UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
______________________________________________________
FORM 10-K
______________________________________________________
(Mark One)
|
| |
| x | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
|
| |
| ¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 000-52606
______________________________________________________
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
______________________________________________________
|
| | |
| Maryland | | 20-2985918 |
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) | | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300 Newport Beach, California | | 92660 |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices) | | (Zip Code) |
(949) 417-6500
(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
______________________________________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
| | |
| Title of Each Class | | Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered |
| None | | None |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share
______________________________________________________
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment of this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
| | | | | | |
| Large Accelerated Filer | | ¨ | | Accelerated Filer | | ¨ |
| Non-Accelerated Filer | | x (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | | Smaller reporting company | | ¨ |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x
There is no established market for the Registrant’s shares of common stock. On December 18, 2012, the board of directors of the Registrant approved an estimated value per share of the Registrant’s common stock of $5.18 based on the estimated value of the Registrant’s assets less the estimated value of the Registrant’s liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, all as of September 30, 2012. For a full description of the methodologies used to value the Registrant’s assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share as of December 18, 2012, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities - Market Information” of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. On December 18, 2013, the board of directors of the Registrant approved an estimated value per share of the Registrant’s common stock of $4.45 based on the estimated value of the Registrant’s assets less the estimated value of the Registrant’s liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of the Company’s appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. For a full description of the methodologies used to value the Registrant’s assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share as of December 18, 2013, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities - Market Information.”
There were approximately 190,421,630 shares of common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2013, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
As of March 3, 2014, there were 189,376,879 outstanding shares of common stock of the Registrant.
Documents Incorporated by Reference:
Registrant incorporates by reference in Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Form 10-K portions of its Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
| | | |
| | |
| | ITEM 1. | | |
| | ITEM 1A. | | |
| | ITEM 1B. | | |
| | ITEM 2. | | |
| | ITEM 3. | | |
| | ITEM 4. | | |
| | | |
| | ITEM 5. | | |
| | ITEM 6. | | |
| | ITEM 7. | | |
| | ITEM 7A. | | |
| | ITEM 8. | | |
| | ITEM 9. | | |
| | ITEM 9A. | | |
| | ITEM 9B. | | |
| | | |
| | ITEM 10. | | |
| | ITEM 11. | | |
| | ITEM 12. | | |
| | ITEM 13. | | |
| | ITEM14. | | |
| | | |
| | ITEM 15. | | |
| | | | |
| |
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and members of our management team, as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based, and generally are identified by the use of words such as “may,” “will,” “seeks,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “should” or similar expressions. Actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. Further, forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results over time, unless required by law.
The following are some of the risks and uncertainties, although not all of the risks and uncertainties, that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those presented in our forward-looking statements:
| |
| • | We are the first publicly offered investment program sponsored by the affiliates of our external advisor, KBS Capital Advisors LLC, which makes our future performance difficult to predict. Our stockholders should not assume that our performance will be similar to the past performance of other real estate investment programs sponsored by affiliates of our advisor. |
| |
| • | All of our executive officers and some of our directors and other key real estate and debt finance professionals are also officers, directors, managers, key professionals and/or holders of a direct or indirect controlling interest in our advisor, the entity that acted as our dealer manager and/or other KBS-affiliated entities. As a result, they face conflicts of interest, including significant conflicts created by our advisor’s compensation arrangements with us and other KBS-advised programs and investors and conflicts in allocating time among us and these other programs and investors. These conflicts could result in unanticipated actions. |
| |
| • | We depend on tenants for the revenue generated by our real estate investments and, accordingly, the revenue generated by our real estate investments is dependent upon the success and economic viability of our tenants. Revenues from our properties could decrease due to a reduction in occupancy (caused by factors including, but not limited to, tenant defaults, tenant insolvency, early termination of tenant leases and non-renewal of existing tenant leases) and/or lower rental rates, making it more difficult for us to meet our debt service obligations and reducing our stockholders’ returns. |
| |
| • | We may not be able to refinance some or all of our existing indebtedness or to obtain additional debt financing on attractive terms. If we are not able to refinance existing indebtedness on attractive terms at or prior to its maturity, we may be forced to dispose of our assets sooner than we otherwise would and/or our lenders may take action against us. |
| |
| • | Our investments in real estate and real estate loans may be affected by unfavorable real estate market and general economic conditions, which could decrease the value of those assets and reduce the investment return to our stockholders. Revenues from our real property investments could decrease, making it more difficult for us to meet our debt service obligations. Revenues from the properties and other assets directly or indirectly securing our loan investments could decrease, making it more difficult for the borrower to meet its payment obligations to us. In addition, decreases in revenues from the properties directly or indirectly securing our loan investments could result in decreased valuations for those properties, which could make it difficult for our borrowers to repay or refinance their obligations to us. These factors could make it more difficult for us to meet our debt service obligations and reduce our stockholders’ return. |
| |
| • | Continued disruptions in the financial markets and deteriorating economic conditions could adversely affect our ability to meet our debt service obligations and cash needs, reducing the value of our stockholders’ investment in us. |
| |
| • | Certain of our debt obligations have variable interest rates and related payments that vary with the movement of LIBOR or other indexes. Increases in these indexes could increase the amount of our debt payments and reduce our stockholders’ return. |
| |
| • | We have amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). The dollar amounts available for such redemptions are determined by the board of directors and may be reviewed and adjusted from time to time. Additionally, redemptions are further subject to limitations described in the share redemption program. We currently do not expect to have funds available for ordinary redemptions in the future. |
| |
| • | We may not be able to successfully operate and/or sell the GKK Properties given current economic conditions and the concentration of the GKK Properties in the financial services sector, the significant debt obligations we have assumed with respect to such GKK Properties, and our advisor’s limited experience operating, managing and selling bank branch properties. Moreover, we depend upon GKK Realty Advisors LLC (the “Property Manager”) to manage and conduct the operations of the GKK Properties and any adverse changes in or termination of our relationship with the Property Manager could hinder the performance of the GKK Properties and the return on our stockholders’ investment. |
| |
| • | As a result of the GKK Properties transferred under the Settlement Agreement, a significant portion of our properties will be leased to financial institutions, making us more economically vulnerable in the event of a downturn in the banking industry. |
| |
| • | We have loans that have matured or defaulted without repayment. As a result of the maturities and defaults, the lenders have chosen or may choose to attempt to exercise certain of their rights under these loans and security documents, including without limitation, requiring the repayment of principal and all other sums outstanding or foreclosing on the properties securing these loans. |
All forward-looking statements should be read in light of the risks identified in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
PART I
Overview
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) is a Maryland corporation that was formed on June 13, 2005 to invest in a diverse portfolio of real estate properties and real estate-related investments. The Company elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2006 and it intends to continue to operate in such a manner. As used herein, the terms “we,” “our” and “us” refer to the Company and as required by context, KBS Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, which we refer to as our “Operating Partnership,” and to their subsidiaries. We own substantially all of our assets and conduct our operations through our Operating Partnership, of which we are the sole general partner. Subject to certain restrictions and limitations, our business is managed by KBS Capital Advisors LLC (“KBS Capital Advisors”), our external advisor, pursuant to an advisory agreement. Our advisor owns 20,000 shares of our common stock. We have no paid employees.
On January 27, 2006, we launched our initial public offering of up to 200,000,000 shares of common stock in our primary offering and 80,000,000 shares of common stock under our dividend reinvestment plan. We ceased offering shares of common stock in our primary offering on May 30, 2008 and we terminated our dividend reinvestment plan effective April 10, 2012. We sold 171,109,494 shares in our primary offering for gross offering proceeds of $1.7 billion and sold 28,306,086 shares under our dividend reinvestment plan for gross offering proceeds of $233.7 million.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 427 real estate properties (of which eight properties were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties were held for sale), including the GKK Properties (defined below). In addition, as of December 31, 2013, we owned four real estate loans receivable, a participation interest with respect to another real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units were owned by us and held for sale.
On September 1, 2011, we, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, “KBS”), entered into a Collateral Transfer and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with, among other parties, GKK Stars Acquisition LLC (“GKK Stars”), the wholly owned subsidiary of Gramercy Property Trust, Inc. (“Gramercy”) that indirectly owned the Gramercy real estate portfolio, to effect the orderly transfer of certain assets and liabilities of the Gramercy real estate portfolio to KBS in satisfaction of certain debt obligations under a mezzanine loan owed by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy to KBS (the “GKK Mezzanine Loan”). The Settlement Agreement resulted in the transfer of the equity interests in certain subsidiaries of Gramercy (the “Equity Interests”) that indirectly owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 867 properties (the “GKK Properties”), consisting of 576 bank branch properties and 291 office buildings, operations centers and other properties. For a further discussion of the Settlement Agreement, the transfers of the GKK Properties and the debt related to these properties, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed with the SEC.
Our focus in 2014 is to manage our existing investment portfolio, including strategically selling assets, exploring value-add opportunities for existing assets (primarily certain of the GKK Properties), refinancing upcoming maturities and paying down debt, and distributing available cash to stockholders.
Objectives and Strategies
Our primary investment objectives were:
| |
| • | to preserve and return our stockholders’ capital contributions; and |
| |
| • | to manage our investments to allow our stockholders to realize a return on their investment. |
We have sought and will seek to achieve these objectives by investing in and managing a diverse portfolio of real estate and real estate-related investments, which we acquired using a combination of equity raised in our initial public offering, debt financing and joint ventures. We diversified our portfolio by investment type, geographic region, and tenant/borrower base.
Our primary business objectives are: (i) to maintain and, if possible, improve the quality and income-producing ability of our investments; (ii) to position our investments to improve their value; and (iii) to manage our portfolio to remain compliant with REIT requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”). We intend to meet these objectives by utilizing the expertise of our advisor to diligently increase the occupancy of our real estate properties while structuring leases that enhance property operating performance. We will also, through our advisor, seek to improve the cash flows from our real estate-related investments, through continuing debt service, restructuring of terms and, if necessary, foreclosure on collateral. All of our business activities are conducted with the intention of remaining compliant with REIT requirements; if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we will generally not be subject to federal corporate income taxes on our taxable income that is currently distributed to stockholders. This treatment substantially eliminates “double taxation” at the corporate and stockholder levels that usually results from investment in the stock of a corporation.
Our charter requires that we seek stockholder approval of our liquidation if our shares of common stock are not listed on a national securities exchange by November 2012, unless a majority of our independent directors determines that liquidation is not then in the best interest of our stockholders. Pursuant to our charter requirement, the conflicts committee assessed our portfolio of investments and related debt financings, including the assets and liabilities transferred to us under the Settlement Agreement in satisfaction of certain debt obligations owed to us by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy. The conflicts committee also considered the prepayment penalties associated with certain debt obligations assumed by us under the Settlement Agreement. Taking into consideration our portfolio and current market conditions, in November 2012 and in November 2013, the conflicts committee unanimously determined that liquidation is not now in the best interests of our stockholders. Our charter requires that the conflicts committee revisit the issue of liquidation at least annually. Given the factors noted above, the conflicts committee believes it is likely it may reach the same conclusion next year.
Investment Portfolio
Real Estate Properties
We have made investments in core properties, which are generally lower risk, existing properties with at least 80% occupancy and minimal near-term lease rollover. To date we have invested in:
| |
| • | office properties — including low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise office buildings and office parks in urban and suburban locations, especially those that are in or near central business districts or have access to transportation; and |
| |
| • | industrial properties — including warehouse and distribution facilities, office/warehouse flex properties, research and development properties and light industrial properties. |
We also own other types of properties, including bank branches, transferred to us pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and properties transferred to us through foreclosures or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosures. These properties had originally secured certain of our investments in real estate loans receivable.
All of our properties are located in the United States.
We originally intended to hold our core properties for four to seven years. With respect to the GKK Properties, our management continues to evaluate which properties to hold and which properties to sell. We sold, or otherwise disposed of, 112 properties (of which 111 were GKK Properties) during the year ended December 31, 2013 and expect the average hold period of the GKK Properties to be significantly shorter than that of our core properties, though the hold period of certain GKK Properties will be affected by the underlying debt structure and related defeasance costs and prepayment penalties. However, economic and market conditions may influence us to hold our investments for different periods of time, and we currently expect our hold period may last for several more years.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned 407 real estate properties held for investment. We also owned eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties that were held for sale. The 407 real estate properties held for investment totaled 10.7 million rentable square feet and included the following:
| |
| • | 12 office buildings, three corporate research buildings, one industrial portfolio consisting of two distribution and office/warehouse properties, one office/flex portfolio consisting of three properties; and |
| |
| • | GKK Properties consisting of 323 bank branch properties and 66 office buildings, operations centers and other properties. |
The following chart illustrates the composition of our real estate portfolio (excluding eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties that were held for sale) as of December 31, 2013 based on the carrying value of the investments:
As noted above, our real estate property investments (excluding eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties that were held for sale) are diversified by geographic location with properties in 31 states as shown in the charts below:
_____________________
*Other includes any state less than 3% of the total.
(1) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
We have historically had a stable and diversified tenant base and have had long-term relationships with our tenants in order to limit our exposure to any one tenant or industry. However, as a result of the transfers of the GKK Properties, as of December 31, 2013, we had a concentration of credit risk related to Bank of America, N.A., which represented approximately 20.7% of our annualized base rent and reduced the diversity of our tenant base. Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term. Also, as of December 31, 2013, we had a concentration of credit risk related to the finance industry, which represented approximately 45.6% of our annualized base rent. The finance industry concentration is due to the concentration in the GKK Properties. As of December 31, 2013, our real estate portfolio was 85% occupied (excluding properties that were held for non-sale disposition and properties that were held for sale). The chart below illustrates the diversity of tenant industries in our portfolio (excluding properties that were held for non-sale disposition and properties that were held for sale) based on total annualized base rent as of December 31, 2013:
_____________________
* All others includes any industry less than 2% of the total.
(1) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
The carrying value of our real estate portfolio as of December 31, 2013 was $1.3 billion (including eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties that were held for sale).
Real Estate-Related Investments
We have also invested in real estate-related investments including: (i) mortgage loans; (ii) mezzanine loans; (iii) participations in mortgage and mezzanine loans; (iv) B-Notes; and (v) real estate-related debt securities, such as commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). We generally intend to hold our real estate-related investments until maturity. However, economic and market conditions may influence us to hold our investments for different periods of time. We may sell an asset before the end of the expected holding period if we believe that market conditions and asset positioning have maximized its value to us or the sale of the asset would otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned one mortgage loan, one mezzanine loan and two B-Notes. The book value (net of asset specific reserves) of our real estate-related investments as of December 31, 2013 was $29.8 million. As of December 31, 2013, our real estate-related investments consisted of four fixed rate real estate loans receivable with a weighted average annualized effective interest rate of 10.4%.
In addition, as of December 31, 2013, we owned 1,386,602 shares of common stock, par value of $0.001 per share, of Gramercy. As of December 31, 2013, the carrying value of the Gramercy shares was $8.0 million based on a closing market price of $5.75 per share of common stock as of December 31, 2013.
Financing Objectives
We financed the majority of our real estate acquisitions with a combination of the proceeds we received from our initial public offering and debt. In addition, we purchased certain real estate-related investments with a combination of the proceeds we received from our initial public offering and repurchase financing. We used debt financing to increase the amount available for investment and to increase overall investment yields to us and our stockholders. As of December 31, 2013, the weighted-average interest rate on our debt was 5.6%.
We borrow funds at a combination of fixed and variable rates. As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $766.1 million and $210.4 million of fixed and variable rate debt outstanding, respectively. The weighted-average interest rates of our fixed rate debt and variable rate debt at December 31, 2013 were 6.6% and 2.0%, respectively.
Some of our debt allows us to extend the maturity dates, subject to certain conditions. Although we believe we will be permitted to extend the maturity dates of our current debt obligations, with the exception of the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan (each defined below), we can give no assurance in this regard. As of December 31, 2013, one outstanding loan secured by one of our historical real estate investments and two outstanding loans we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement had matured without repayment and remain outstanding. These loans had outstanding principal balances of $26.8 million (the “Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan”), $6.1 million (the “BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan”) and $37.6 million (the “801 Market Street Mortgage Loan”). Additionally, beginning in June 2013, we did not meet the monthly debt service payment requirements with respect to one loan with an outstanding principal balance of $13.2 million (the “Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan”), which we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. See the discussions of the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan under Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Contractual Commitments and Contingencies — Loan Maturities and Defaults” and the risks identified in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Including the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, we have $173.9 million of debt maturing (including principal amortization payments) during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014.
The following is a schedule of maturities, including principal amortization payments, for all of our notes payable outstanding as of December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| 2014 | $ | 173,923 |
|
| 2015 | 72,788 |
|
| 2016 | 322,173 |
|
| 2017 | 131,121 |
|
| 2018 | 10,718 |
|
| Thereafter | 265,770 |
|
| | $ | 976,493 |
|
Our charter limits our total liabilities to 75% of the cost (before deducting depreciation or other noncash reserves) of all of our tangible assets; however, we may exceed that limit if the majority of the conflicts committee approves each borrowing in excess of our charter limitation and we disclose such borrowings to our stockholders in our next quarterly report with an explanation from the conflicts committee of the justification for the excess borrowing. As of December 31, 2013, our borrowings and other liabilities were approximately 54% of both the cost (before depreciation or other noncash reserves) and book value (before depreciation) of our tangible assets, respectively.
Market Outlook – Real Estate and Real Estate Finance Markets
The following discussion is based on management’s beliefs, observations and expectations with respect to the real estate and real estate finance markets.
In the wake of the sub-par recovery of the U.S. economy, concerns persist regarding the slow pace of job and income growth and the overall economic health of domestic consumers, businesses and governments. The federal government has employed an array of fiscal and monetary policies to attempt to help get the U.S. economy onto a sound and sustainable growth path. The road to recovery has been anything but smooth, but early estimates indicate that the second half of 2013 saw U.S. GDP increase by over 3%.
