MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Second Quarter 2010
| Total Portfolio | | Effective Portfolio (1) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | For the | | | | | | For the | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended | | | | | | Three Months Ended | | | | |
| | June 30, 2010 | | | % Leased | | June 30, 2010 | | | % Leased | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Leased Square Feet as of March 31, 2010, Orange County | | | 2,668,931 | | | | 69.0 | % | | | 2,373,330 | | | | 71.5 | % |
Disposition - 17885 Von Karman | | | (59,458 | ) | | | | | | | (59,458 | ) | | | | |
Revised Leased Square Feet | | | 2,609,473 | | | | 70.2 | % | | | 2,313,872 | | | | 73.0 | % |
Expirations | | | (136,448 | ) | | | (3.7 | )% | | | (136,448 | ) | | | (4.3 | )% |
New Leases | | | 39,470 | | | | 1.1 | % | | | 39,470 | | | | 1.3 | % |
Renewals | | | 70,975 | | | | 1.9 | % | | | 70,975 | | | | 2.2 | % |
Leased Square Feet as of June 30, 2010, Orange County | | | 2,583,470 | | | | 69.5 | % | | | 2,287,869 | | | | 72.2 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash Rent Growth (2), (3) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Expiring Rate per Square Foot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 19.08 | |
New / Renewed Rate per Square Foot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 9.22 | |
Percentage Change | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (51.7 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
GAAP Rent Growth (3), (4) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Expiring Rate per Square Foot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 17.94 | |
New / Renewed Rate per Square Foot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 10.39 | |
Percentage Change | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (42.1 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Weighted Average Lease Term - New (in months) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 69 | |
Weighted Average Lease Term - Renewal (in months) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 62 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(1) | Includes 100% of our consolidated portfolio and 20% of our MMO joint venture properties. |
(2) | Represents the difference between (i) initial market rents on new and renewed leases and (ii) the cash rents on those spaces immediately prior to the expiration or termination. |
(3) | For newly acquired properties, cash and GAAP rent growth is excluded for spaces that expired prior to our ownership and were re-leased after acquisition. |
| Excludes new and renewed leases for spaces with more than twelve months of downtime and early renewals commencing after June 30, 2011. |
(4) | Represents estimated cash rent growth adjusted for straight-line rents in accordance with GAAP. |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Tenant Improvements and Leasing Commissions (Excluding Properties in Default) (1), (2), (3)
| | For the Three Months Ended | | | For the Year Ended December 31, | |
| | June 30, 2010 | | | March 31, 2010 | | | 2009 | | | 2008 | | | 2007 | |
Renewals (4) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Number of Leases | | | 12 | | | | 15 | | | | 79 | | | | 130 | | | | 152 | |
Square Feet | | | 52,298 | | | | 128,017 | | | | 554,506 | | | | 664,524 | | | | 881,406 | |
Tenant Improvement Costs per Square Foot (5) | | $ | 2.73 | | | $ | 0.98 | | | $ | 9.09 | | | $ | 13.95 | | | $ | 11.69 | |
Leasing Commission Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 9.91 | | | $ | 5.71 | | | $ | 6.11 | | | $ | 5.53 | | | $ | 5.14 | |
Total Tenant Improvements and Leasing Commissions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 12.64 | | | $ | 6.69 | | | $ | 15.20 | | | $ | 19.48 | | | $ | 16.83 | |
Costs per Square Foot per Year | | $ | 2.00 | | | $ | 2.29 | | | $ | 2.60 | | | $ | 4.36 | | | $ | 3.41 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
New/Modified Leases (6) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Number of Leases | | | 24 | | | | 13 | | | | 83 | | | | 163 | | | | 141 | |
Square Feet | | | 160,837 | | | | 60,832 | | | | 617,522 | | | | 1,115,055 | | | | 893,634 | |
Tenant Improvement Costs per Square Foot (5) | | $ | 9.57 | | | $ | 12.34 | | | $ | 19.36 | | | $ | 41.97 | | | $ | 22.89 | |
