14.25
HCP [] HCP INC DEC 0.93 0.25 0.77 0.67 0.58 19.70 17.22 17.18 14.50 12.47 38.05 - 26.70 33.45 - 14.93 42.16 - 14.26 42.11 - 25.11 37.84 - 25.12
HCN [] HEALTH CARE REIT INC DEC 0.49 1.22 1.36 1.27 1.33 28.96 28.43 27.90 24.26 22.40 52.06 - 38.42 46.74 - 25.86 53.98 - 30.14 48.55 - 35.08 43.02 - 32.80
HR HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INC DEC 0.06 0.48 0.35 0.35 0.76 12.42 12.70 12.69 12.15 16.87 25.24 - 19.61 23.59 - 12.06 32.00 - 14.29 44.19 - 18.00 42.83 - 31.25
HPT HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES TRUST DEC (0.07) 1.51 1.11 2.16 2.20 19.04 20.91 22.30 23.51 27.40 28.32 - 18.99 24.27 - 8.53 37.17 - 6.88 49.00 - 32.02 51.46 - 39.32
HST [] HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC DEC (0.20) (0.43) 0.75 1.04 0.60 9.33 9.43 10.32 10.23 9.83 17.97 - 10.46 12.20 - 3.08 18.81 - 4.77 28.98 - 16.55 25.79 - 18.77
LHO LASALLE HOTEL PROPERTIES DEC (0.35) (0.34) 0.25 0.77 1.86 19.76 20.38 24.19 25.86 28.55 28.22 - 18.91 22.79 - 3.57 34.45 - 6.58 49.75 - 31.04 48.32 - 35.94
LTC LTC PROPERTIES INC DEC 1.19 1.27 1.24 1.33 1.21 12.47 11.39 11.60 11.83 12.35 28.76 - 22.85 28.41 - 15.74 31.17 - 14.70 29.25 - 19.02 28.00 - 19.98
MPW MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST DEC 0.12 0.48 0.44 0.84 0.75 8.16 8.53 9.51 9.85 8.68 11.65 - 7.98 10.57 - 2.76 13.00 - 3.67 16.70 - 9.80 15.65 - 9.40
NHP NATIONWIDE HEALTH PPTYS INC DEC 1.13 1.11 1.03 1.46 0.78 16.92 16.52 15.41 13.90 12.14 41.48 - 30.91 35.92 - 18.16 39.99 - 18.13 35.01 - 22.63 31.00 - 19.67
OHI OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVS INC DEC 0.52 0.87 0.93 0.88 0.79 9.03 8.57 8.25 6.87 5.81 23.95 - 17.00 20.08 - 11.15 19.75 - 9.30 19.17 - 12.00 18.00 - 11.15
PCL [] PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO INC DEC 1.25 1.45 1.37 1.60 1.75 8.50 9.00 9.47 11.03 11.80 43.75 - 33.11 38.69 - 22.88 65.00 - 27.33 48.45 - 37.13 40.00 - 31.21
PCH POTLATCH CORP DEC 1.01 2.05 1.74 2.38 3.81 5.11 5.77 4.99 14.73 14.88 41.76 - 29.64 33.72 - 18.00 54.79 - 20.29 49.98 - 38.99 54.26 - 33.65
PSA [] PUBLIC STORAGE DEC 2.32 3.53 4.22 1.18 0.32 29.92 31.56 30.09 28.85 28.16 106.12 - 74.74 85.10 - 45.35 102.48 - 52.52 117.16 - 68.09 98.05 - 67.72
RYN RAYONIER INC DEC 2.71 3.95 2.03 2.25 2.23 15.46 14.41 11.72 12.54 11.92 54.52 - 39.70 45.00 - 22.28 49.54 - 26.58 49.55 - 38.17 47.50 - 36.15
SNH SENIOR HOUSING PPTYS TRUST DEC 0.91 0.90 1.01 1.03 0.91 14.55 14.59 14.85 14.09 J 13.14 25.27 - 19.25 22.80 - 10.68 25.21 - 9.82 26.83 - 16.22 24.60 - 16.56
SSS SOVRAN SELF STORAGE INC DEC 1.20 0.87 1.68 1.81 1.90 22.84 23.12 22.60 24.33 24.67 41.47 - 31.12 38.06 - 16.40 46.50 - 19.18 63.93 - 39.75 60.00 - 45.71
UHT UNIVERSAL HEALTH RLTY INCOME DEC 1.33 1.56 0.98 1.66 2.94 11.49 J 11.66 J 12.21 J 13.54 13.92 38.56 - 30.56 35.45 - 24.18 39.30 - 20.98 42.05 - 28.23 40.61 - 29.55
VTR [] VENTAS INC DEC 1.39 1.28 1.30 1.15 1.26 14.67 15.64 14.93 13.64 6.69 56.20 - 40.36 44.91 - 19.13 52.00 - 17.31 47.97 - 23.98 42.40 - 29.54
WY [] WEYERHAEUSER CO DEC 4.00 (2.58) (8.61) 0.23 1.45 8.53 18.94 22.58 27.35 28.91 53.69 - 15.06 46.80 - 18.67 73.75 - 28.68 87.09 - 59.67 75.50 - 54.25
J-This amount includes intangibles that cannot be identified.
The analysis and opinion set forth in this publication are provided by Standard & Poors Equity Research Services and are prepared separately from any other analytic activity of Standard & Poors.
In this regard, Standard & Poors Equity Research Services has no access to nonpublic information received by other units of Standard & Poors.
The accuracy and completeness of information obtained from third-party sources, and the opinions based on such information, are not guaranteed.

S&P-REITs-May 11

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

S&P-REITs-May 11

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Current Environment ............................................................................................

Potrebbero piacerti anche

S&amp;P-REITs-May 11

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

S&amp;P-REITs-May 11

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Current Environment ............................................................................................

Potrebbero piacerti anche

S&P-REITs-May 11

S&P-REITs-May 11