In February of 2014, Congress ended a lengthy dispute with the White House and unconditionally extended the government’s borrowing limit until March 2015. While this action should provide some measure of stability, the federal government is still facing major policy issues, including passage of a federal budget. The federal government is currently working from a modified sequestration budget that was not intended to be a long-term solution.
The Federal Reserve has maintained an accommodative monetary policy since the introduction of quantitative easing (“QE”) and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) in October of 2008. Using the U.S. treasury balance sheet to purchase U.S. treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities, the Federal Reserve has injected trillions of U.S. dollars into the global financial markets. At this point in time, it is unclear what the final cost or impact of this program will be, but commentators believe that the U.S. economy has emerged from the recent recession. In December 2013, the speculation as to the possible end of QE programs was finally ended with the announcement by the Federal Reserve of the tapering of government purchases of U.S. treasury securities and U.S. agency mortgages. The tapering of these purchases has led to increased volatility in the emerging markets which has, in turn, triggered a global repricing of financial assets that has impacted stocks, bonds (both corporate and sovereign) and currencies.
Despite cuts to federal government spending, U.S. GDP has most recently begun to grow well above most economists’ expectations. In the third quarter of 2013, U.S. GDP increased at a robust annual rate of 4.1% and the second estimate of fourth quarter 2013 reflects an annual rate increase in U.S. GDP of 2.4%. A combination of pent-up U.S. consumer demand and global demand for U.S. equipment, machinery and airplanes has contributed to the strong growth.
The U.S. dollar has remained a safe haven currency and the U.S. commercial property markets have benefitted from an inflow of foreign capital. Gateway markets such as New York City and San Francisco continue to benefit from a strong bid for commercial properties. Over the past two years, transaction volumes increased and the re-emergence of the CMBS market and the availability of debt capital have contributed to the ongoing economic recovery. This trend continued into 2014 and the U.S. commercial real estate market has gained favor as an alternative investment. Looking forward, however, the recovery in commercial real estate is expected to remain uneven across geographies and among property types.
The U.S. residential real estate market has been recovering. Low interest rates, pent-up demand from the consumer sector and the introduction of institutional investors in the form of buy-to-rent portfolios have all contributed to a broad recovery of home prices. Some markets have recovered to pre-recession levels, but the majority of U.S. housing markets still have not recaptured the lost equity experienced during the recent recession, which weighs on consumer confidence. Impediments to a continued recovery in this market include rising interest rates, more stringent underwriting standards for borrowers and a potential slowdown in demand by institutional investors. In addition, as referenced above, the Federal Reserve’s QE program, which peaked at $40 billion a month in purchases of mortgage backed securities, is slowly being scaled down. It is anticipated that the removal of the Federal Reserve’s purchases in the mortgage backed securities market will contribute to the increase in the cost of future mortgage financings.
In Europe, concerns remain regarding the economic burden of sovereign debt and the pace of economic recovery. Some European banks hold material quantities of sovereign debt on their balance sheets. The possible default or restructuring of the sovereign debt obligations of certain European Union countries and the resulting negative impact on the global financial markets remain significant concerns. The uncertainty surrounding the size of the problem and how regulators and governments intend to remedy the situation has caused many investors to reassess their pricing of sovereign risks. Most recently, Europe has benefited from the emerging markets investor exodus and the yields on almost all European sovereign debt have declined.
Europe’s gain has come at the cost of emerging market countries such as South Africa, Turkey and Argentina. Capital outflows have destabilized local markets for most of 2013, as investors struggled with the implications of the end of QE programs.
The global rating agencies continue to be vigilant in their analysis of the health of the global financial markets. In November 2012, Moody’s downgraded France’s sovereign debt rating to Aa1 from AAA and, in February 2013, Moody’s downgraded the U.K. government debt to Aa1 from AAA as well. In the past two years, Asia also has seen a number of ratings downgrades, with Fitch downgrading Japan to A+ in May of 2012 and China to A+ in April of 2013. The global ratings agencies continue to have a number of sovereign issuers on negative watch as governments have struggled to resolve their budget issues and face growing debt obligations. In recent months these credit issues have shifted away from the European sovereign credits to Asia and some emerging market nations (Turkey, South America, Brazil and Argentina).
Overall, despite indications of recovery both in the United States and abroad, uncertainties abound. China’s export-based economy has slowed and Japan embarked upon a large scale QE program of its own in 2013. In the United States, the Federal Reserve announced the tapering of the current QE program which, when combined with the highly adversarial political climate at the federal level, has led to high levels of uncertainty and increased volatility in the capital markets. In the short-term, these conditions are expected to continue and, combined with a challenging macro-economic environment, may interfere with the implementation of our business strategy and/or force us to modify it.
Impact on Our Real Estate Investments
The economic events that have occurred since the onset of the recession in 2008 have no precedent. While current forecasts for the U.S. economy are positive, there is a level of uncertainty inherent to this outlook. Currently, both the investing and leasing environments are highly competitive. While there has been an increase in the amount of capital flowing into the U.S. real estate markets, which has resulted in an increase in real estate values in certain markets, the uncertainty regarding the economic environment has made businesses reluctant to make long-term commitments or changes in their business plans. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of future rental concessions, including free rent to renew tenants early, to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to attract new tenants, may result in decreases in cash flows. Historically low interest rates could help offset some of the impact of these potential decreases in operating cash flow for properties financed with variable rate mortgages; however, interest rates likely will not remain at these historically low levels for the remaining life of many of our investments. Recently, interest rates have become more volatile as the capital markets have begun to react to the end of QE.
Impact on Our Real Estate-Related Investments
All of our real estate-related investments are either directly secured by commercial real estate or secured by ownership interests in entities that directly or indirectly own and operate real estate. As a result, our real estate-related investments in general have been and likely will continue to be impacted by the same factors impacting our real estate investments. The relatively high yields and the improving credit position of many U.S. tenants and borrowers have attracted global capital. However, the real estate and capital markets are fluid and the positive trends can reverse quickly. Economic conditions remain relatively unstable and can have a negative impact on the performance of collateral securing our loan investments, and therefore have impacted the ability of some borrowers under our loans to make contractual interest payments to us.
We have fixed rate real estate-related loan investments with a total book value (excluding asset-specific loan loss reserves) of $31.9 million. Assuming our real estate-related loans are fully extended under the terms of the respective loan agreements and excluding our loan investments with asset-specific loan loss reserves, we have a real estate-related loan investment with a book value of $6.9 million maturing within a year from December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, we had recorded $2.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to one of our real estate-related investments.
Impact on Our Financing Activities
In light of the risks associated with potentially volatile operating cash flows from some of our real estate properties, we may have difficulty refinancing some of our debt obligations prior to or at maturity or we may not be able to refinance these obligations at terms as favorable as the terms of our existing indebtedness. Recent financial market conditions have improved from the bottom of the economic cycle, but material risks are still present. Market conditions can change quickly, potentially negatively impacting the value of our investments.
As of December 31, 2013, we had a total of $766.1 million of fixed rate notes payable and $210.4 million of variable rate notes payable. Including the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan, the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, we have $173.9 million of debt maturing (including principal amortization payments) during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014. See the discussions of the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan under Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Contractual Commitments and Contingencies — Loan Maturities and Defaults” and the risks identified in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Economic Dependency
We are dependent on our advisor for certain services that are essential to us, including the management of our real estate and real estate-related investment portfolio; the disposition of real estate and real estate-related investments; and other general and administrative responsibilities. In the event that KBS Capital Advisors is unable to provide these services, we will be required to obtain such services from other sources. We are also dependent on the Property Manager for asset management services including the operations, leasing and eventual dispositions of the GKK Properties.
Competitive Market Factors
The U.S. commercial real estate leasing markets remain competitive. We face competition from various entities for prospective tenants and to retain our current tenants, including other REITs, pension funds, insurance companies, investment funds and companies, partnerships and developers. Many of these entities have substantially greater financial resources than we do and may be able to accept more risk than we can prudently manage, including risks with respect to the creditworthiness of a tenant or the geographic location of their investments. As a result of their greater resources, those entities may have more flexibility than we do in their ability to offer rental concessions to attract and retain tenants. This could put pressure on our ability to maintain or raise rents and could adversely affect our ability to attract or retain tenants. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders have been adversely affected.
We also face competition from many of the types of entities referenced above regarding the disposition of properties. These entities may possess properties in similar locations and/or of the same property types as ours and may be attempting to dispose of these properties at the same time we are attempting to dispose of some of our properties, providing potential purchasers with a larger number of properties from which to choose and potentially decreasing the sales price for such properties. Additionally, these entities may be willing to accept a lower return on their individual investments, which could further reduce the sales price of such properties. This competition could decrease the sales proceeds we receive for properties that we sell, assuming we are able to sell such properties, which could adversely affect our cash flows and the overall return for our stockholders.
Compliance with Federal, State and Local Environmental Law
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous real property owner or operator may be liable for the cost of removing or remediating hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. These costs could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Environmental laws also may impose restrictions on the manner in which a property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures or prevent us from entering into leases with prospective tenants that may be impacted by such laws. Environmental laws provide for sanctions for noncompliance and may be enforced by governmental agencies or, in certain circumstances, by private parties. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for the release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials. Third parties may seek recovery from real property owners or operators for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances. The cost of defending against claims of liability, of complying with environmental regulatory requirements, of remediating any contaminated property, or of paying personal injury claims could reduce the amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.
Except for the GKK Properties and other properties to which we took title to through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, all of our direct real estate investments were subject to Phase I environmental assessments prior to the time they were acquired. Some of our properties are subject to potential environmental liabilities arising primarily from historic activities at or in the vicinity of the properties. Based on our environmental diligence and assessments of our properties and our purchase of pollution and remediation legal liability insurance with respect to some of our properties, we do not believe that environmental conditions at our properties are likely to have a material adverse effect on our operations.
We own one property that is subject to activity use limitations (“AULs”) whereby the government has placed limitations on redevelopment of the property for certain uses, particularly residential uses. AULs are typically imposed on a property that has environmental contamination in exchange for less stringent environmental clean-up standards. In view of the locations of the affected properties, the environmental characteristics of the contaminants and the characteristics of the neighborhoods, we do not believe that these AULs have a material impact on our portfolio valuation, but they could in individual cases result in a depression of the value of a property, should we resell the property for uses different from its existing uses. The property subject to AULs is ADP Plaza, located in Portland, Oregon.
Some of the properties in our portfolio, particularly the warehouse and light industrial properties, had or have underground storage tanks either for space heating of the buildings, fueling motor vehicles, or industrial processes. Many of the underground storage tanks at the premises have been replaced over time. Given changing standards regarding closure of underground storage tanks and associated contamination, many of the tanks may not have been closed in compliance with current standards. Some of these properties likely have some residual petroleum or chemical contamination. Properties exhibiting these risks include 129 Concord Road, Billerica, Massachusetts (Rivertech) and ADP Plaza, Portland, Oregon.
Under the Settlement Agreement, we indirectly took title to or, with respect to a limited number of the GKK Properties, indirectly took a leasehold interest in, the GKK Properties on an “as is” basis. As such, we were not able to inspect the GKK Properties or conduct standard due diligence on certain of the GKK Properties before the transfers. Additionally, we did not receive representations, warranties and indemnities relating to the GKK Properties from Gramercy and/or its affiliates. Thus, the value of the GKK Properties may decline if we subsequently discover environmental problems with the GKK Properties.
Industry Segments
Our segments are based on our method of internal reporting which classifies our operations by investment type: (i) real estate, (ii) real estate-related and (iii) commercial properties primarily leased to financial institutions received under the Settlement Agreement. For financial data by segment, see Note 13, “Segment Information” in the notes to our consolidated financial statements filed herewith.
Employees
We have no paid employees. The employees of our advisor and its affiliates provide management, disposition, advisory and certain administrative services for us.
Principal Executive Office
Our principal executive offices are located at 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300, Newport Beach, California 92660. Our telephone number, general facsimile number and website address are (949) 417-6500, (949) 417-6520 and http://www.kbsreit.com, respectively.
Available Information
Access to copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other filings with the SEC, including amendments to such filings, may be obtained free of charge from the following website, http://www.kbsreit.com, through a link to the SEC’s website, http://www.sec.gov. These filings are available promptly after we file them with, or furnish them to, the SEC.
The following are some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those presented in our forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face but do represent those risks and uncertainties that we believe are material to us. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also harm our business.
Risks Related to an Investment in Us
Because no public trading market for our shares currently exists and because we have delayed the liquidation or the listing of our shares of common stock on a national securities exchange beyond 2013, our stockholders will not realize the cash value of their investment for an extended period.
There is no public market for our shares and we currently have no plans to list our shares on a national securities exchange. Until our shares are listed, if ever, our stockholders may not sell their shares unless the buyer meets the applicable suitability and minimum purchase standards. Any sale must also comply with applicable state and federal securities laws. In addition, our charter prohibits the ownership of more than 9.8% of our stock, unless exempted by our board of directors, which may inhibit large investors from purchasing our shares. We have amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program document). Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation, which was $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2013, and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program plan document. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved the same annual dollar limitation of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by the board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program document. Based on historical redemption activity, we believe the $10.0 million redemption limitation for the calendar year 2014 will be sufficient for these special redemptions. During each calendar year, the annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program will be reviewed and adjusted from time to time. We currently do not expect to have funds available to resume ordinary redemptions in the future. Therefore, until further notice, and except with respect to redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence,” stockholders will not be able to sell any of their shares back to us pursuant to our share redemption program. In addition, even if resumed, our share redemption program includes numerous restrictions that would limit a stockholder’s ability to sell his or her shares. In its sole discretion, our board of directors may amend, suspend or terminate our share redemption program upon 30 days’ notice. Therefore, it will be difficult for our stockholders to sell their shares promptly or at all. If a stockholder is able to sell his or her shares, it would likely be at a substantial discount to the price at which we sold the shares in our public offering. It is also likely that our shares would not be accepted as the primary collateral for a loan.
Our charter requires that we seek stockholder approval of our liquidation if our shares of common stock are not listed on a national securities exchange by November 2012, unless a majority of our independent directors determines that liquidation is not then in the best interest of our stockholders. Pursuant to our charter requirement, the conflicts committee assessed our portfolio of investments and related debt financings, including the assets and liabilities transferred to us under the Settlement Agreement in satisfaction of certain debt obligations owed to us by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy. The conflicts committee also considered the prepayment penalties associated with certain debt obligations assumed by us under the Settlement Agreement. Taking into consideration our portfolio and current market conditions, in November 2012 and in November 2013, the conflicts committee unanimously determined that liquidation is not now in the best interests of our stockholders. Our charter requires that the conflicts committee revisit the issue of liquidation at least annually. Given the factors noted above, the conflicts committee believes it is likely it may reach the same conclusion next year.
Continued disruptions in the financial markets and uncertain economic conditions could adversely affect market rental rates, our ability to service our existing indebtedness, our ability to refinance or secure additional debt financing on attractive terms and the values of our investments
While there has been an increase in the amount of capital flowing into the U.S. real estate markets, which has resulted in an increase in real estate values in certain markets, the uncertainty regarding the economic environment has made businesses reluctant to make long-term commitments or changes in their business plans. This is best illustrated by the very low job growth rate in the U.S. Currently, both the investment and leasing environments are highly competitive. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of future rental concessions, including free rent to renew tenants early, to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to attract new tenants, may result in decreases in cash flows. Historically low interest rates could help offset some of the impact of these potential decreases in operating cash flow for properties financed with variable rate mortgages; however, interest rates likely will not remain at these historically low levels for the remaining life of many of our investments. Recently, interest rates have become more volatile as the capital markets have begun to react to the end of QE.
The U.S. residential real estate market has been recovering. Low interest rates, pent-up demand from the consumer sector and the introduction of institutional investors in the form of buy-to-rent portfolios have all contributed to a broad recovery of home prices. Some markets have recovered to pre-recession levels, but the majority of U.S. housing markets still have not recaptured the lost equity experienced during the recent recession, which weighs on consumer confidence. Impediments to a continued recovery in this market include rising interest rates, more stringent underwriting standards for borrowers and a potential slowdown in demand by institutional investors. In addition, as referenced above, the Federal Reserve’s QE program, which peaked at $45 billion a month in purchases of mortgage backed securities, is slowly being scaled down. It is anticipated that the removal of the Federal Reserve’s purchases in the mortgage backed securities market will contribute to the increase in the cost of future mortgage financings.
Overall, despite indications of tepid recovery both in the United States and abroad, uncertainties abound. China’s export-based economy has slowed and Japan embarked upon a large scale QE program of its own in 2013. In the United States, the Federal Reserve announced the tapering of the current QE program which, when combined with the highly adversarial political climate at the federal level, led to high levels of uncertainty and increased volatility in the capital markets. In the short-term, these conditions are expected to continue and, combined with a challenging macroeconomic environment, may interfere with the implementation of our business strategy and/or force us to modify it.
We have relied on debt financing to finance our properties and real estate-related assets. In light of the risks associated with volatile operating cash flows from some of our real estate properties, we may have difficulty refinancing some of our debt obligations prior to or at maturity or we may not be able to refinance these obligations at terms as favorable as the terms of our existing indebtedness. If we are not able to refinance our existing indebtedness on attractive terms at the various maturity dates, we may be forced to dispose of some of our assets. Recent financial market conditions have improved from the bottom of the economic cycle, but material risks are still present. Market conditions can change quickly, which has the potential of negatively impacting the value of our assets.