Leasing Commission Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 8.54 | | | $ | 5.28 | | | $ | 6.19 | | | $ | 10.11 | | | $ | 6.52 | |
Total Tenant Improvements and Leasing Commissions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 18.11 | | | $ | 17.62 | | | $ | 25.55 | | | $ | 52.08 | | | $ | 29.41 | |
Costs per Square Foot per Year | | $ | 2.71 | | | $ | 3.73 | | | $ | 3.73 | | | $ | 5.98 | | | $ | 5.00 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Number of Leases | | | 36 | | | | 28 | | | | 162 | | | | 293 | | | | 293 | |
Square Feet | | | 213,135 | | | | 188,849 | | | | 1,172,028 | | | | 1,779,579 | | | | 1,775,040 | |
Tenant Improvement Costs per Square Foot (5) | | $ | 7.89 | | | $ | 4.64 | | | $ | 14.50 | | | $ | 31.51 | | | $ | 17.33 | |
Leasing Commission Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 8.87 | | | $ | 5.57 | | | $ | 6.15 | | | $ | 8.40 | | | $ | 5.84 | |
Total Tenant Improvements and Leasing Commissions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Costs per Square Foot | | $ | 16.76 | | | $ | 10.21 | | | $ | 20.65 | | | $ | 39.91 | | | $ | 23.17 | |
Costs per Square Foot per Year | | $ | 2.54 | | | $ | 2.92 | | | $ | 3.24 | | | $ | 5.60 | | | $ | 4.28 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(1) Excludes activity related to Properties in Default for the three months ended June 30 and March 31, 2010 and December 31 and September 30, 2009. | | |
(2) Based on leases executed during the period. Excludes leases to related parties, short-term leases less than six months, and leases for raw space. |
(3) Tenant improvement and leasing commission information reflects 100% of the consolidated portfolio and 20% of the MMO joint venture properties. | | |
(4) Does not include retained tenants that have relocated to new space or expanded into new space. | | |
(5) Tenant improvements include improvements and lease concessions. | | |
(6) Includes retained tenants that have relocated or expanded into new space and lease modifications. | | |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Historical Capital Expenditures — Office Properties (1)
| | For the Three Months Ended | | | For the Year Ended December 31, | |
| | June 30, 2010 | | | March 31, 2010 | | | 2009 | | | 2008 | | | 2007 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Consolidated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Non-recoverable capital expenditures (2) | | $ | 77,061 | | | $ | 198,539 | | | $ | 2,952,146 | | | $ | 10,571,743 | | | $ | 11,326,800 | |
Total square feet | | | 12,238,456 | | | | 12,493,247 | | | | 12,956,305 | | | | 15,498,637 | | | | 16,051,311 | |
Non-recoverable capital expenditures per square foot | | $ | 0.01 | | | $ | 0.02 | | | $ | 0.23 | | | $ | 0.68 | | | $ | 0.71 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Unconsolidated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Non-recoverable capital expenditures (3) | | $ | 24,764 | | | $ | 163,122 | | | $ | 295,925 | | | $ | 220,946 | | | $ | 50,406 | |
Total square feet (4) | | | 710,985 | | | | 710,985 | | | | 710,922 | | | | 635,670 | | | | 624,674 | |
Non-recoverable capital expenditures per square foot | | $ | 0.03 | | | $ | 0.23 | | | $ | 0.42 | | | $ | 0.35 | | | $ | 0.08 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Consolidated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Recoverable capital expenditures (5) | | $ | 606,870 | | | $ | 810,181 | | | $ | 1,388,207 | | | $ | 1,197,266 | | | $ | 2,857,483 | |
Total square feet | | | 12,238,456 | | | | 12,493,247 | | | | 12,956,305 | | | | 15,498,637 | | | | 16,051,311 | |
Recoverable capital expenditures per square foot | | $ | 0.05 | | | $ | 0.06 | | | $ | 0.11 | | | $ | 0.08 | | | $ | 0.18 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Unconsolidated | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Recoverable capital expenditures (3), (5) | | $ | – | | | $ | 4,992 | | | $ | 18,610 | | | $ | 30,524 | | | $ | 5,779 | |
Total square feet (4) | | | 710,985 | | | | 710,985 | | | | 710,922 | | | | 635,670 | | | | 624,674 | |