Further disruptions in the financial markets and continued uncertain economic conditions could adversely affect the values of our investments. Lending activity only recently increased; however, it remains uncertain whether the capital markets can sustain the current transaction levels. Any disruption to the debt and capital markets could result in fewer buyers seeking to acquire commercial properties and possible increases in capitalization rates and lower property values. Furthermore, declining economic conditions could negatively impact commercial real estate fundamentals and result in lower occupancy, lower rental rates and declining values in our real estate portfolio and in the collateral securing our loan investments, which could have the following negative effects on us:
| |
| • | the values of our investments in commercial properties could decrease below the amounts paid for such investments; |
| |
| • | the value of collateral securing our loan investments could decrease below the outstanding principal amounts of such loans; |
| |
| • | revenues from our properties could decrease due to fewer tenants and/or lower rental rates, making it more difficult for us to meet our debt service obligations on debt financing; and/or |
| |
| • | revenues generated by the properties and other assets underlying our loan investments could decrease, making it more difficult for the borrowers to meet their payment obligations to us, which could in turn make it more difficult for us to meet our debt service obligations on debt financing. |
All of these factors could reduce our stockholders’ return and decrease the value of an investment in us.
Our stockholders should not assume that our performance will be similar to the performance of other real estate programs sponsored by affiliates of our advisor, which makes our future performance difficult to predict.
We are the first publicly offered investment program sponsored by the affiliates of our advisor, KBS Capital Advisors. Our stockholders should not assume that our performance will be similar to the past performance of other real estate investment programs sponsored by affiliates of our advisor. The private KBS-sponsored programs were not subject to the up-front commissions, fees and expenses associated with our initial public offering nor all of the laws and regulations that apply to us. For all of these reasons, our stockholders should be especially cautious when drawing conclusions about our future performance and our stockholders should not assume that it will be similar to the prior performance of other KBS-sponsored programs. The differences between us and the private KBS-sponsored programs significantly increase the risk and uncertainty our stockholders face.
Because we depend upon our advisor and its affiliates to conduct our operations, any adverse changes in the financial health of our advisor or its affiliates or our relationship with them could hinder our operating performance and the return on our stockholders’ investment.
We depend on our advisor to manage our operations and our portfolio of real estate and real estate-related assets. Our advisor depends upon the fees and other compensation that it receives from us and the other public KBS-sponsored programs in connection with the purchase, management and sale of assets to conduct its operations. Any adverse changes in the financial condition of KBS Capital Advisors or our relationship with KBS Capital Advisors could hinder its ability to successfully manage our operations and our portfolio of investments.
KBS Capital Advisors has limited experience operating, overseeing and selling bank branch properties, which could cause inefficiencies in the operation and sale of these properties, thereby reducing the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Our advisor has limited experience operating, overseeing and selling bank branch properties, which properties make up the majority of the GKK Properties. As such, and while we believe we have retained appropriate asset management by hiring the Property Manager to manage and provide certain other services related to the GKK Properties, we may not be able to operate, lease and/or sell these GKK Properties efficiently and effectively, which could prevent us from improving the value of our overall portfolio. Additionally, some of these bank branches are located outside of our target markets and our advisor has limited experience in these markets. For these reasons, there may be inefficiencies in the operation and sale of these GKK Properties, which may prevent us from recognizing the full potential value of these GKK Properties and may reduce the overall return to our stockholders.
Because of the Property Manager’s experience with managing the bank branch and bank-related properties that make up the majority of the GKK Properties, we depend upon the Property Manager to manage and conduct the operations of the GKK Properties and any adverse changes in or termination of our relationship with the Property Manager could hinder the performance of the GKK Properties and reduce the return on our stockholders’ investment.
Prior to the transfers of the GKK Properties to us under the Settlement Agreement, GKK Stars and its affiliates indirectly owned and managed the GKK Properties and thus have developed experience and expertise in the management and operations of bank branch and bank-related properties. As of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, GKK Stars agreed to provide standard asset management services relating to the GKK Properties. On March 30, 2012, we, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary (“KBS Acquisition Sub”), entered into an Asset Management Services Agreement (the “Services Agreement”) with the Property Manager, an affiliate of GKK Stars, with respect to the GKK Properties. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, the Property Manager agreed to provide, among other services: standard asset management services, assistance related to dispositions, accounting services and budgeting and business plans for the GKK Properties (collectively, the “Services”). On December 19, 2013, KBS Acquisition Sub entered into an amended and restated asset management services agreement (the “Amended Services Agreement”) with the Property Manager. The effective date of the Amended Services Agreement was December 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Amended Services Agreement, we made a payment in the amount of $12.0 million to the Property Manager in satisfaction of the profit participation provisions under the Services Agreement. In addition, as compensation for the Services, we agreed to pay the Property Manager: (i) an annual fee of $7.5 million plus all GKK Property-related expenses incurred by the Property Manager, (ii) subject to certain terms and conditions in the Amended Services Agreement, a profit participation interest based on a percentage (ranging from 10% to 30%) of the amount by which the gross fair market value or gross sales price of certain identified portfolios of GKK Properties exceeds the sum of (a) an agreed-upon baseline value for such GKK Property portfolios plus (b) new capital expended to increase the value of GKK Properties within the portfolios and expenditures made to pay for tenant improvements and leasing commissions related to these GKK Properties as of the measurement date, and (iii) a monthly construction oversight fee equal to a percentage of construction costs for certain construction projects at the GKK Properties overseen by the Property Manager.
The Amended Services Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2016, with a one-year extension option at our option, subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the Amended Services Agreement. The Amended Services Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements related to the Services among us and our affiliates and the Property Manager and its affiliates.
We depend on the Property Manager to efficiently conduct the management and operations of the GKK Properties. If the Amended Services Agreement is terminated, we would be required to obtain such management services for the GKK Properties from other sources, which sources may not have the experience or capabilities of the Property Manager or its affiliates. Additionally, as our advisor has limited experience operating bank branch properties, should the Property Manager or an affiliate cease managing the GKK Properties, our ability to efficiently and effectively manage the GKK Properties would be affected, and as a result, the value of our stockholders’ investment could decline.
To the extent distributions exceed current and accumulated earnings and profits, a stockholder’s basis in our stock will be reduced and, to the extent distributions exceed a stockholder’s basis, the stockholder may recognize capital gain.
Our organizational documents permit us, to the extent permitted by Maryland law, to pay distributions from any source. We have paid distributions with proceeds from asset sales, financings, a loan from our advisor (which our advisor forgave without repayment) and our cash flows from operations. If we fund distributions from financings or sources other than cash flows from operations, the overall return to our stockholders may be reduced. On March 20, 2012, our board of directors approved the suspension of monthly distribution payments in order to manage our reduced cash flows from operations and to redirect available funds to reduce our debt. Our primary focus was the repayment of certain debt obligations. Our focus in 2014 is to manage our existing investment portfolio, which includes strategically selling assets and exploring value-add opportunities for existing assets (primarily the GKK Properties), refinancing upcoming maturities and paying down debt and distributing available cash to stockholders. Reducing our debt will allow us to hold certain assets in our portfolio with a goal of improving their value and the returns to our stockholders. We plan to make certain strategic asset sales and, from time to time, may declare special distributions to our stockholders that would be funded with the net proceeds from those asset sales or from cash flow from other sources. We will continue our existing strategy of selling assets when we believe the assets have reached the stage that disposition will assist in improving returns to our investors. To the extent distributions in excess of current and accumulated earnings and profits (i) do not exceed a stockholder’s adjusted basis in our stock, such distributions will not be taxable to a stockholder, but rather a stockholder’s adjusted basis in our stock will be reduced; and, (ii) exceed a stockholder’s adjusted basis in our stock, such distributions will be included in income as long-term capital gain if the stockholder has held its shares for more than one year and otherwise as short-term capital gain.
We may not have sufficient liquidity to fund our future capital needs. If we are unable to repay indebtedness or to fund future contractual commitments or required capital expenditures on our real estate investments, lenders or tenants may take legal action against us, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our stockholders’ return.
We cannot be certain that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or from the sales of some of our real estate assets, that we will be able to raise funds in the capital markets or that future financing or refinancing will be available to us in an amount sufficient, if at all, to enable to us to fund our liquidity needs. If we are unable to repay indebtedness or to fund future contractual commitments or necessary capital expenditures on our real estate investments, our lenders or tenants may take legal action against us, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our stockholders’ return.
Declining economic conditions have had a significant impact on our real estate and real estate-related investments. In addition, these conditions have impacted the businesses of our tenants as well as the tenants in buildings securing our real estate-related investments. As a result of a decline in cash flows and projected future declines, on March 20, 2012, our board of directors approved the suspension of monthly distribution payments in order to manage our reduced cash flows from operations and to redirect available funds to reduce our debt. Our primary focus was the repayment of certain debt obligations. We expect to continue to use available funds to reduce and manage certain other debt obligations and fund cash flow needs. We plan to make certain strategic asset sales and, from time to time, may declare special distributions to our stockholders that would be funded with the net proceeds from those asset sales or from cash flow from other sources.
Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leasable space and expectations of future rental concessions, including free rent to renew tenants early, to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to sign new tenants, may result in additional decreases in cash flows from our properties. As a result of these same factors, the borrowers under our real estate-related investments have experienced a reduction in cash flows that has made it difficult for them to pay us debt service in some instances. Additionally, these reduced and potentially decreasing cash flows have had a negative impact on the valuation of the collateral directly or indirectly securing our real estate-related investments and as a result the borrowers may not be able to refinance their debt to us or sell the collateral at a price sufficient to repay our note balances in full when they come due. Further, we depend on the cash flow from our real estate and real estate-related investments to meet the debt service obligations under our financing arrangements, and we will depend on the proceeds from the sale of real estate and proceeds from the repayment of our real estate-related investments in order to repay our outstanding debt obligations.
All of these factors could limit our liquidity and impact our ability to properly maintain or make improvements to our real estate investments. If we are unable to meet future funding commitments or fund required capital expenditures, our borrowers or tenants may take legal action against us. This, in turn, could result in reductions in the value of our investments and therefore a reduction in the value of an investment in us.
We may not generate sufficient operating cash flow on a quarterly basis to fund our operations, which would reduce the value of an investment in us.
As a result of general economic conditions over the last several years, our portfolio has experienced declines in cash flow from a number of our investments. Economic conditions have impacted our real estate investments, resulting in a general decline in the occupancy of our portfolio, an important element to the continued growth of our portfolio, that has resulted in lower current cash flow. Tenant-specific issues, including bankruptcy and downsizing, have resulted in decreases in our operating cash flow because these tenants have terminated their leases early, not renewed their leases or have not paid their contractual rent to us. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of increases in future rental concessions, including three or more months of free rent to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to sign new tenants, may result in additional decreases in cash flow. In addition, we have experienced a decline in cash flow from our real estate-related investments, as current economic conditions have impacted the ability of some borrowers under our loans to make contractual interest payments to us. In particular, our investments in mezzanine and mortgage loans have been impacted as the operating performance and values of buildings directly or indirectly securing our investment positions have decreased from the date of our acquisition or origination of these investments. In such instances, some of the borrowers have not been able to refinance their debt owed to us or sell the collateral at a price sufficient to repay our note balances in full when they become due. Asset sales in 2011, 2012 and 2013 have resulted in, and expected future asset sales will result in, further decreases in operating cash flow.
Due to these factors, we may not generate sufficient operating cash flow on a quarterly basis to fund our operations. Our projected cash flow from operations may not be sufficient to cover our capital expenditures, amortization payment requirements on our debt obligations and principal pay-down requirements for our debt obligations at maturity or to allow us to meet the conditions for extension of our loans, which may require us to sell assets in order to meet our capital requirements. If our cash flow from operations deteriorates, we will be more dependent on asset sales to fund our operations and for our liquidity needs. Moreover, we may be unable to meet financial and operating covenants in our debt obligations, and our lenders may take action against us, including commencing foreclosure actions. If we are unable to meet future funding commitments or fund required capital expenditures, our borrowers or tenants may take legal action against us. This, in turn, could result in reductions in the value of our investments and therefore a reduction in the value of an investment in us. These factors could also have a material adverse effect on us and our stockholders’ return.
If we are unable to obtain funding for future capital needs, the value of our investments and our stockholders’ return could decline.
When tenants do not renew their leases or otherwise vacate their space, we will often need to expend substantial funds for improvements to the vacated space in order to attract replacement tenants. Even when tenants do renew their leases we may agree to make improvements to their space as part of our negotiations. If we need additional capital in the future to improve or maintain our properties or for any other reason, we may have to obtain funding from sources other than our cash flow from operations, such as borrowings, asset sales or future equity offerings. These sources of funding may not be available on attractive terms or at all. If we cannot procure additional funding for capital improvements, our investments may generate lower cash flows or decline in value, or both, which would reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
The loss of or the inability to retain or obtain key real estate and debt finance professionals at our advisor could delay or hinder implementation of our investment management and disposition strategies, which could decrease the value of an investment in our shares.
Our success depends to a significant degree upon the contributions of Peter M. Bren, Keith D. Hall, Peter McMillan III, and Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., each of whom would be difficult to replace. Neither we nor our affiliates have employment agreements with these individuals and they may not remain associated with us, our advisor or its affiliates. If any of these persons were to cease their association with us, our advisor or its affiliates, we may be unable to find suitable replacements and our operating results could suffer as a result. We do not intend to maintain key person life insurance on any person. We believe that our future success depends, in large part, upon our advisor’s and its affiliates’ ability to attract and retain highly skilled managerial, operational and marketing professionals. Competition for such professionals is intense, and our advisor and its affiliates may be unsuccessful in attracting and retaining such skilled individuals. Further, we have established strategic relationships with firms that have special expertise in certain services or detailed knowledge regarding real properties in certain geographic regions. Maintaining such relationships will be important for us to effectively compete with other investors for tenants in such regions. We may be unsuccessful in retaining such relationships. If we lose or are unable to obtain the services of highly skilled professionals or do not establish or maintain appropriate strategic relationships, our ability to implement our investment management and disposition strategies could be delayed or hindered, and the value of our stockholders’ investments may decline.
Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to recover claims against our independent directors are limited, which could reduce our stockholders’ and our recovery against our independent directors if they negligently cause us to incur losses.
Maryland law provides that a director has no liability in that capacity if he performs his duties in good faith, in a manner he reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Our charter provides that no independent director shall be liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages and that we will generally indemnify them for losses unless they are grossly negligent or engage in willful misconduct. As a result, our stockholders and we may have more limited rights against our independent directors than might otherwise exist under common law, which could reduce our stockholders’ and our recovery from these persons if they act in a negligent manner. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our independent directors (as well as by our other directors, officers, employees (if we ever have employees) and agents) in some cases, which would decrease the return to our stockholders.
Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest
KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates, including all of our executive officers and some of our directors and other key real estate and debt finance professionals, face conflicts of interest caused by their compensation arrangements with us and with other KBS-sponsored programs, which could result in actions that are not in the long-term best interests of our stockholders.
All of our executive officers and some of our directors and other key real estate and debt finance professionals are also officers, directors, managers, key professionals and/or holders of a direct or indirect controlling interest in our advisor, KBS Capital Markets Group LLC, the entity that acted as our dealer manager, and/or other KBS-affiliated entities. KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates receive substantial fees from us. These fees could influence our advisor’s advice to us as well as the judgment of its affiliates. Among other matters, these compensation arrangements could affect their judgment with respect to:
| |
| • | the continuation, renewal or enforcement of our agreements with KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates, including the advisory agreement; |
| |
| • | public offerings of equity by us, which would entitle our dealer manager to dealer-manager fees and may entitle KBS Capital Advisors to increased acquisition and asset-management fees; |
| |
| • | sales of properties and other investments, which entitle KBS Capital Advisors to disposition fees and possible subordinated incentive fees; |
| |
| • | whether and when we seek to list our common stock on a national securities exchange, which listing (i) may make it more likely for us to become self-managed or internalize our management or (ii) could entitle our advisor to a subordinated incentive listing fee, and which could also adversely affect the sales efforts for other KBS-sponsored programs, depending on the price at which our shares trade; and |
| |
| • | whether and when we seek to sell the company or its assets, which sale could entitle KBS Capital Advisors to a subordinated incentive fee. |
The fees our advisor receives in connection with the management of our assets are based on the cost of the investment, and not based on the quality of the investment or the quality of the services rendered to us. This may influence our advisor to recommend riskier transactions to us.
KBS Capital Advisors faces conflicts of interest relating to the leasing of properties and such conflicts may not be resolved in our favor, meaning that we may obtain less creditworthy or desirable tenants, which could reduce our stockholders’ overall investment return.
We and other KBS-sponsored programs and KBS-advised investors rely on the same group of key real estate professionals at our advisor, including Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan, Schreiber, to supervise the property management and leasing of properties. If the KBS team of real estate professionals directs creditworthy prospective tenants to properties owned by another KBS-sponsored program or KBS-advised investor when they could direct such tenants to our properties, our tenant base may have more inherent risk and our properties’ occupancy may be lower than might otherwise be the case. Further, Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan and Schreiber and existing and future KBS-sponsored programs and KBS-advised investors are generally not prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any business or from possessing interests in any other business venture or ventures, including businesses and ventures involved in the acquisition, development, ownership, leasing or sale of real estate investments.
Our sponsors, our officers, our advisor and the real estate, debt finance, management and accounting professionals assembled by our advisor face competing demands on their time and this may cause our operations and our stockholders’ investment to suffer.
We rely on our sponsors, our officers, our advisor and the real estate, debt finance, management and accounting professionals that our advisor retains, including Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan, Schreiber and David E. Snyder and Ms. Stacie K. Yamane, to provide services to us for the day-to-day operation of our business. KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (“KBS REIT II”), KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc. (“KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT”), KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, Inc. (“KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT”), KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III, Inc. (“KBS REIT III”) and KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, Inc. (“KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II”) are also advised by KBS Capital Advisors and rely on our sponsors and many of the same real estate, debt finance, management and accounting professionals, as will future KBS-sponsored programs and KBS-advised investors. Further, our officers and directors are also officers and/or directors of some or all of the other public KBS-sponsored programs. Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan, Schreiber and Snyder and Ms. Yamane are also executive officers of KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III. Messrs. Hall, McMillan and Snyder and Ms. Yamane are executive officers of KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT and KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, and Messrs. Bren, McMillan and Snyder and Ms. Yamane are executive officers of KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT. In addition, Messrs. Bren and Schreiber and Ms. Yamane are executive officers of KBS Realty Advisors and its affiliates, the advisors of private KBS-sponsored programs and the investment advisors to KBS-advised investors. As a result of their interests in other KBS-sponsored programs, their obligations to KBS-advised investors and the fact that they engage in and will continue to engage in other business activities, on behalf of themselves and others, Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan, Schreiber and Snyder and Ms. Yamane face conflicts of interest in allocating their time among us, KBS REIT II, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, KBS REIT III, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, KBS Capital Advisors, other KBS-sponsored programs and other KBS-advised investors, as well as other business activities in which they are involved. In addition, our advisor and KBS Realty Advisors and their affiliates share many of the same key real estate, management and accounting professionals. During times of intense activity in other programs and ventures, these individuals may devote less time and fewer resources to our business than are necessary or appropriate to manage our business. Furthermore, some or all of these individuals may become employees of another KBS-sponsored program in an internalization transaction or, if we internalize our advisor, may not become our employees as a result of their relationship with other KBS-sponsored programs. If these events occur, the returns on our investments and the value of our stockholders’ investment may decline.
All of our executive officers, some of our directors and the key real estate and debt finance professionals assembled by our advisor face conflicts of interest related to their positions and/or interests in KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates, which could hinder our ability to implement our business strategy and to generate returns to our stockholders.
All of our executive officers and some of our directors and the key real estate and debt finance professionals assembled by our advisor are also executive officers, directors, managers, key professionals and/or holders of a direct or indirect controlling interest in our advisor and other KBS-affiliated entities. Through KBS-affiliated entities, some of these persons also serve as the investment advisors to KBS-advised investors and through KBS Capital Advisors and KBS Realty Advisors these persons serve as the advisor to KBS REIT II, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, KBS REIT III, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II and other KBS-sponsored programs. As a result, they owe fiduciary duties to each of these entities, their members and limited partners and their investors, which fiduciary duties may from time to time conflict with the fiduciary duties that they owe to us and our stockholders. Their loyalties to these other entities and investors could result in action or inaction that is detrimental to our business, which could harm the implementation of our business strategy and our leasing opportunities. Further, Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan and Schreiber and existing and future KBS-sponsored programs and KBS-advised investors generally are not and will not be prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any business or from possessing interests in any other business venture or ventures, including businesses and ventures involved in the acquisition, development, ownership, leasing or sale of real estate investments. Messrs. Bren, Hall, McMillan and Schreiber have agreed to restrictions with respect to sponsoring another multi-family REIT while KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT is publicly offering securities. On January 29, 2014, KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT announced the termination of its follow-on public offering, effective as of March 31, 2014. If we do not successfully implement our business strategy, we may be unable to maintain or increase the value of our assets, which would reduce the returns to our stockholders.
Our board of directors’ loyalties to KBS REIT II, KBS REIT III, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II and possibly to future KBS-sponsored programs could influence its judgment, resulting in actions that may not be in our stockholders’ best interest or that result in a disproportionate benefit to another KBS-sponsored program at our expense.
All of our directors are also directors of KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III. One of our directors is also a director of KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT and KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II. The loyalties of our directors serving on the boards of directors of KBS REIT II, KBS REIT III, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT and KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, or possibly on the boards of directors of future KBS-sponsored programs, may influence the judgment of our board of directors when considering issues for us that also may affect other KBS-sponsored programs, such as the following:
| |
| • | We could enter into transactions with other KBS-sponsored programs, such as property sales or financing arrangements. Such transactions might entitle our advisor or its affiliates to fees and other compensation from both parties to the transaction. For example, property sales to other KBS-sponsored programs might entitle our advisor or its affiliates to acquisition fees in connection with its services to the purchaser in addition to disposition and other fees that we might pay to our advisor in connection with such transaction. Decisions of our board or the conflicts committee regarding the terms of those transactions may be influenced by our board’s or committee’s loyalties to such other KBS-sponsored programs. |
| |
| • | A decision of our board or the conflicts committee regarding the timing of a debt or equity offering could be influenced by concerns that the offering would compete with an offering of other KBS-sponsored programs. |
| |
| • | A decision of our board or the conflicts committee regarding the timing of property sales could be influenced by concerns that the sales would compete with those of other KBS-sponsored programs. |
| |
| • | A decision of our board or the conflicts committee regarding whether or when we seek to list our common stock on a national securities exchange could be influenced by concerns that such listing could adversely affect the sales efforts of other KBS-sponsored programs, depending on the price at which our shares trade. |
Because our independent directors are also independent directors of KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III, they receive compensation for service on the board of directors of KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III. Like us, KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III each pays each independent director an annual retainer of $40,000 as well as compensation for attending meetings as follows: (i) $2,500 for each board meeting attended, (ii) $2,500 for each conflicts or audit committee meeting attended (except that the committee chairman is paid $3,000 for each conflicts or audit committee meeting attended), (iii) $2,000 for each teleconference board meeting attended, and (iv) $2,000 for each teleconference conflicts or audit committee meeting attended (except that the committee chairman is paid $3,000 for each teleconference conflicts or audit committee meeting attended). KBS REIT II also pays each independent director compensation for attending other committee meetings as follows: (i) $2,000 for each committee meeting attended (except that the meeting chairman is paid $3,000 for each committee meeting attended), and (ii) $2,000 for each teleconference committee meeting attended (except that the meeting chairman is paid $3,000 for each teleconference committee meeting attended). In addition, like us, KBS REIT II and KBS REIT III each reimburses directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings of their boards of directors.
Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure
Our charter limits the number of shares a person may own, which may discourage a takeover that could otherwise result in a premium price to our stockholders.
Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. To help us comply with the REIT ownership requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, our charter prohibits a person from directly or constructively owning more than 9.8% of our outstanding shares, unless exempted by our board of directors. This restriction may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all of our assets) that might provide a premium price for holders of our common stock.
Our charter permits our board of directors to issue stock with terms that may subordinate the rights of our common stockholders or discourage a third party from acquiring us in a manner that could result in a premium price to our stockholders.
Our board of directors may classify or reclassify any unissued common stock or preferred stock and establish the preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends and other distributions, qualifications and terms or conditions of redemption of any such stock. Thus, our board of directors could authorize the issuance of preferred stock with priority as to distributions and amounts payable upon liquidation over the rights of the holders of our common stock. Such preferred stock could also have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all of our assets) that might provide a premium price to holders of our common stock.
Our stockholders’ investment return may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act; if we or our subsidiaries become an unregistered investment company, we could not continue our business.
Neither we nor any of our subsidiaries intend to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. If we or our subsidiaries were obligated to register as investment companies, we would have to comply with a variety of substantive requirements under the Investment Company Act that impose, among other things:
| |
| • | limitations on capital structure; |
| |
| • | restrictions on specified investments; |
| |
| • | prohibitions on transactions with affiliates; and |
| |
| • | compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly increase our operating expenses. |
Under the relevant provisions of Section 3(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act, an investment company is any issuer that:
| |
| • | is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities (the “primarily engaged test”); or |
| |
| • | is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire “investment securities” having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis (the “40% test”). “Investment securities” excludes U.S. government securities and securities of majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) (relating to private investment companies). |
We believe that we and our Operating Partnership satisfy both tests above. With respect to the 40% test, most of the entities through which we and our Operating Partnership own our assets are majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exceptions from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7).
With respect to the primarily engaged test, we and our Operating Partnership are holding companies. Through the majority-owned subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership, we and our Operating Partnership are primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of these subsidiaries.
We believe that most of the subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership may rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act for an exception from the definition of an investment company. (Any other subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership should be able to rely on the exceptions for private investment companies pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) and Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.) As reflected in no-action letters, the SEC staff’s position on Section 3(c)(5)(C) generally requires that an issuer maintain at least 55% of its assets in “mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate,” or qualifying assets; at least 80% of its assets in qualifying assets plus real estate-related assets; and no more than 20% of the value of its assets in other than qualifying assets and real estate-related assets, which we refer to as miscellaneous assets. To constitute a qualifying asset under this 55% requirement, a real estate interest must meet various criteria based on no-action letters.
If, however, the value of the subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership that must rely on Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) is greater than 40% of the value of the assets of our Operating Partnership, then we and our Operating Partnership may seek to rely on the exception from registration under Section 3(c)(6) if we and our Operating Partnership are “primarily engaged,” through majority-owned subsidiaries, in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other interests in real estate. The SEC staff has issued little interpretive guidance with respect to Section 3(c)(6); however, it is our view that we and our Operating Partnership may rely on Section 3(c)(6) if 55% of the assets of our Operating Partnership consist of, and at least 55% of the income of our Operating Partnership is derived from, majority-owned subsidiaries that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C).
To maintain compliance with the Investment Company Act, our subsidiaries may be unable to sell assets we would otherwise want them to sell and may need to sell assets we would otherwise wish them to retain. In addition, our subsidiaries may have to acquire additional assets that they might not otherwise have acquired or may have to forego opportunities to make investments that we would otherwise want them to make and would be important to our investment strategy. Moreover, the SEC may issue interpretations with respect to various types of assets that are contrary to our views and current SEC staff interpretations are subject to change, which increases the risk of non-compliance and the risk that we may be forced to make adverse changes to our portfolio. If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business.
Rapid changes in the values of our assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exception from the definition of an investment company under the Investment Company Act.
If the market value or income potential of our qualifying real estate assets changes as compared to the market value or income potential of our non-qualifying assets, or if the market value or income potential of our assets that are considered “real estate-related assets” under the Investment Company Act or REIT qualification tests changes as compared to the market value or income potential of our assets that are not considered “real estate-related assets” under the Investment Company Act or REIT qualification tests, whether as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to modify our investment portfolio in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exception from the definition of an investment company. If the decline in asset values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of many of the assets that we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.
Our stockholders will have limited control over changes in our policies and operations, which increases the uncertainty and risks our stockholders face.
Our board of directors determines our major policies, including our policies regarding financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders. Under Maryland General Corporation Law and our charter, our stockholders have a right to vote only on limited matters. Our board’s broad discretion in setting policies and our stockholders’ inability to exert control over those policies increases the uncertainty and risks our stockholders face.
We have not had funds available for ordinary redemptions under our share redemption program since the April 2009 redemption date, and we have amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence.” We currently do not expect to have funds available to resume ordinary redemptions in the future.
We have not had funds available for ordinary redemptions since the April 2009 redemption date, and we have amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation, which was $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2013, and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program plan document. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved the same annual dollar limitation of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by the board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program plan document. Based on historical redemption activity, we believe the $10.0 million redemption limitation for the calendar year 2014 will be sufficient for these special redemptions. During each calendar year, the annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program will be reviewed and adjusted from time to time. We currently do not expect to have funds available to resume ordinary redemptions in the future. Therefore, until further notice, and except with respect to redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence,” stockholders will not be able to sell any of their shares back to us pursuant to our share redemption program. Even if resumed, our share redemption program includes numerous restrictions that would limit a stockholder’s ability to sell his or her shares. Further, we have no obligation to redeem shares if the redemption would violate the restrictions on distributions under Maryland law, which prohibits distributions that would cause a corporation to fail to meet statutory tests of solvency. Our board may amend, suspend or terminate our share redemption program upon 30 days’ notice.
Pursuant to our share redemption program, once we have established an estimated value per share of our common stock, the redemption price per share for eligible redemptions is equal to the estimated value per share. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an estimated value per share of our common stock of $4.45 based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. Therefore, effective commencing with the December 31, 2013 redemption date, the redemption price for all shares eligible for redemption is $4.45 per share. For a full description of the methodologies used to value our assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities — Market Information.” The value of our shares will fluctuate over time in response to developments related to individual assets in the portfolio and in response to fluctuations in the real estate and finance markets. We currently expect to utilize our advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, but we are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months. If stockholders are able to sell their shares under the share redemption program, they may not recover the amount of their investment in us.
The estimated value per share of our common stock may not reflect the value that stockholders will receive for their investment.
On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an estimated value per share of our common stock of $4.45 based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, all as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. We provided this estimated value per share to assist broker-dealers that participated in our initial public offering in meeting their customer account statement reporting obligations under National Association of Securities Dealers Conduct Rule 2340, as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and also to comply with Practice Guideline 2013-01, Valuations of Publicly Registered, Non-Listed REITs, issued by the Investment Program Association (“IPA”) in April 2013. The estimated value per share was based upon the recommendation and valuation of our advisor.
As with any valuation methodology, the methodologies used are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Different parties with different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, and these differences could be significant. The estimated value per share is not audited and does not represent the fair value of our assets less the fair value of our liabilities according to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), nor does it represent a liquidation value of our assets and liabilities or the price at which our shares of common stock would trade on a national securities exchange. The estimated value per share does not reflect a discount for the fact that we are externally managed, nor does it reflect a real estate portfolio premium/discount versus the sum of the individual property values. The estimated value per share also does not take into account estimated disposition costs and fees for real estate properties that are not held for sale, debt prepayment penalties or defeasance costs that could apply upon the prepayment of certain of our debt obligations or the impact of restrictions on the assumption of debt.
Accordingly, with respect to the estimated value per share, we can give no assurance that:
| |
| • | a stockholder would be able to resell his or her shares at this estimated value; |
| |
| • | a stockholder would ultimately realize distributions per share equal to our estimated value per share upon liquidation of our assets and settlement of our liabilities or a sale of the company; |
| |
| • | our shares of common stock would trade at the estimated value per share on a national securities exchange; |
| |
| • | an independent third-party appraiser or other third-party valuation firm would agree with our estimated value per share; or |
| |
| • | the methodology used to estimate our value per share would be acceptable to FINRA or for compliance with ERISA reporting requirements. |
For a full description of the methodologies and assumptions used to value our assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities — Market Information.” We currently expect to utilize our advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, but we are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
The estimated value of our common stock does not take into account how developments subsequent to the valuation date related to individual assets, the financial or real estate markets or other events may have increased or decreased the value of our portfolio.
On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an estimated value per share of our common stock of $4.45 based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities, divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. The estimated value does not take into account how developments subsequent to December 18, 2013 have affected the value of our investments. The value of our shares will fluctuate over time in response to developments related to individual assets in our portfolio and in response to fluctuations in the real estate and finance markets. As such, the estimated value per share does not take into account developments in our portfolio since December 18, 2013, including:
| |
| • | asset sales and potential future asset sales at values different from those determined in our valuation as well as any impairment charges related to these or other assets as a result of changes in the expected hold period, or the estimated cash flows for or future expenses related to these assets; |
| |
| • | any impairments we may recognize with respect to certain of our real estate-related investments; |
| |
| • | any increases or decreases in value of any of our real estate or real estate-related investments; |
| |
| • | any disruptions in the real estate and financial markets or general economic conditions; |
| |
| • | any inability to successfully operate and/or sell the GKK Properties or a downturn in the banking industry, given current economic conditions and the concentration of the GKK Properties in the financial services sector; or |
| |
| • | any inability to meet our existing debt service obligations, or to repay or refinance such obligations on attractive terms or at all at or prior to maturity. |
For a full description of the methodologies and assumptions used to value our assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities - Market Information.” We currently expect to utilize our advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, but we are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
Our stockholders’ interest in us will be diluted if we issue additional shares, which could reduce the overall value of their investment.
Our common stockholders do not have preemptive rights to any shares we issue in the future. Our charter authorizes us to issue 1,010,000,000 shares of capital stock, of which 1,000,000,000 shares are designated as common stock and 10,000,000 shares are designated as preferred stock. Our board of directors may increase the number of authorized shares of capital stock without stockholder approval. Our board may elect to (i) sell additional shares in future public offerings, (ii) issue equity interests in private offerings, or (iii) issue shares to our advisor, or its successors or assigns, in payment of an outstanding obligation. To the extent we issue additional equity interests, our stockholders’ percentage ownership interest in us will be diluted. In addition, depending upon the terms, the use of proceeds and pricing of any additional offerings and the value of our real estate investments, our stockholders may also experience dilution in the book value and fair value of their shares.
Payment of fees to KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates increases the risk that our stockholders will not be able to recover the amount of their investment in our shares.
KBS Capital Advisors and its affiliates performed services for us in connection with the selection and acquisition or origination of our investments and continue to perform services for us in connection with the management, leasing and disposition of our properties and the management, structuring, administration and disposition of our other investments. We pay them substantial fees for these services, which results in immediate dilution to the value of our stockholders’ investment and reduces the amount of cash available for our stockholders’ return.
We may also pay significant fees during our listing/liquidation stage. Although most of the fees payable during our listing/liquidation stage are contingent on our stockholders first receiving agreed-upon investment returns, the investment-return thresholds may be reduced subject to approval by our conflicts committee and the other limitations in our charter.
Therefore, these fees increase the risk that the amount available for distribution to common stockholders upon a liquidation of our portfolio would be less than stockholders paid for our shares. These substantial fees and other payments also increase the risk that our stockholders will not be able to resell their shares at a profit, even if our shares are listed on a national securities exchange.
Our stockholders may be more likely to sustain a loss on their investment because our sponsors do not have as strong an economic incentive to avoid losses as do sponsors who have made significant equity investments in their companies.
Our sponsors have only invested $200,000 in us through the purchase of 20,000 shares of our common stock at $10 per share. Our sponsors will have little exposure to loss in the value of our shares. Without this exposure, our stockholders may be at a greater risk of loss because our sponsors do not have as much to lose from a decrease in the value of our shares as do those sponsors who make more significant equity investments in their companies.