Recoverable capital expenditures per square foot | | $ | – | | | $ | 0.01 | | | $ | 0.03 | | | $ | 0.05 | | | $ | 0.01 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(1) | Historical capital expenditures for each period shown reflect properties owned for the entire period. For properties acquired during each period, the capital expenditures will be reflected in the following full period of ownership. For properties sold during each period, the capital expenditures will be excluded for that period. Any capital expenditures incurred during the period of acquisition or disposition will be footnoted separately. |
(2) | For 2008, excludes $6.4 million of non-recoverable capital expenditures as a result of discretionary renovation costs of $6.1 million at KPMG Tower and $0.3 million of planned renovation costs at Lantana Media Campus. For 2007, excludes $3.8 million of non-recoverable capital expenditures as a result of discretionary renovation costs of $1.9 million at KPMG Tower and $1.9 million of planned renovation costs at Lantana Media Campus. |
(3) | Amount represents our 20% ownership interest in our joint venture with Charter Hall Group. |
(4) | The square footages of Cerritos Corporate Center Phases I and II are deducted from the total square feet amount as the tenants pay for all capital expenditures. |
(5) | Recoverable capital improvements, such as equipment upgrades, are generally financed through capital leases. The annual amortization, based on each asset’s useful life, as well as any financing costs, are generally billed to tenants on an annual basis as payments are made. The amounts presented represent the total value of the improvements in the year they are made. |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Hotel Performance and Hotel Historical Capital Expenditures
| | For the Three Months Ended June 30, | | | For the Six Months Ended June 30, | |
| | | | | | | | Percent | | | | | | | | | Percent | |
Westin Hotel, Pasadena, CA | | 2010 | | 2009 | | Change | | 2010 | | 2009 | | Change |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Occupancy | | | 72.4 | % | | | 72.6 | % | | | (0.3 | )% | | | 72.0 | % | | | 69.8 | % | | | 3.2 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Average daily rate | | $ | 150.16 | | | $ | 155.69 | | | | (3.6 | )% | | $ | 155.45 | | | $ | 161.25 | | | | (3.6 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Revenue per available room (REVPAR) | | $ | 108.68 | | | $ | 113.05 | | | | (3.9 | )% | | $ | 111.95 | | | $ | 112.50 | | | | (0.5 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hotel net operating income | | $ | 1,412,765 | | | $ | 1,667,515 | | | | (15.3 | )% | | $ | 2,902,608 | | | $ | 3,212,508 | | | | (9.6 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hotel Historical Capital Expenditures
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | For the Three Months Ended June 30, | | | For the Year Ended December 31, |
Westin Hotel, Pasadena, CA | | | 2010 | | | 2009 | | | 2009 | | | 2008 | | | 2007 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hotel improvements and equipment replacement | | $ | 56,804 | | | $ | 251,498 | | | $ | 1,003,384 | | | $ | 699,531 | | | $ | 712,955 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total hotel revenue | | $ | 4,955,919 | | | $ | 5,148,478 | | | $ | 20,622,570 | | | $ | 26,615,726 | | | $ | 27,214,156 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hotel improvements as a percentage of hotel revenue | | | 1.1 | % | | | 4.9 | % | | | 4.9 | % | | | 2.6 | % | | | 2.6 | % |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
| | | As of June 30, 2010 |
| Location | | Developable Square Feet (1) | | | Structured Parking Square Feet | | Type of Planned Development |
Unencumbered Development Properties | | | | | | | | |
Los Angeles County | | | | | | | | |
755 South Figueroa | Los Angeles, CA | | | 930,000 | | | | 266,000 | | Office |
Glendale Center - Phase II | Glendale, CA | | | 264,000 | | | | 158,000 | | Mixed Use |
Total Los Angeles County | | | | 1,194,000 | | | | 424,000 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Orange County | | | | | | | | | | |
Stadium Tower II | Anaheim, CA | | | 282,000 | | | | 367,000 | | Office |
Brea Financial Commons/Brea Corporate Place (2) | Brea, CA | | | 550,000 | | | | 784,000 | | Office, Mixed Use |
500 Orange Center (3) | Orange, CA | | | 900,000 | | | | 960,000 | | Office |