General Risks Related to Investments in Real Estate
Economic, market and regulatory changes that impact the real estate market generally may decrease the value of our investments and weaken our operating results.
Our operating results and the performance of our properties are subject to the risks typically associated with real estate, any of which could decrease the value of our investments and could weaken our operating results, including:
| |
| • | downturns in national, regional and local economic conditions; |
| |
| • | competition from other office, industrial and bank branch buildings; |
| |
| • | adverse local conditions, such as oversupply or reduction in demand for office, industrial and bank branch buildings and changes in real estate zoning laws that may reduce the desirability of real estate in an area; |
| |
| • | vacancies, changes in market rental rates and the need to periodically repair, renovate and re-let space; |
| |
| • | changes in interest rates and the availability of permanent mortgage financing, which may render the sale of a property or loan difficult or unattractive; |
| |
| • | changes in tax (including real and personal tax), real estate, environmental and zoning laws; |
| |
| • | the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses; and |
| |
| • | periods of high interest rates and tight money supply. |
Any of the above factors, or a combination thereof, could result in a decrease in our cash flows from operations and a decrease in the value of our investments, which would have an adverse effect on our operations and on the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Since the acquisition of our real estate and real estate-related investments, downturns in national, regional and local economic conditions have impacted our properties’ operating performance and the operating performance of properties securing our real estate-related investments, which will reduce the overall return to our stockholders.
As a result of general economic conditions over the last several years, our portfolio experienced declines in cash flow from a number of our investments. Economic conditions have impacted our real estate investments, resulting in a general decline in the occupancy of our portfolio, an important element to the continued growth of our portfolio, that has resulted in lower current cash flow. Tenant-specific issues, including bankruptcy and downsizing, have resulted in decreases in our operating cash flow because these tenants have terminated their leases early, not renewed their leases or have not paid their contractual rent to us. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of increases in future rental concessions, including three or more months of free rent to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to sign new tenants, may result in additional decreases in cash flow. In addition, we have experienced a decline in cash flow from our real estate-related investments, as current economic conditions have impacted the ability of some borrowers under our loans to make contractual interest payments to us. In particular, our investments in mezzanine and mortgage loans have been impacted as the operating performance and values of buildings directly or indirectly securing our investment positions have decreased from the date of our acquisition or origination of these investments. In such instances, some of the borrowers have not been able to refinance their debt owed to us or sell the collateral at a price sufficient to repay our note balances in full when they become due.
Because of the concentration of a significant portion of our assets in North Carolina, any adverse economic, real estate or business conditions in North Carolina could adversely affect our operating results and stockholders’ return.
As of December 31, 2013, our real estate investments in North Carolina, excluding properties held for sale and held for non-sale disposition, represented 14% of our total annualized base rent. As a result, the geographic concentration of our portfolio makes it particularly susceptible to adverse economic developments in North Carolina’s real estate market. Any adverse economic or real estate developments in this market, such as business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, changing demographics and other factors, or any decrease in demand for office space or resulting from the local business climate, could adversely affect our operating results and our stockholders’ return.
Properties that have significant vacancies could be difficult to sell, which could diminish the return on these properties and adversely affect our cash flows and our stockholders’ overall return.
A property may incur vacancies either by the expiration and non-renewal of tenant leases or the continued default of tenants under their leases. If vacancies continue for a long period of time, we may suffer reduced revenues, which would adversely affect our cash flows. In addition, the resale value of the property could be diminished because the market value of a particular property depends principally upon the value of the cash flow generated by the leases associated with that property. Such a reduction in the resale value of a property could also reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment. As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio (excluding properties that were held for sale and properties that were held for non-sale disposition), consisted of approximately 10.7 million rentable square feet, was 85% occupied and our bad debt reserve for our properties was approximately 4.6% of annualized base rent. Included among these properties are 55 properties containing 1.9 million rentable square feet that were less than 70% occupied. As of December 31, 2013, excluding real estate held for sale and real estate held for non-sale disposition, nine of our properties containing 0.2 million rentable square feet were 100% vacant.
We depend on tenants for our revenue generated by our real estate investments and, accordingly, our stockholders’ overall return is partially dependent upon the success and economic viability of our tenants and our ability to retain and attract tenants. Non-renewals, terminations or lease defaults could reduce our net income and reduce our stockholders’ overall return.
The success of our real estate investments materially depends upon the financial stability of the tenants leasing the properties we own. The inability of a single major tenant or a significant number of smaller tenants to meet their rental obligations would lower our net income. A non-renewal after the expiration of a lease term, termination or default by a tenant on its lease payments to us would cause us to lose the revenue associated with such lease and require us to find an alternative source of revenue to meet mortgage payments and prevent a foreclosure if the property is subject to a mortgage. In the event of a tenant default or bankruptcy, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord of a property and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing the property. Tenants may have the right to terminate their leases upon the occurrence of certain customary events of default and, in other circumstances, may not renew their leases or, because of market conditions, may only be able to renew their leases on terms that are less favorable to us than the terms of their initial leases. When tenants exercise early termination rights, our cash flow and earnings will be adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to generate an equivalent amount of net rental income by leasing the vacated space to new third party tenants. Certain leases to tenants of the GKK Properties permit such tenants to terminate their leases, in whole or in part, prior to their stated lease expiration dates, frequently with little or no termination fee being paid to us.
Further, some of our properties may be outfitted to suit the particular needs of the tenants. We may have difficulty replacing the tenants of these properties if the outfitted space limits the types of businesses that could lease that space without major renovation. If a tenant does not renew, or terminates or defaults on a lease, we may be unable to lease the property for the rent previously received or sell the property without incurring a loss as described above. See also “ — General Risks Related to Investments in Real Estate — Bank branches are specialty-use properties and therefore may be more difficult to lease or sell to non-banks.”
The bankruptcy or insolvency of our tenants or delays by our tenants in making rental payments could seriously harm our operating results and financial condition.
Any bankruptcy filing by or relating to a tenant could bar us from collecting pre-bankruptcy debts from that tenant, unless we receive an order permitting us to do so from the bankruptcy court. A tenant bankruptcy could delay our efforts to collect past due balances under the relevant leases, and could ultimately preclude full collection of these sums. If a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have only a general unsecured claim for damages. Any unsecured claim we hold against a bankrupt entity may be paid only to the extent that funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of unsecured claims. We may recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims, which would harm our financial condition.
Many tenants in the GKK Properties are banks that are not eligible to be debtors under the federal bankruptcy code, but would be subject to the liquidation and insolvency provisions of applicable banking laws and regulations. If the FDIC were appointed as receiver of a banking tenant because of that tenant’s insolvency, we would become an unsecured creditor of the tenant and only be entitled to share with the other unsecured non-depositor creditors in the tenant’s assets on an equal basis after payment to the depositors of their claims. The FDIC has broad powers to reject any contract (including a lease) of a failed depository institution that the FDIC deems burdensome if the FDIC determines that such rejection is necessary to promise the orderly administration of the institution’s affairs. By federal statute, a landlord under a lease rejected by the FDIC is not entitled to claim any damages with respect to the disaffirmation, other than rent through the effective date of the disaffirmation. The amount paid on claims with respect to the lease would depend on, among other factors, the amount of assets of the insolvent tenant available for unsecured claims. We may recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as the returns to our stockholders.
The GKK Properties were transferred to us on an “as is” basis and, therefore, the value of the GKK Properties may decline if we subsequently discover problems with them.
Since, under the Settlement Agreement, the GKK Properties were transferred to us on an “as is” basis, we were not able to inspect or conduct standard due diligence on certain of the GKK Properties before their transfer to us. We did not receive representations, warranties and indemnities relating to the GKK Properties from Gramercy and/or its affiliates and, in certain cases, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, certain of our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries are required to indemnify Gramercy and/or its affiliates for certain matters, including environmental matters, in connection with the transfer of such GKK Properties. If we discover issues or problems related to the physical condition of a GKK Property, issues or problems related to zoning or compliance with ordinances and regulations with a GKK Property or other significant problems with a GKK Property, we will have no recourse against Gramercy and its affiliates and the value of the GKK Property may be less than our estimated value of the GKK Property. We may incur substantial costs in remediating or repairing a GKK Property or in ensuring its compliance with governmental regulations. If we choose to and are able to make such capital expenditures, they would reduce returns to our stockholders. In addition, we may be unable to rent these GKK Properties on terms favorable to us, or at all, which could also reduce the returns to our stockholders.
We were not able to conduct standard due diligence on or receive customary tenant estoppel certificates with respect to the GKK Properties. Because we did not receive tenant estoppel certificates or other assurances from the tenants of the GKK Properties, we may be subject to unknown liabilities relating to our leases with those tenants. Thus, the value of the GKK Properties may decline if we subsequently become subject to such liabilities pursuant to the leases related to the GKK Properties.
Under the Settlement Agreement, we indirectly took title to or, with respect to a limited number of the GKK Properties, indirectly took a leasehold interest in, the GKK Properties on an “as is” basis. We were not able to conduct standard due diligence on the GKK Properties nor were we able to receive tenant estoppel certificates or other assurances from the tenants of the GKK Properties before the transfers. Additionally, we did not receive representations, warranties and indemnities relating to the GKK Properties from Gramercy and/or its affiliates. As part of our standard diligence for real estate property acquisitions, we generally require the seller of a property we acquire to have the tenants of the property make certain certifications relating to their leases in an estoppel certificate. The topics covered generally include: (i) whether the lease is in full force and effect and has not been assigned, modified, supplemented or amended; (ii) whether the seller has satisfied all of the conditions required to be performed by it under the lease; (iii) whether any required payments or reimbursements by the seller to the tenant as a result of any tenant improvements have been received by the tenant; (iv) whether there are any existing claims, defenses or offsets that the tenant has against the enforcement of the lease by the seller; (v) whether any rent or related payment obligation has been paid more than one month in advance; and (vi) whether any security has been deposited with the seller.
Because we did not receive estoppel certificates or other similar certifications from the tenants of the GKK Properties covering these and other issues, we may be subject to unknown liabilities relating to the tenants’ leases. We could be subject to liability relating to, among other items, (i) payments owed by us, as landlord, to tenants under the leases, (ii) uncured defaults in the performance of landlord’s obligations under the tenants’ leases including, without limitation, maintenance on a property that has not been performed and should have been performed under the terms of the leases, (iii) rights of a tenant to extend its lease term, acquire additional space, or exercise rights of first refusal or other purchase options relating to certain GKK Properties that were agreed upon by and between Gramercy and/or its affiliates and a tenant, which may be evidenced by an agreement that we did not receive, and (iv) certain other causes of action by a tenant against us. Defending against or settling such liabilities, should they arise, could be costly and have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ investment.
Bank branches are specialty-use properties and therefore may be more difficult to lease or sell to non-banks.
Some of the GKK Properties are vacant and some of the bank branch tenants in these GKK Properties may not renew their leases or may terminate them before their expiration. Bank branches are specialty-use properties that are outfitted with vaults, teller counters and other customary installations and equipment specific to bank branches that require significant capital expenditures. Our revenue from and the value of these bank branches may be affected by a number of factors, including:
| |
| • | demand from financial institutions to lease or purchase properties that are configured to operate as bank branches; |
| |
| • | the requirements by non-banking institutions for us to make significant capital expenditures to modify these specialty-use GKK Properties to suit their needs before these institutions will lease or purchase such GKK Properties; |
| |
| • | a downturn in the banking industry generally and, in particular, among smaller community banks; |
| |
| • | tenants exercising shedding rights; |
| |
| • | bank branches with unfavorable lease terms; and |
| |
| • | mergers among financial institutions resulting in the consolidation of properties and a reduction in the number of bank branches or other facilities needed by such institutions. |
Further, if financial institutions do not increase the number of bank branches they operate, do not find the locations of our bank branches desirable, do not renew or extend their leases of our bank branches, or if they elect to make capital expenditures to materially modify other, non-bank branch properties rather than pay higher lease or acquisition prices for those of our GKK Properties that already are configured as bank branches, then our operating results and financial condition, as well as the returns to our stockholders, may suffer. Additionally, the sale or lease of these GKK Properties to entities other than financial institutions may be difficult due to the added cost and time of refitting the GKK Properties, which we do not expect to undertake.
Certain of the GKK Properties, including some bank branches, are located in unattractive locations and are properties that we otherwise would not have elected to add to our portfolio, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as the returns to our stockholders.
Certain of the GKK Properties are surplus bank branches that certain financial institutions owned before they were sold to Gramercy or were subsequently vacated by the financial institution. Were we not required to accept these properties as part of the Settlement Agreement, we otherwise likely would not have elected to add these GKK Properties to our portfolio. The characteristics of these bank branches, including the following, may make it difficult for us to lease or sell these GKK Properties and could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as the returns to our stockholders. Some of these bank branches:
| |
| • | are in locations that overlap with other bank branches of the same financial institution, accumulated in connection with mergers and acquisitions with other financial institutions; |
| |
| • | have low deposit levels as compared to other bank branches of the same financial institution; |
| |
| • | are located in unattractive areas. |
The terms of the Settlement Agreement required us to take ownership of certain leasehold interests in various GKK Properties under which the amount of rent we pay to the property owner may exceed the rental income we receive from tenants.
Under the Settlement Agreement, we were required to assume leasehold interests that we otherwise likely would not have elected to assume. Such leasehold interests relate to properties we do not own, but under which we lease space from the property owner and then sub-lease this space to various tenants. In certain cases the rent that we are required to pay to the owner of the property exceeds the rental income that we receive from the various tenants. Such negative cash flow may continue throughout the life of the lease and may also have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as the returns to our stockholders.
Our inability to sell a property at the time and on the terms we want could limit the returns to our stockholders.
Many factors that are beyond our control affect the real estate market and could affect our ability to sell properties for the price, on the terms or within the time frame that we desire. These factors include general economic conditions, the availability of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand. Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, we have a limited ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic or other conditions. Further, before we can sell a property on the terms we want, it may be necessary to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements. However, we can give no assurance that we will have the funds available to correct such defects or to make such improvements. We may be unable to sell our properties at a profit. Our inability to sell properties at the time and on the terms we want could reduce our cash flow and reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
As a result of the transfers of the GKK Properties, a significant portion of our properties are leased to financial institutions, making us more economically vulnerable in the event of a downturn in the banking industry.
Because of the transfers of the GKK Properties, a significant portion of our revenue is derived from leases to financial institutions and as such, our portfolio has become less diversified. As of December 31, 2013, 45.6% of our annualized base rent was generated by leases to financial institutions. Individual banks, as well as the banking industry in general, may be adversely affected by negative economic and market conditions throughout the United States or in the local economies in which regional or community banks operate. Acquisitions of regional or community banks by larger financial institutions could lead to the closure of some of the bank branches formerly occupied by these regional or community banks. In addition, changes in trade, monetary and fiscal policies and laws, including interest rate policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, may have an adverse impact on banks’ loan portfolios and allowances for loan losses. As a result, we may experience higher rates of lease default or terminations in the event of a downturn in the banking industry than we would if our tenant base were more diversified.
Because of the transfers of the GKK Properties, Bank of America, N.A. represents a significant portion of the revenue generated by our real estate portfolio and the failure of this tenant to perform its obligations to us or to renew its leases upon expiration may adversely affect our cash flow and the returns to our stockholders.
Because of the transfers of the GKK Properties, as of December 31, 2013, Bank of America, N.A. represented approximately 20.7% of our real estate portfolio’s base rental income and occupied approximately 30.4% of our total rentable square feet. The default, financial distress or insolvency of Bank of America, N.A., or its failure to renew its leases with us upon expiration, could cause interruptions in the receipt of lease revenue from this tenant and the properties that it occupies and/or result in vacancies, which would reduce our revenue and increase operating costs until the affected properties are leased, and could decrease the ultimate value of the affected properties upon sale. We may be unable to lease the vacant properties at a comparable lease rate or at all, which could affect our operating results and financial condition as well as the returns to our stockholders. See Note 3, “Real Estate Held for Investment — Operating Leases” in the notes to our consolidated financial statements filed herewith.
Should GKK Stars or any of its affiliates declare bankruptcy or otherwise become the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, our ability to indirectly retain title to or, with respect to a limited number of GKK Properties, indirectly retain a leasehold interest in, the GKK Properties would be threatened.
Any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing by GKK Stars or any of its affiliates could have an adverse effect on our ability to indirectly retain title to or, with respect to a limited number of GKK Properties, indirectly retain a leasehold interest in, the GKK Properties, including the following:
| |
| • | Any transfers to us of equity interests in the entities owning the GKK Properties made within up to six years prior to a filing under some state bankruptcy codes potentially could be voided by a bankruptcy court as fraudulent transfers. If any such transfers are voided, it is possible that our liens on the GKK Properties subject to those transfers may not reattach with their existing priority. |
| |
| • | A bankruptcy court could reject the Settlement Agreement, which could release GKK Stars from having to satisfy any of its remaining obligations under the Settlement Agreement. |
| |
| • | The automatic stay imposed in certain bankruptcy actions would limit our, among other parties to the Settlement Agreement, ability to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against parties with respect to whom there has been a bankruptcy filing, including preventing the exercise of remedies under the Settlement Agreement without prior bankruptcy court approval following notice and a hearing. |
Costs imposed pursuant to laws and governmental regulations may reduce our net income and the overall return to our stockholders.
Real property and the operations conducted on real property are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment and human health. We could be subject to liability in the form of fines, penalties or damages for noncompliance with these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations generally govern wastewater discharges, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and above-ground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous materials, the remediation of contamination associated with the release or disposal of solid and hazardous materials, the presence of toxic building materials, and other health and safety-related concerns.