City Tower II (4) | Orange, CA | | | 465,000 | | | | 696,000 | | Office |
Total Orange County | | | | 2,197,000 | | | | 2,807,000 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
San Diego County | | | | | | | | | | |
San Diego Tech Center (5), (6) | Sorrento Mesa, CA | | | 1,320,000 | | | | 1,674,000 | | Office |
Total | | | | 4,711,000 | | | | 4,905,000 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Development Properties Encumbered by Defaulted Mortgages | | | | | | | | | | |
Pacific Arts Plaza (7) | Costa Mesa, CA | | | 468,000 | | | | 260,000 | | Office |
| | | | 225,000 | | | | - | | Residential (8) |
2600 Michelson (9) | Irvine, CA | | | 270,000 | | | | 154,000 | | Office |
Total | | | | 963,000 | | | | 414,000 | | |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Development Pipeline (continued)
(1) | The developable square feet presented represents the office, retail, hotel and residential footages that we estimate can be developed on the referenced property. |
(2) | The developable square feet presented represents management’s estimate of the development potential for the referenced property based on the allowed density under current zoning and capacity considerations for the site still under planning review. |
(3) | The developable square feet presented represents management’s estimate of the development potential for the referenced property based on the allowed density under current zoning. Approximately 60,000 square feet of the estimated development potential will require the consolidation of an adjacent remnant parcel in cooperation with the City of Orange. |
(4) | The developable square feet presented represents management’s estimate of the development potential for the referenced property based on the allowed density under a Conditional Use Permit obtained for the property in 2001, which has since expired. |
(5) | Land held for development was not contributed to the MMO joint venture. |
(6) | The third phase contemplates the demolition of 120,000 square feet of existing space. |
(7) | This property is currently in receivership, along with the Pacific Arts Plaza office building. |
(8) | The developable square feet presented represents management’s estimate of the development potential for the referenced property based on the construction of 180 residential units as contemplated under a Program EIR completed by the City of Costa Mesa for this and other surrounding properties. This residential development would replace an existing 67,450 square foot office building at Pacific Arts Plaza. |
(9) | The developable square feet presented represents management’s estimate of the development potential for the referenced property based on an allocation of excess trips reserved from our disposition of Inwood Park, which we have been in discussion with the City of Irvine over securing, and the potential utilization of excess trips from our other assets in the Irvine Business Complex (i.e., Park Place). This property is currently in receivership, along with the 2600 Michelson office building. |
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Management Statements on Non–GAAP Supplemental Measures
Funds from Operations:
Fund from Operations, or FFO, is a widely recognized measure of REIT performance. We calculate FFO as defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, or NAREIT. FFO represents net (loss) income (as computed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP), excluding gains from disposition of property (but including impairments and provisions for losses on property held for sale), plus real estate-related depreciation and amortization (including capitalized leasing costs and tenant allowances or improvements). Adjustments for our unconsolidated joint venture are calculated to reflect FFO on the same basis.
Management uses FFO as a supplemental performance measure because, in excluding real estate-related depreciation and amortization and gains from property dispositions, it provides a performance measure that, when compared year over year, captures trends in occupancy rates, rental rates and operating costs. We also believe that, as a widely recognized measure of the performance of REITs, FFO will be used by investors as a basis to compare our operating performance with that of other REITs.
However, because FFO excludes depreciation and amortization and captures neither the changes in the value of our properties that result from use or market conditions nor the level of capital expenditures and leasing commissions necessary to maintain the operating performance of our properties, all of which have real economic effect and could materially impact our results of operations, the utility of FFO as a measure of our performance is limited. Other Equity REITs may not calculate FFO in accordance with the NAREIT definition and, accordingly, our FFO may not be comparable to such other Equity REITs’ FFO. As a result, FFO should be considered only as a supplement to net (loss) income as a measure of our performance. FFO should not be used as a measure of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of funds available to meet our cash needs, including our ability to pay dividends or make distributions. FFO also should not be used as a supplement to or substitute for cash flows from operating activities (as computed in accordance with GAAP).
FFO before specified items:
Management also uses FFO before specified items as a supplemental performance measure because losses from early extinguishment of debt, default interest, the impairment of long-lived assets and gains on settlement of debt create significant earnings volatility which in turn results in less comparability between reporting periods and less predictability regarding future earnings potential.
Losses from early extinguishment of debt represent costs to extinguish debt prior to the stated maturity and the writeoff of unamortized loan costs on the date of extinguishment. The decision to extinguish debt prior to its maturity generally results from (i) the assumption of debt in connection with property acquisitions that is priced or structured at less than desirable terms (for example, a variable interest rate instead of a fixed interest rate), (ii) short-term bridge financing obtained in connection with the acquisition of a property or portfolio of properties until such time as the company completes its long-term financing strategy, (iii) the early repayment of debt associated with properties disposed of, or (iv) the restructuring or replacement of property or corporate-level financing to accommo date property acquisitions. Consequently, management views these losses as costs to complete the respective acquisition or disposition of properties.
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Management Statements on Non–GAAP Supplemental Measures (continued)
FFO before specified items: (continued)
During the third quarter of 2009, we announced a plan to cease funding cash shortfalls at certain properties. As a result, six special purpose property-owning subsidiaries were in default on their mortgage loans: Stadium Towers in Central Orange County, Park Place II in Irvine (which was disposed of in July 2009), 2600 Michelson in Irvine, Pacific Arts Plaza in Costa Mesa, 550 South Hope in Downtown Los Angeles, and 500 Orange Tower in Central Orange County. We are accruing interest on the defaulted mortgage loans at the default rate per the applicable loan agreements. We have excluded default interest accrued on Properties in Default as well as the writeoff of deferred financing costs related to the mortgage loans on these propertie s from the calculation of FFO before specified items since these charges are a direct result of management’s decision to dispose of property other than by sale. Management views these charges as costs to complete the disposition of the related properties.
Impairment of long-lived assets represents charges taken to write down depreciable real estate assets to fair value estimated when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. In some instances, the disposition of properties impaired in prior periods may result in a gain on settlement of debt at the time of disposition. Per the NAREIT definition of FFO, gains from property dispositions are excluded from the calculation of FFO; however, impairment losses are required to be included. Management excludes gains on disposal, impairment losses and gains on settlement of debt from the calculation of FFO before specified items because they relate to the financial statement impact of decisions made to dispose of property, whether in the period of di sposition or in advance of disposition. These types of gains or losses create volatility in our earnings and make it difficult for investors to determine the funds generated by our ongoing business operations.
Adjusted Funds from Operations:
We calculate adjusted funds from operations, or AFFO, by adding to or subtracting from FFO (i) non-cash operating revenues and expenses, (ii) capitalized operating expenditures such as leasing and development payroll and interest expense, (iii) recurring and non-recurring capital expenditures required to maintain and re-tenant our properties, (iv) regular principal payments required to service our debt, and (v) 2nd generation tenant improvements and leasing commissions. Management uses AFFO as a supplemental liquidity measure because, when compared year over year, it assesses our ability to fund our dividend and distribution requirements from our operating activities. We also believe that, as a widely recognized measure of the liquidity of REITs, AFFO will be used by investors as a basis to assess our ability to fund dividend payments in comparison to other REITs.