Some of these laws and regulations may impose joint and several liability on the tenants, owners or operators of real property for the costs to investigate or remediate contaminated properties, regardless of fault, whether the contamination occurred prior to purchase, or whether the acts causing the contamination were legal. Our tenants’ operations, the condition of properties at the time we buy them, operations in the vicinity of our properties, such as the presence of underground storage tanks, or activities of unrelated third parties may affect our properties.
The presence of hazardous substances, or the failure to properly manage or remediate these substances, may hinder our ability to sell, rent or pledge such property as collateral for future borrowings. Any material expenditures, fines, penalties, or damages we must pay will reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
The costs of defending against claims of environmental liability, of complying with environmental regulatory requirements, of remediating any contaminated property, or of paying personal injury or other damage claims could reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous real property owner or operator may be liable for the cost of removing or remediating hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. These costs could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Environmental laws also may impose liens on property or restrictions on the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures or prevent us from entering into leases with prospective tenants that may be impacted by such laws. Environmental laws provide for sanctions for noncompliance and may be enforced by governmental agencies or, in certain circumstances, by private parties. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for the release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Third parties may seek recovery from real property owners or operators for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances and governments may seek recovery for natural resource damage. The costs of defending against claims of environmental liability, of complying with environmental regulatory requirements, of remediating any contaminated property, or of paying personal injury claims could reduce the amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.
Except for GKK Properties and other properties to which we took title to through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, all of our direct real estate investments were subject to Phase I environmental assessments at the time they were acquired. Some of the properties we have acquired are subject to potential environmental liabilities arising primarily from historic activities at or in the vicinity of the properties.
We own one property that is subject to activity use limitations (“AULs”) whereby the government has placed limitations on redevelopment of the property for certain uses, particularly residential uses. AULs are typically imposed on a property that has environmental contamination in exchange for less stringent environmental clean-up standards. In view of the location of the affected property, the environmental characteristics of the contaminants and the characteristics of the neighborhood, we do not believe that these AULs have a material impact on our portfolio valuation, but they could result in a depression of the value of the property, should we resell the property for uses different from its existing uses. The property subject to AULs is ADP Plaza, located in Portland, Oregon.
Some of the properties in our portfolio, particularly the warehouse and light industrial properties, had or have underground storage tanks either for space heating of the buildings, fueling motor vehicles, or industrial processes. Many of the underground storage tanks at the premises have been replaced over time. Given changing standards regarding closure of underground storage tanks and associated contamination, many of the tanks may not have been closed in compliance with current standards. Some of these properties likely have some residual petroleum or chemical contamination. Properties exhibiting these risks include 129 Concord Road, Billerica, Massachusetts (Rivertech) and ADP Plaza, Portland, Oregon.
Costs associated with complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act may decrease the returns to our stockholders.
Our properties may be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (the “Disabilities Act”). Under the Disabilities Act, all places of public accommodation are required to comply with federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. The Disabilities Act has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” that generally require that buildings and services be made accessible and available to people with disabilities. The Disabilities Act’s requirements could require removal of access barriers and could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, monetary penalties or, in some cases, an award of damages. Any funds used for Disabilities Act compliance will reduce our net income and the returns to our stockholders.
Uninsured losses relating to real property or excessively expensive premiums for insurance coverage could reduce our cash flows and the return on our stockholders’ investment.
There are types of losses, generally catastrophic in nature, such as losses due to wars, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or environmental matters, that are uninsurable or not economically insurable, or may be insured subject to limitations, such as large deductibles or co-payments. Insurance risks associated with potential acts of terrorism could sharply increase the premiums we pay for coverage against property and casualty claims. Additionally, mortgage lenders in some cases have begun to insist that commercial property owners purchase coverage against terrorism as a condition to providing mortgage loans. Such insurance policies may not be available at reasonable costs, if at all, which could inhibit our ability to finance or refinance our properties. In such instances, we may be required to provide other financial support, either through financial assurances or self-insurance, to cover potential losses. We may not have adequate coverage for such losses. If any of our properties incurs a casualty loss that is not fully insured, the value of our assets will be reduced by any such uninsured loss, which may reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment. In addition, other than any working capital reserve or other reserves we may establish, we have extremely limited sources of funding to repair or reconstruct any uninsured property. Also, to the extent we must pay unexpectedly large amounts for insurance, we could suffer reduced earnings that would result in lower returns to stockholders.
Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may affect the markets in which we operate, which could delay or hinder our ability to meet our investment objectives and reduce our stockholders’ overall return.
Terrorist attacks or armed conflicts may directly impact the value of our properties through damage, destruction, loss or increased security costs. We have invested in and expect that we will continue to invest in major metropolitan markets. We may not be able to obtain insurance against the risk of terrorism because it may not be available or may not be available on terms that are economically feasible. The terrorism insurance that we obtain may not be sufficient to cover loss for damages to our properties as a result of terrorist attacks. The inability to obtain sufficient terrorism insurance or any terrorism insurance at all could limit our investment options as some mortgage lenders have begun to insist that specific coverage against terrorism be purchased by commercial owners as a condition of providing loans.
Risks Related to Real Estate-Related Investments
Our real estate-related investments are subject to the risks typically associated with real estate.
Our investments in mortgage and mezzanine loans and B-Notes are directly or indirectly secured by a lien on real property (or the equity interests in an entity that owns real property) that, upon the occurrence of a default on the loan, could result in our taking ownership of the property. The values of these properties may change after we acquire or originate the loans. If the values of the underlying properties drop, our risk will increase because of the lower value of the security associated with such loans. In this manner, real estate values could impact the values of our loan investments. Our investments in real estate securities are similarly affected by real estate property values. Therefore, our real estate-related investments are subject to the risks typically associated with real estate, which are described above under the heading “— General Risks Related to Investments in Real Estate.”
Our investments in mortgage and mezzanine loans and B-Notes are and will be subject to interest rate fluctuations that affect our returns as compared to market interest rates; accordingly, the value of our stockholders’ investment in us is subject to fluctuations in interest rates.
With respect to our fixed rate, long-term loans, if interest rates rise, the loans could yield a return that is lower than then-current market rates. If interest rates decrease, we will be adversely affected to the extent that loans are prepaid because we no longer receive the revenue generated by those loans and may not be able to reinvest the proceeds at as high of an interest rate. For these reasons, our returns on these loans and the value of our stockholders’ investment in us are subject to fluctuations in interest rates.
Our mortgage and mezzanine loan and B-Note investments are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.
Commercial real estate loans generally are secured by commercial real estate properties and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things: tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, occupancy rates, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values, declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies (including environmental legislation), natural disasters, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances.
In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal and accrued interest to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. Foreclosure on a property securing a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process that could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the investment. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law.
Delays in liquidating defaulted mortgage loans could reduce our investment returns.
If there are defaults under our mortgage loan investments, we may not be able to repossess and sell the underlying properties quickly. The resulting time delay could reduce the value of our investment in the defaulted mortgage loans. An action to foreclose on a property securing a mortgage loan is regulated by state statutes and regulations and is subject to many of the delays and expenses of other lawsuits if the borrower raises defenses or counterclaims. In the event of default by a borrower, these restrictions, among other things, may impede our ability to foreclose on or sell the mortgaged property or to obtain proceeds sufficient to repay all amounts due to us on the mortgage loan.
Our investments in mezzanine loans involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by the same properties.
Our investments in mezzanine loans take the form of subordinated loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity owning (directly or indirectly) the real property. These types of investments may involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income-producing real property because the investment may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to satisfy our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the real property and increasing the risk of loss of principal.
Our investments in B-Notes may be subject to additional risks relating to the privately negotiated structure and terms of the transaction, which may result in losses to us.
We invest in B-Notes. A B-Note is a mortgage loan typically (i) secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties and (ii) subordinated to an A-Note secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if a borrower defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for B-Note holders after payment to the A-Note holders. Since each transaction is privately negotiated, B-Notes can vary in their structural characteristics and risks including, for example, the rights of holders of B-Notes to control the process following a borrower default may be limited.
Our investments in subordinated loans may be subject to losses.
We have invested in subordinated loans. In the event a borrower defaults on a subordinated loan and lacks sufficient assets to satisfy our loan, we may suffer a loss of principal or interest. In the event a borrower declares bankruptcy, we may not have full recourse to the assets of the borrower, or the assets of the borrower may not be sufficient to satisfy the loan. If a borrower defaults on our loan or on debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt is paid in full. Where debt senior to our loan exists, the presence of intercreditor arrangements may limit our ability to amend our loan documents, assign our loans, accept prepayments, exercise our remedies (through “standstill periods”), and control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings relating to borrowers.
Risks of cost overruns and non-completion of the renovation of the properties underlying loans we make or acquire may materially adversely affect our investments.
The renovation, refurbishment or expansion by a borrower under a mortgaged or leveraged property involves risks of cost overruns and non-completion. Costs of improvements to bring a property up to standards established for the market position intended for that property may exceed original estimates, possibly making a project uneconomical. Other risks may include: environmental risks and the risk that the construction, rehabilitation and subsequent leasing of the property is not completed on schedule. If such renovation is not completed in a timely manner, or if it costs more than expected, the borrower may experience a prolonged impairment of net operating income and may not be able to make payments on our investment and we may not recover some or all of our investment.
A portion of our investments in loans may be illiquid and we may not be able to adjust our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions.
The mezzanine loans we own are particularly illiquid investments due to their short life, their unsuitability for securitization and the greater difficulty of recoupment in the event of a borrower’s default. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited.
We depend on borrowers for the revenue generated by our real estate-related investments and, accordingly, such revenue and the returns to our stockholders are partially dependent upon the success and economic viability of such borrowers.
The success of our real estate-related investments materially depends on the financial stability of the borrowers under such investments. The inability of a single major borrower or a number of smaller borrowers to meet their payment obligations could result in reduced revenue or losses for us. In the event of a borrower default or bankruptcy, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as a creditor, and such rights may be subordinated to the rights of other creditors. These events could negatively affect the returns to our stockholders and the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Prepayments can adversely affect the yields on our debt investments.
The yields on our debt investments may be affected by the rate of prepayments differing from our projections. Prepayments on debt instruments, where permitted under the debt documents, are influenced by changes in current interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic and other factors beyond our control, and consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty. If such prepayments occur, the yield on our portfolio may decline. In addition, if our debt assets are not repaid when expected, our anticipated yield may be impacted. Under certain interest rate and prepayment scenarios we may fail to recoup fully our cost of acquisition of certain debt investments.
Our investments in equity securities of other issuers are subject to various risks, including those related to the particular issuer of the securities.
Our investments in publicly-traded equity securities of other issuers will involve risks relating to the particular issuer of the securities, including the financial condition and business outlook of the issuer. Issuers that are REITs and other real estate companies are subject to the inherent risks associated with real estate and real estate-related investments discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Furthermore, equity securities are subject to other risks, including the fact that such investments are generally unsecured and may also be subordinated to other obligations of the issuer. As a result, investments in equity securities are subject to risks of, among others, (i) substantial market price volatility, (ii) subordination to the senior claims of banks and other lenders to the issuer, (iii) the operation of mandatory sinking fund or call/redemption provisions during periods of declining interest rates that could cause the issuer to reinvest redemption proceeds in lower yielding assets, (iv) the possibility that earnings of the issuer may be insufficient to meet its distribution obligations, and (v) the declining creditworthiness and potential for insolvency of the issuer during periods of rising interest rates and economic downturn. These risks may adversely affect the value of our equity securities and the ability of the issuers thereof to make principal, interest and/or distribution payments to us.
Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, limit our gains or result in losses, which could adversely affect our stockholders’ returns.
We have entered and in the future may enter into interest rate swap agreements or pursue other interest rate hedging strategies. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level of interest rates, the type of investments we hold at the relevant time and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:
| |
| • | interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates; |
| |
| • | available interest rate hedging may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought; |
| |
| • | the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability or asset; |
| |
| • | the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions to offset interest rate losses is limited by federal tax provisions governing REITs; |
| |
| • | the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; |
| |
| • | the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay; and |
| |
| • | we may purchase a hedge that turns out not to be necessary, i.e., a hedge that is out of the money. |
Any hedging activity we engage in may adversely affect our earnings, which could adversely affect the returns to our stockholders. Therefore, while we may enter into such transactions to seek to reduce interest rate risks, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the investments being hedged or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the investments or liabilities being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended accounting treatment and may expose us to risk of loss.
As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, certain swap transactions will be required to be submitted for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization, unless certain exemptions apply. The rulemaking implementing the clearing requirement is still in process, however, and the implementation of the clearing requirement may affect, among other things, our exposure to our swap counterparties, the margin or collateral required to be posted in connection with our swap transactions and the costs of entering into such transactions.
We assume the credit risk of our counterparties with respect to derivative transactions.
We enter into derivative contracts for risk management purposes to hedge our exposure to cash flow variability caused by changing interest rates on our variable rate notes payable. These derivative contracts generally are entered into with bank counterparties and are not traded on an organized exchange or guaranteed by a central clearing organization. We therefore assume the credit risk that our counterparties will fail to make periodic payments when due under these contracts. If a counterparty fails to make a required payment, becomes the subject of a bankruptcy case, or otherwise defaults under the applicable contract, we would have the right to terminate all outstanding derivative transactions with that counterparty and settle them based on their net market value or replacement cost. In such an event, we may be required to make a termination payment to the counterparty, or we may have the right to collect a termination payment from such counterparty. We assume the credit risk that the counterparty will not be able to make any termination payment owing to us. We may not receive any collateral from a counterparty, or we may receive collateral that is insufficient to satisfy the counterparty’s obligation to make a termination payment. If a counterparty is the subject of a bankruptcy case, we will be an unsecured creditor in such case unless the counterparty has pledged sufficient collateral to us to satisfy the counterparty’s obligations to us.
We assume the risk that our derivative counterparty may terminate transactions early.
If we fail to make a required payment or otherwise default under the terms of a derivative contract, the counterparty would have the right to terminate all outstanding derivative transactions between us and that counterparty and settle them based on their net market value or replacement cost. In certain circumstances, the counterparty may have the right to terminate derivative transactions early even if we are not defaulting. If our derivative transactions are terminated early, it may not be possible for us to replace those transactions with another counterparty, on as favorable terms or at all.
We may be required to collateralize our derivative transactions.
We may be required to secure our obligations to our counterparties under our derivative contracts by pledging collateral to our counterparties. That collateral may be in the form of cash, securities or other assets. If we default under a derivative contract with a counterparty, or if a counterparty otherwise terminates one or more derivative contracts early, that counterparty may apply such collateral toward our obligation to make a termination payment to the counterparty. If we have pledged securities or other assets, the counterparty may liquidate those assets in order to satisfy our obligations. If we are required to post cash or securities as collateral, such cash or securities will not be available for use in our business. Cash or securities pledged to counterparties may be repledged by counterparties and may not be held in segregated accounts. Therefore, in the event of a counterparty insolvency, we may not be entitled to recover some or all of the collateral pledged to that counterparty, which could result in losses and have an adverse effect on our operations.
There can be no assurance that the direct or indirect effects of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will not have an adverse effect on our interest rate hedging activities.
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act contains a sweeping overhaul of the regulation of privately negotiated derivatives. The provisions of Title VII became effective on July 16, 2011 or, with respect to particular provisions, on such other date specified in the Dodd-Frank Act or by subsequent rulemaking. Pursuant to the regulatory framework established by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, has been granted broad regulatory authority over “swaps,” which term has been defined in the Dodd-Frank Act and related CFTC rules to include interest rate derivatives such as the ones we may use in our interest rate hedging activities. While the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our interest rate hedging activities cannot be fully assessed until all final implementing rules and regulations are promulgated, the requirements of Title VII may affect our ability to enter into hedging or other risk management transactions, may increase our costs in entering into such transactions, and may result in us entering into such transactions on less favorable terms than prior to effectiveness of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, subject to an exception for end-users of swaps upon which we may seek to rely, we may be required to clear certain interest rate hedging transactions by submitting them to a derivatives clearing organization. In addition, to the extent we are required to clear any such transactions, we will be required to, among other things, post margin in connection with such transactions. The occurrence of any of the foregoing events may have an adverse effect on our business and our stockholders’ return.
Declines in the market values of our investments may adversely affect periodic reported results of operations and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, the returns to our stockholders.
A portion of our assets may be classified for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale.” These investments are carried at estimated fair value and temporary changes in the market values of those assets will be directly charged or credited to stockholders’ equity without impacting net income on our income statement. Moreover, if we determine that a decline in the estimated fair value of an available-for-sale security below its amortized value is other-than-temporary, we will recognize a loss on that security on our income statement, which will reduce our earnings in the period recognized.
A decline in the market value of our assets may adversely affect us, particularly in instances where we have borrowed money based on the market value of those assets. If the market value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we were unable to post the additional collateral, we may have to sell assets at a time when we might not otherwise have chosen to do so. A reduction in credit available may reduce our earnings and, in turn, the returns to our stockholders.
Further, credit facility providers have required and in the future may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash reserves or to set aside unleveraged assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position, which would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose, which could reduce our return on equity. In the event that we are unable to meet these contractual obligations, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.
Market values of our investments may decline for a number of reasons, such as changes in prevailing market rates, increases in defaults, increases in voluntary prepayments for our investments that are subject to prepayment risk, widening of credit spreads and downgrades of ratings of the securities by ratings agencies.
Our asset-specific loan loss reserve may not be sufficient to cover losses on loans we consider to be impaired.
Our asset-specific loan loss reserve relates to reserves for losses on loans considered impaired. We consider a loan to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, we believe that it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due under the contractual terms of the loan agreement or other documents relating to the loan. We also consider a loan to be impaired if we grant the borrower a concession through a modification of the loan terms or if we expect to receive assets (including equity interests in the borrower) in partial satisfaction of the loan. A reserve is established when the present value of payments expected to be received, observable market prices, the estimated fair value of the collateral (for loans that are dependent on the collateral for repayment) or amounts expected to be received in partial satisfaction of an impaired loan are lower than the carrying value of that loan. Our portfolio-based loan loss reserve is a reserve against all of the loans in our portfolio that are not specifically reserved. It is based on estimated probabilities of both term and maturity default and estimated loss severities for the portfolio. Our provision for loan losses of $2.1 million, all of which related to asset-specific loan loss reserves as of December 31, 2013, may not be sufficient to cover losses on these loans.
Risks Associated with Debt Financing
We incur and assume mortgage indebtedness, lines of credit and other borrowings, which increases our risk of loss due to potential foreclosure.
We obtain lines of credit and obtain or assume long-term financing that may be secured by our properties and other assets. We have acquired many of our real properties by financing a portion of the price of the properties and mortgaging or pledging some or all of the properties purchased as security for that debt, or by taking title to properties that already had been pledged as security for debt we assumed in connection with taking title to such properties. We may also incur mortgage debt on properties that we already own in order to obtain capital to fund property improvements and other capital expenditures, and for other purposes. In addition, we may be forced to try to borrow as necessary or advisable to ensure that we maintain our qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, including borrowings to satisfy the REIT requirement that we distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income to our stockholders (computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction and excluding net capital gain). However, we can give our stockholders no assurance that we will be able to obtain such borrowings on satisfactory terms or at all.
Mortgage debt or the assumption of mortgage debt as part of taking title to a property increases the risk of loss of a property since defaults on indebtedness secured by a property may result in lenders initiating foreclosure actions. In that case, we could lose the property securing the loan that is in default, reducing the value of our stockholders’ investment. For tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure even though we would not necessarily receive any cash proceeds. We have given and may give full or partial guarantees to lenders of mortgage or other debt on behalf of the entities that own our properties. When we give a guarantee on behalf of an entity that owns one of our properties, we will be responsible to the lender for satisfaction of all or a part of the debt or other amounts related to the debt if it is not paid by such entity. If any mortgages contain cross-collateralization or cross-default provisions, a default on a mortgage secured by a single property could affect mortgages secured by other properties. For information relating to our loans which are currently in default, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Contractual Commitments and Contingencies — Loan Maturities and Defaults.”
High mortgage rates or changes in underwriting standards may make it difficult for us to refinance properties, which could reduce our cash flows from operations and reduce the returns to our stockholders.
If mortgage debt is unavailable at reasonable rates, we run the risk of being unable to refinance part or all of our assets subject to such mortgage debt when the debt becomes due or of being unable to refinance on favorable terms. If interest rates are higher when we refinance properties, our income could be reduced. We may be unable to refinance or may only be able to partly refinance properties if underwriting standards, including loan to value ratios and yield requirements, among other requirements, are more strict than when we originally financed the properties. If any of these events occurs, our cash flow could be reduced and/or we might have to pay down existing mortgages. This, in turn, could cause us to require additional capital and may hinder our ability to raise capital by issuing more stock or by borrowing more money, reducing our stockholders’ overall returns.
Lenders have required and may continue to require us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to our operations, which could reduce the returns to our stockholders.
When providing financing, lenders have imposed, and in connection with future financings, may impose, restrictions on us that may reduce the returns to our stockholders and may affect our operating policies and our ability to incur additional debt. Loan agreements into which we enter may contain covenants that limit our ability to further mortgage a property or otherwise incur additional debt, or that prohibit us from discontinuing insurance coverage or replacing KBS Capital Advisors as our advisor. These or other limitations would decrease our operating flexibility and our ability to achieve our operating objectives.
Non-compliance with the financial covenants included in the documents evidencing our outstanding debt obligations may result in the lender imposing additional restrictions on our operations or constitute an event of default under such documents. Such events would harm our financial condition, results of operations and the return on our stockholders’ investment in us.
The documents evidencing our outstanding debt obligations typically include restrictive financial covenants, including that specified loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratios be maintained with respect to our financed properties before we can exercise certain rights under the documents relating to such properties. A breach of the financial covenants in these documents may result in the lender imposing additional restrictions on our operations, such as our ability to incur additional debt, or may allow the lender to impose cash traps with respect to cash flow from the property securing the loan. In addition, such a breach may constitute an event of default and the lender could require us to repay the debt immediately. If we fail to make such repayment in a timely manner, the lender may be entitled to take possession of any property securing the loan.
As of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, which we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, was out of debt service coverage compliance. As of December 31, 2013, the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan had an outstanding principal balance of $14.4 million and the carrying value of the property securing the loan was $6.9 million. As a result of such non-compliance, the servicer imposed a “cash trap” and has the right to replace the property manager of the property. Beginning in June 2013, we failed to meet the monthly debt service payment requirements of the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan and have defaulted on this loan. On or about August 20, 2013, the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings and is seeking a judgment against us in the amount of $13.2 million, together with additional interest, fees, charges and costs recoverable under the loan documents. Effective as of September 24, 2013, we and the lender agreed to the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the foreclosure proceedings. We expect the lender to attempt to exercise certain of its other rights under the loan and security documents.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the borrower under another loan, which we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (the “BBD2 Loan”), was alleged by the loan servicer to be out of debt service coverage compliance. As of December 31, 2013, the BBD2 Loan had an outstanding principal balance of $194.2 million. Such alleged non-compliance does not constitute an event of default under the applicable loan and security documents. However, as a result of such alleged non-compliance, the servicer has imposed a “cash trap” to restrict distributions to us to the budgeted property operating expenses and requires lender consent regarding the release of properties securing the loan. We are currently taking legal action against the servicer as we believe that the servicer failed to follow the terms of the loan agreement by miscalculating the operating income and expenses of the properties and the miscalculation led the servicer to incorrectly determine that the debt service ratio had fallen below the designated targets, which caused the “cash trap” to be triggered.
Certain of the mortgage loans that we assumed in connection with the transfers of the GKK Properties impose “cash traps”, which could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.
Certain mortgage loans that we assumed in connection with the transfers of the GKK Properties impose “cash traps” as a condition of the transfer of the loan or when the financial performance of the GKK Properties securing such loans fails to meet certain financial metrics. If enforced, these “cash traps” could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. If the provisions relating to “cash traps” in these mortgage loan documents are triggered, we may be required to fund excess cash flow into reserve accounts with our mortgage lenders until compliance with the required metrics is achieved. In such event, our liquidity will be negatively impacted, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. As of December 31, 2013, two of the lenders under the loans we assumed (the BBD2 Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan) had imposed a “cash trap” on the properties securing these loans, as described in the preceding paragraph.
Because of the long-term maturities, prepayment and defeasance penalties and fees and other restrictions of certain of our outstanding debt obligations secured by some of our real estate properties, including the GKK Properties, we may not be able to sell these real estate properties at the times and upon the terms that would maximize the proceeds generated by such sales to us, which could reduce our stockholders’ overall return.
As a result of the terms and conditions and, most significantly, the prepayment and defeasance penalties and fees, relating to certain of our debt obligations secured by our real estate properties, including some of the GKK Properties, we may be unable to sell such properties at the time or upon the terms we would prefer. Were we to sell any of these properties, the prepayment and defeasance penalties and fees could result in a significant reduction in net proceeds to us from the sale of the property. Thus, we may be forced to extend our hold period for these properties longer than we otherwise would in order to sell them after the expiration of these penalties and fees. Our inability to sell properties at the time and on the terms we want could reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Increases in interest rates would increase the amount of our debt payments and reduce the returns to our stockholders.
We have incurred variable rate debt and expect that we will incur additional debt in the future. Increases in interest rates will increase the cost of that debt, which could reduce our cash flows from operations and the returns to our stockholders. In addition, if we need to repay existing debt during periods of rising interest rates, we could be required to liquidate one or more of our investments at times that may not permit realization of the maximum return on such investments.
We have broad authority to incur debt and high debt levels could decrease the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Our policies do not limit us from incurring debt until our total liabilities would exceed 75% of the cost (before deducting depreciation or other noncash reserves) of our tangible assets (although restrictive covenants contained in certain loan documents related to debt we have incurred may not allow us to borrow up to this amount), and we may exceed this limit if the majority of the conflicts committee approves each borrowing in excess of our charter limitation and we disclose such borrowings to our stockholders in our next quarterly report with an explanation from the conflicts committee of the justification for the excess borrowing. As of December 31, 2013, our borrowings and other liabilities were approximately 54% of both the cost (before depreciation or other noncash reserves) and book value (before depreciation) of our tangible assets, respectively. High debt levels would cause us to incur higher interest charges and higher debt service payments and may also be accompanied by restrictive covenants. These factors could result in a decline in the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Federal Income Tax Risks
Failure to qualify as a REIT would reduce our net earnings available for distribution.
Our qualification as a REIT will depend upon our ability to meet requirements regarding our organization and ownership, distributions of our income, the nature and diversification of our income and assets and other tests imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. If we fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year after electing REIT status, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at corporate rates. In addition, we would generally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which we lost our REIT status. Losing our REIT status would reduce our net earnings available for distribution to stockholders because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions would no longer qualify for the dividends-paid deduction and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.
Failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to federal income tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We expect to operate in a manner that will allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. However, the federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis. While we intend to continue to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, including the tax treatment of certain investments we may make, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay federal income tax on our taxable income. We might need to borrow money or sell assets to pay that tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT were excused under federal tax laws, we would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost.
Our stockholders may have current tax liability on distributions they elected to reinvest in our common stock.
If our stockholders participated in our dividend reinvestment plan (which was terminated effective April 10, 2012), they will be deemed to have received, and for income tax purposes will be taxed on, the amount reinvested in shares of our common stock to the extent the amount reinvested was not a tax-free return of capital. In addition, our stockholders will be treated for tax purposes as having received an additional distribution to the extent the shares were purchased at a discount to fair market value, if any. As a result, unless our stockholders are tax-exempt entities, they may have to use funds from other sources to pay their tax liability on the value of the shares of common stock received.
Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we may be subject to other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we may be subject to some federal, state and local taxes on our income or property. For example:
| |
| • | In order to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders (which is determined without regard to the dividends-paid deduction or net capital gain). To the extent that we satisfy the distribution requirement but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on the undistributed income. |
| |
| • | We will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions we pay in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. |
| |
| • | If we have net income from the sale of foreclosure property that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business or other non-qualifying income from foreclosure property, we must pay a tax on that income at the highest corporate income tax rate. We elected foreclosure property status for the GKK Properties but do not believe such GKK Properties will be disposed of in a manner that results in this tax. |
| |
| • | If we sell an asset, other than foreclosure property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, our gain would be subject to the 100% “prohibited transaction” tax unless such sale were made by one of our taxable REIT subsidiaries. |
REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan.
We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, subject to certain adjustments and excluding any net capital gain, in order for federal corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed REIT taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.
From time to time, we may generate taxable income greater than our income for financial reporting purposes, or our taxable income may be greater than our cash flow available for distribution to stockholders (for example, where a borrower defers the payment of interest in cash pursuant to a contractual right or otherwise). If we do not have other funds available in these situations we could be required to borrow funds, sell investments at disadvantageous prices or find another alternative source of funds to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.
To maintain our REIT status, we may be forced to forego otherwise attractive opportunities, which may delay or hinder our ability to meet our investment objectives and reduce our stockholders’ overall return.
To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy certain tests on an ongoing basis concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, nature of our assets and the amounts we distribute to our stockholders. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at times when it would be more advantageous to reinvest cash in our business or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits and reduce the value of our stockholders’ investment.
Potential characterization of distributions or gain on sale may be treated as unrelated business taxable income to tax-exempt investors.
If (i) all or a portion of our assets are subject to the rules relating to taxable mortgage pools, (ii) we are a “pension-held REIT,” (iii) a tax-exempt stockholder has incurred debt to purchase or hold our common stock, or (iv) the residual Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit interests, or REMICs, we buy (if any) generate “excess inclusion income,” then a portion of the distributions to and, in the case of a stockholder described in clause (iii), gains realized on the sale of common stock by such tax-exempt stockholder may be subject to federal income tax as unrelated business taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code.
The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions that would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.
A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of assets, other than foreclosure property, deemed held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans at the REIT level, even though the sales might otherwise be beneficial to us.
It may be possible to reduce the impact of the prohibited transaction tax by conducting certain activities through taxable REIT subsidiaries. However, to the extent that we engage in such activities through taxable REIT subsidiaries, the income associated with such activities may be subject to full corporate income tax.
Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.
To qualify as a REIT, we must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.
Liquidation of assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.
To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets that are treated as dealer property or inventory.
Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.
The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under these provisions, any income that we generate from transactions intended to hedge our interest rate, inflation and/or currency risks will be excluded from gross income for purposes of the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests if the instrument hedges (i) interest rate risk on liabilities incurred to carry or acquire real estate or (ii) risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain that would be qualifying income under the REIT 75% or 95% gross income tests, and such instrument is properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations. Income from hedging transactions that do not meet these requirements will generally constitute nonqualifying income for purposes of both the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous, which could result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise incur.
We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes.
At any time, the federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended. We cannot predict when or if any new federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.
Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates.
The maximum tax rate for dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. While this tax treatment does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts or estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock.
The failure of a mezzanine loan to qualify as a real estate asset could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.
The IRS has issued Revenue Procedure 2003-65, which provides a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan that is secured by interests in a pass-through entity will be treated by the IRS as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT tests, and interest derived from such loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law. We made investments in loans secured by interests in pass-through entities in a manner than complies with the various requirements applicable to our qualification as a REIT. To the extent, however, that any such loans do not satisfy all of the requirements for reliance on the safe harbor set forth in Revenue Procedure, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge the tax treatment of such loans, which could jeopardize our ability to qualify as a REIT.
Retirement Plan Risks
If the fiduciary of an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA (such as a profit sharing, Section 401(k) or pension plan) or an owner of a retirement arrangement subject to Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code (such as an individual retirement account (“IRA”)) fails to meet the fiduciary and other standards under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code as a result of an investment in our stock, the fiduciary could be subject to penalties and other sanctions.
There are special considerations that apply to employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) (such as profit sharing, Section 401(k) or pension plans) and other retirement plans or accounts subject to Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code (such as an IRA) that invest in our shares. Fiduciaries and IRA owners that invest the assets of such a plan or account in our common stock should satisfy themselves that:
| |
| • | the investment is consistent with their fiduciary and other obligations under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code; |
| |
| • | the investment is made in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan or IRA, including the plan’s or account’s investment policy; |
| |
| • | the investment satisfies the prudence and diversification requirements of Sections 404(a)(1)(B) and 404(a)(1)(C) of ERISA and other applicable provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code; |
| |
| • | the investment in our shares, for which no public market currently exists, is consistent with the liquidity needs of the plan or IRA; |
| |
| • | the investment will not produce an unacceptable amount of “unrelated business taxable income” for the plan or IRA; |
| |
| • | our stockholders will be able to comply with the requirements under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to value the assets of the plan or IRA annually; and |
| |
| • | the investment will not constitute a prohibited transaction under Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code. |
With respect to the annual valuation requirements described above, we will provide an estimated value for our shares annually. We can make no claim whether such estimated value will or will not satisfy the applicable annual valuation requirements under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. The Department of Labor or the Internal Revenue Service may determine that a plan fiduciary or an IRA custodian is required to take further steps to determine the value of our common stock. In the absence of an appropriate determination of value, a plan fiduciary or an IRA custodian may be subject to damages, penalties or other sanctions. See “—Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure — The estimated value per share of our common stock may not reflect the value that stockholders will receive for their investment.”
Failure to satisfy the fiduciary standards of conduct and other applicable requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code may result in the imposition of civil and criminal penalties and could subject the fiduciary to claims for damages or for equitable remedies, including liability for investment losses. In addition, if an investment in our shares constitutes a prohibited transaction under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code, the fiduciary or IRA owner who authorized or directed the investment may be subject to the imposition of excise taxes with respect to the amount invested. In addition, the investment transaction must be undone. In the case of a prohibited transaction involving an IRA owner, the IRA may be disqualified as a tax-exempt account and all of the assets of the IRA may be deemed distributed and subjected to tax. ERISA plan fiduciaries and IRA owners should consult with counsel before making an investment in our common stock.
| |
| ITEM 1B. | UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS |
We have no unresolved staff comments.
Real Estate Investments
As of December 31, 2013, our real estate portfolio consisted of 407 properties encompassing 10.7 million rentable square feet, excluding eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties that were held for sale. The properties are located in 31 states and include office, industrial and bank branch properties. As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio was 85% occupied and the average annualized base rent per square foot of our real estate portfolio was $15.33 per square foot. The weighted-average remaining lease term of our real estate portfolio was 5.4 years as of December 31, 2013. For a discussion of our real estate portfolio, see Part I, Item 1, “Business” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Portfolio Lease Expirations
The following table reflects lease expirations of our 407 properties, excluding the eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and the 12 properties that were held for sale, as of December 31, 2013:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Year of Expiration | | Number of Leases Expiring | | Annualized Base Rent (in thousands) (1) | | % of Portfolio Annualized Base Rent Expiring | | Leased Rentable Square Feet Expiring | | % of Portfolio Leased Rentable Square Feet Expiring |
| Month-to-Month | | 53 |
| | $ | 590 |
| | 0.4 | % | | 107,705 |
| | 1.2 | % |
| 2014 | | 59 |
| | 10,883 |
| | 7.9 | % | | 491,247 |
| | 5.4 | % |
| 2015 | | 65 |
| | 10,795 |
| | 7.8 | % | | 578,103 |
| | 6.4 | % |
| 2016 | | 86 |
| | 13,401 |
| | 9.7 | % | | 1,016,784 |
| | 11.3 | % |
| 2017 | | 87 |
| | 16,418 |
| | 11.9 | % | | 749,683 |
| | 8.3 | % |
| 2018 | | 56 |
| | 6,900 |
| | 5.0 | % | | 341,110 |
| | 3.8 | % |
| 2019 | | 164 |
| | 31,227 |
| | 22.5 | % | | 3,526,107 |
| | 39.1 | % |
| 2020 | | 23 |
| | 5,407 |
| | 3.9 | % | | 179,642 |
| | 2.0 | % |
| 2021 | | 19 |
| | 10,145 |
| | 7.3 | % | | 579,734 |
| | 6.4 | % |
| 2022 | | 14 |
| | 10,508 |
| | 7.6 | % | | 353,430 |
| | 3.9 | % |
| 2023 | | 99 |
| | 8,395 |
| | 6.1 | % | | 507,506 |
| | 5.6 | % |
Thereafter (2) | | 44 |
| | 13,711 |
| | 9.9 | % | | 596,788 |
| | 6.6 | % |
| Total | | 769 |
| | $ | 138,380 |
| | 100.0 | % | | 9,027,839 |
| | 100.0 | % |
_____________________
(1) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
(2) Represents leases expiring at various dates from 2024 through 2027.