However, because AFFO may exclude certain non-recurring capital expenditures and leasing costs, the utility of AFFO as a measure of our liquidity is limited. Additionally, other Equity REITs may not calculate AFFO using the method we do. As a result, our AFFO may not be comparable to such other Equity REITs’ AFFO. AFFO should be considered only as a supplement to cash flows from operating activities (as computed in accordance with GAAP) as a measure of our liquidity.
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Management Statements on Non–GAAP Supplemental Measures (continued)
EBITDA:
Management uses EBITDA as an indicator of our ability to incur and service debt. We believe EBITDA is an appropriate supplemental measure for such purposes, because the amounts spent on interest are, by definition, available to pay interest, income tax expense is inversely correlated to interest expense because tax expense goes down as deductible interest expense goes up, and depreciation and amortization are non-cash charges. In addition, we believe EBITDA is frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in the evaluation of Equity REITs. However, because EBITDA is calculated before recurring cash charges including interest expense and income taxes, and is not adjusted for capital expenditures or other recurring cash requirements of our business, its uti lity as a measure of our liquidity is limited. Accordingly, EBITDA should not be considered an alternative to cash flows from operating activities (as computed in accordance with GAAP) as a measure of our liquidity. EBITDA should not be considered as an alternative to net income as an indicator of our operating performance. Other Equity REITs may calculate EBITDA differently than we do; accordingly, our EBITDA may not be comparable to such other Equity REITs’ EBITDA.
Adjusted EBITDA:
Management also uses Adjusted EBITDA as a supplemental performance measure because losses from early extinguishment of debt, the impairment of long-lived assets and gains on settlement of debt create significant earnings volatility which in turn results in less comparability between reporting periods and less predictability regarding future earnings potential.
Losses from early extinguishment of debt represent costs to extinguish debt prior to the stated maturity and the writeoff of unamortized loan costs on the date of extinguishment. The decision to extinguish debt prior to its maturity generally results from (i) the assumption of debt in connection with property acquisitions that is priced or structured at less than desirable terms (for example, a variable interest rate instead of a fixed interest rate), (ii) short-term bridge financing obtained in connection with the acquisition of a property or portfolio of properties until such time as the company completes its long-term financing strategy, (iii) the early repayment of debt associated with properties disposed of, or (iv) the restructuring or replacement of property or corporate-level financing to accommo date property acquisitions. Consequently, management views these losses as costs to complete the respective acquisition or disposition of properties.
Impairment of long-lived assets represents charges taken to write down depreciable real estate assets to fair value estimated when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. In some instances, the disposition of properties impaired in prior periods may result in a gain on settlement of debt at the time of disposition. Management excludes gains on disposal, impairment losses and gains on settlement of debt from the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA because they relate to the financial statement impact of decisions made to dispose of property, whether in the period of disposition or in advance of disposition. These types of gains or losses create volatility in our earnings and make it difficult f or investors to determine the earnings generated by our ongoing business operations.
MPG Office Trust, Inc.
Supplemental Operating and Financial Data
Second Quarter 2010
Management Statements on Non–GAAP Supplemental Measures (continued)
Coverage Ratios:
We present interest and fixed charge coverage ratios as supplemental liquidity measures. Management uses these ratios as indicators of our financial flexibility to service current interest expense and debt amortization from current cash net operating income. In addition, we believe that these coverage ratios represent common metrics used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties to evaluate our ability to service fixed cash payments. However, because these ratios are derived from EBITDA, their utility is limited by the same factors that limit the usefulness of EBITDA as a liquidity measure. Accordingly, our interest coverage ratio should not be considered as an alternative to cash flows from operating activities (as computed in accordance with GAAP) as a m easure of our liquidity.
50