We have assumed several leases related to the GKK Properties which contain shedding rights provisions. As of December 31, 2013, these shedding rights totaled approximately 0.3 million square feet and can be exercised at various dates during 2014 through 2016.
Concentration of Credit Risks
As of December 31, 2013, our highest tenant industry concentration (greater than 10% of our annualized base rent), excluding properties held for non-sale disposition and properties held for sale, was as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Industry | | Number of Tenants | | Annualized
Base Rent (1) (in thousands) | | Percentage of Annualized Base Rent |
| Finance | | 69 |
| | $ | 63,131 |
| | 45.6 | % |
_____________________
(1) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
As of December 31, 2013, no other tenant industries accounted for more than 10% of our annualized base rent.
As of December 31, 2013, we had a concentration of credit risk related to leases, with the following tenant that represented more than 10% of our annualized base rent (excluding annualized base rent generated by the eight properties that were held for non-sale disposition and the 12 properties that are held for sale):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Annualized Base Rent Statistics | | |
| Tenant | | Property | | Tenant Industry | | Rentable Square Feet | | % of Portfolio Rentable
Sq. Ft.
Leased (1) | | Annualized Base Rent (2) (in thousands) | | % of Portfolio Annualized Base Rent (1) | | Annualized Base Rent per Square Foot | | Lease Expirations |
| Bank of America, N.A. | | Various | | Finance | | 3,243,129 | | 30.4 | % | | $ | 28,589 |
| | 20.7 | % | | $ | 8.82 |
| | (3) |
_____________________
(1) Excludes properties held for non-sale disposition and properties held for sale.
(2) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
(3) As of December 31, 2013, lease expiration dates ranged from 2014 to 2026 with a weighted-average remaining term of 6.3 years. Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, some of Bank of America’s leases contained shedding rights provisions. These shedding rights totaled approximately 0.3 million square feet and can be exercised at various dates from 2014 through 2016.
From time to time, we are party to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Management is not aware of any legal proceedings of which the outcome is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Nor are we aware of any such legal proceedings contemplated by government authorities.
| |
| ITEM 4. | MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES |
Not applicable.
PART II
| |
| ITEM 5. | MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
Stockholder Information
As of March 3, 2014, we had approximately 189.4 million shares of common stock outstanding held by a total of approximately 42,000 stockholders. The number of stockholders is based on the records of DST Systems, Inc., which serves as our transfer agent.
Market Information
No public market currently exists for our shares of common stock, and we currently have no plans to list our shares on a national securities exchange. Until our shares are listed, if ever, our stockholders may not sell their shares unless the buyer meets the applicable suitability and minimum purchase requirements. In addition, our charter prohibits the ownership of more than 9.8% of our stock by a single person, unless exempted by our board of directors. Consequently, there is the risk that our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares at a time or price acceptable to them.
We are providing this estimated value per share to assist broker-dealers that participated in our initial public offering in meeting their customer account statement reporting obligations under the National Association of Securities Dealers Conduct Rule 2340 as required by FINRA. This valuation was performed in accordance with the provisions of Practice Guideline 2013–01, Valuations of Publicly Registered, Non-Listed REITs issued by the IPA in April 2013. For this purpose, we estimated the value of the shares of our common stock as $4.45 per share as of December 31, 2013. This estimated value per share is based on our board of directors’ approval on December 18, 2013 of an estimated value per share of our common stock of $4.45 based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities, or net asset value, divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. There were no material changes between (i) September 30, 2013 with respect to our other assets and our liabilities and November 30, 2013 with respect to our appraised real estate properties and (ii) December 19, 2013 to the net values of our assets and liabilities that impacted the overall estimated value per share, with the exception of the declaration and payment of a distribution to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013, and subsequently paid on December 5, 2013, in the aggregate amount of $75.0 million, or $0.3950 per share of common stock. This distribution was funded from the proceeds from the sales of real estate. The impact of this distribution is reflected in the estimated value per share above, and excluding the impact of this distribution, our estimated value per share of common stock would be $4.85.
The conflicts committee, composed of all of our independent directors, is responsible for the oversight of the valuation process, including the review and approval of the valuation process and methodology used to determine our estimated value per share, the consistency of the valuation and appraisal of methodologies with real estate industry standards and practices and the reasonableness of the assumptions used in the valuations and appraisals. The estimated value per share was based upon the recommendation and valuation of our advisor. Our advisor’s recommendation and valuation of our real estate properties was based on either (i) appraisals of certain of our real estate properties performed by Duff & Phelps, LLC (“Duff & Phelps”), an independent third-party real estate valuation firm, and based on the methodologies and assumptions described further below; or (ii) the contractual sales prices less actual or estimated closing costs in the case of properties that were under contract to sell as of December 18, 2013 or properties sold between September 30, 2013 and December 18, 2013.
We engaged Duff & Phelps to provide appraisals for our historical real estate properties, except for one property that was sold subsequent to September 30, 2013. In addition, we engaged Duff & Phelps to perform appraisals for all but 11 of the GKK properties. The 11 GKK properties not valued by Duff & Phelps either were under contract to sell as of December 18, 2013 or were sold subsequent to September 30, 2013. Duff & Phelps prepared appraisal reports summarizing key inputs and assumptions of its appraisals.
Our advisor used the appraisals of our real estate properties prepared by Duff & Phelps, together with our advisor’s valuation of each of our other assets and liabilities, to calculate and recommend an estimated value per share of our common stock. Upon the conflicts committee’s receipt and review of our advisor’s valuation report, including our advisor’s summary of the appraisal reports prepared by Duff & Phelps and our advisor’s estimated value of each of our other assets and liabilities, and in light of other factors considered by the conflicts committee and the conflicts committee’s own extensive knowledge of our assets and liabilities, the conflicts committee concluded that the estimated value per share proposed by our advisor was reasonable and recommended to the board of directors that it adopt $4.45 as the estimated value per share of our common stock. At a special meeting of the board of directors, the board of directors unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation of the conflicts committee and approved $4.45 as the estimated value per share of common stock, which determination is ultimately and solely the responsibility of the board of directors.
The table below sets forth the calculation of our estimated value per share as of December 18, 2013 as well as the calculation of our prior estimated value per share as of December 18, 2012:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | December 18, 2013 Estimated Value per Share | | December 18, 2012 Estimated Value per Share (3) | | Change in Estimated Value per Share |
Real estate properties - historical (1) | | $ | 3.66 |
| | $ | 4.51 |
| | $ | (0.85 | ) |
| Real estate held for sale | | 0.48 |
| | — |
| | 0.48 |
|
Real estate - GKK properties (including properties held for sale) (1) | | 4.05 |
| | 8.92 |
| | (4.87 | ) |
| Foreclosed real estate held for sale | | 0.11 |
| | 0.14 |
| | (0.03 | ) |
Real estate loans receivable | | 0.13 |
| | 0.13 |
| | — |
|
| Real estate securities | | 0.10 |
| | — |
| | 0.10 |
|
| Pledged government securities | | — |
| | 0.46 |
| | (0.46 | ) |
| Investments in joint ventures | | 0.15 |
| | 0.13 |
| | 0.02 |
|
| Cash and restricted cash | | 1.13 |
| | 1.17 |
| | (0.04 | ) |
| Other assets | | 0.59 |
| | 0.17 |
| | 0.42 |
|
Mortgage and other debt obligations (2) | | (5.17 | ) | | (9.92 | ) | | 4.75 |
|
| Other liabilities | | (0.38 | ) | | (0.53 | ) | | 0.15 |
|
| Estimated value per share prior to December 5, 2013 distribution payment | | $ | 4.85 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| | $ | (0.33 | ) |
| Estimated enterprise value premium | | None assumed |
| | None assumed |
| | None assumed |
|
| Distributions paid on December 5, 2013 | | $ | (0.40 | ) | | $ | — |
| | $ | (0.40 | ) |
| Total estimated value per share | | $ | 4.45 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| | $ | (0.73 | ) |
_____________________
(1) The decrease in value was primarily due to real estate property sales and to an overall decrease in the value of the remaining real estate properties.
(2) The decrease in mortgage and other debt obligations was primarily due to the repayment of principal related to asset sales and ongoing principal amortization payments. The decrease was partially offset by an increase in the mortgage debt fair value as discussed in note (2) of the table below.
(3) The December 18, 2012 estimated value per share was based upon the recommendation and valuation of our advisor. We engaged Duff & Phelps to review the assumptions and methodologies applied by our advisor in our advisor’s real estate valuation in accordance with a set of limited procedures and to perform valuations for the majority of the GKK properties. For more information relating to the December 18, 2012 estimated value per share and the assumptions and methodologies applied by our advisor and Duff & Phelps’ valuation of the GKK properties, see our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 19, 2012.
The decrease in our estimated value per share from the previous estimate was primarily due to the items noted below, which reflect the major contributors to the decrease in the estimated value per share from $5.18 to $4.45. The changes are not equal to the change in values of each asset and liability group presented in the table above due to asset sales, loan payments and other factors, which caused the value of certain asset or liability groups to change with no impact to our fair value of equity or the overall estimated value per share. The decrease in our estimated value per share was due to the following:
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | Change in Estimated Value (in thousands) | | Change in Estimated Value per Share | |
| Distributions paid on December 5, 2013 | | $ | (75,016 | ) | | $ | (0.40 | ) | |
| Real estate investments (including historical and GKK properties) | | (33,791 | ) | | (0.18 | ) | (1) |
| Capital expenditures on real estate (including historical and GKK properties) | | (25,333 | ) | | (0.13 | ) | |
| Mortgage debt | | (22,584 | ) | | (0.12 | ) | (2) |
| Real estate securities | | 10,263 |
| | 0.05 |
| (3) |
| Undistributed operating cash flows | | 13,439 |
| | 0.07 |
| (4) |
| Other changes, net | | (5,551 | ) | | (0.02 | ) | (5) |
| | | $ | (138,573 | ) | | $ | (0.73 | ) | (6) |
_____________________
(1) Includes one historical real estate property that was sold subsequent to September 30, 2013 and 11 GKK properties that were under contract to sell as of December 18, 2013 or were sold subsequent to September 30, 2013. The estimated values for the properties sold or under contract to sell were based on contractual sales price less actual or estimated closing costs.
(2) The change in the value of the notes payable is due to the notes being one year closer to maturity (based on the fair value methodology, the value of the notes payable accrete towards their face value as they get closer to maturity) and due to changes in market interest rates assumed in valuing the notes payable as compared to prior year.
(3) The change in value of the real estate securities is based on the gain on sale of 1,294,102 shares of common stock of Gramercy Property Trust, Inc. (“Gramercy”), the unrealized gain on the outstanding 2,705,898 shares of Gramercy common stock held by us as of September 30, 2013 and the unrealized gain on two million shares of Class B-2 non-voting common stock of Gramercy (which were converted to two million shares of common stock of Gramercy on December 6, 2013) adjusted for lack of marketability as of September 30, 2013.
(4) Amount includes operating cash flows from real estate properties that were under contract to sell as of December 18, 2013 or were sold subsequent to September 30, 2013, which may not provide future operating cash flows.
(5) “Other changes, net” consists of various unrelated insignificant items.
(6) The reconciliation of total change in estimated value does not reflect $6.2 million used to fulfill redemption requests in accordance with our share redemption program, as such redemptions resulted in no change to the estimated value per share because, while the gross net asset value was reduced by the $6.2 million of redemptions, it also resulted in a corresponding decrease in the number of shares outstanding.
As with any valuation methodology, the methodologies used are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Different parties with different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, and these differences could be significant. The estimated value per share is not audited and does not represent the fair value of our assets less our liabilities according to GAAP, nor does it represent a liquidation value of our assets and liabilities or the amount our shares of common stock would trade at on a national securities exchange. The estimated value per share does not reflect a discount for the fact that we are externally managed, nor does it reflect a real estate portfolio premium/discount versus the sum of the individual property values. The estimated value per share also does not take into account estimated disposition costs and fees for real estate properties that are not held for sale, debt prepayment penalties or defeasance costs that could apply upon the prepayment of certain of our debt obligations or the impact of restrictions on the assumption of debt. As of December 18, 2013, we had no potentially dilutive securities outstanding that would impact the estimated value per share of our common stock.
Methodology
Our goal in calculating an estimated value per share is to arrive at a value that is reasonable and supportable using what we and our advisor deem to be appropriate valuation methodologies and assumptions and a process that is in compliance with the valuation guidelines established by the IPA. The following is a summary of the valuation and appraisal methodologies used to value our assets and liabilities:
Real Estate
Independent Valuation Firm: Duff & Phelps(1) was selected by our advisor and approved by our conflicts committee and board of directors to appraise 20 of our historical real estate properties and 406 GKK properties. Duff & Phelps is engaged in the business of appraising commercial real estate properties and is not affiliated with us or our advisor. The compensation we pay to Duff & Phelps is based on the scope of work and not on the appraised values of our real estate properties. The appraisals were performed in accordance with the Code of Ethics and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, or USPAP, the real estate appraisal industry standards created by The Appraisal Foundation, as well as the requirements of the state where each real estate property is located. Each appraisal was reviewed, approved and signed by an individual with the professional designation of MAI (Member of the Appraisal Institute). The use of the reports is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. In preparing its appraisal reports, Duff & Phelps did not, and was not requested to, solicit third party indications of interest for our common stock in connection with possible purchases thereof or the acquisition of all or any part of us.
Duff & Phelps collected all reasonably available material information that it deemed relevant in appraising our real estate properties. Duff & Phelps relied in part on property-level information provided by our advisor, including (i) property historical and projected operating revenues and expenses; (ii) property lease agreements; and (iii) information regarding recent or planned capital expenditures.
In conducting its investigation and analyses, Duff & Phelps took into account customary and accepted financial and commercial procedures and considerations as it deemed relevant. Although Duff & Phelps reviewed information supplied or otherwise made available by us or our advisor for reasonableness, it assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of all such information and of all information supplied or otherwise made available to it by any other party and did not independently verify any such information. With respect to operating or financial forecasts and other information and data provided to or otherwise reviewed by or discussed with Duff & Phelps, Duff & Phelps assumed that such forecasts and other information and data were reasonably prepared in good faith on bases reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of our management, board of directors and/or our advisor. Duff & Phelps relied on us to advise it promptly if any information previously provided became inaccurate or was required to be updated during the period of its review.
_____________________
(1) Duff & Phelps is actively engaged in the business of appraising commercial real estate properties similar to those owned by us in connection with public securities offerings, private placements, business combinations and similar transactions. We engaged Duff & Phelps to deliver appraisal reports with respect to certain of our properties and Duff & Phelps will receive fees upon the delivery of such reports. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify Duff & Phelps against certain liabilities arising out of this engagement. In the two years prior to December 18, 2013, Duff & Phelps and its affiliates have provided a number of commercial real estate, appraisal and valuation services for us and our affiliates and have received fees in connection with such services. In connection with prior valuations of our shares, we engaged Duff & Phelps to provide valuations of certain of our properties and to provide a review, based on a limited set of procedures, of the methodologies and assumptions used by our advisor in valuing certain properties. Duff & Phelps and its affiliates may from time to time in the future perform other commercial real estate, appraisal, valuation and financial advisory services for us and our affiliates in transactions related to the properties that are the subjects of the valuations and appraisals, so long as such other services do not adversely affect the independence of the applicable Duff & Phelps appraiser as certified in the applicable appraisal and valuation reports.
In performing its analyses, Duff & Phelps made numerous other assumptions as of various points in time with respect to industry performance, general business, economic and regulatory conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond its control and our control, as well as certain factual matters. For example, unless specifically informed to the contrary, Duff & Phelps assumed that we have clear and marketable title to each real estate property appraised, that no title defects exist, that any improvements were made in accordance with law, that no hazardous materials are present or were present previously, that no deed restrictions exist, and that no changes to zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density or shape are pending or being considered. Furthermore, Duff & Phelps’ analyses, opinions and conclusions were necessarily based upon market, economic, financial and other circumstances and conditions existing as of or prior to the date of the appraisal, and any material change in such circumstances and conditions may affect Duff & Phelps’ analysis and conclusions. Duff & Phelps’ appraisal reports contain other assumptions, qualifications and limitations that qualify the analysis, opinions and conclusions set forth therein. Furthermore, the prices at which our real estate properties may actually be sold could differ from Duff & Phelps’ analyses.
Although Duff & Phelps considered any comments received from us or our advisor to its appraisal reports, the final appraised values of our real estate properties appraised by Duff & Phelps were determined by Duff & Phelps. The appraisal reports for our real estate properties appraised by Duff & Phelps are addressed solely to us to assist our advisor in calculating and recommending an updated estimated value per share of our common stock. The appraisal reports are not addressed to the public and may not be relied upon by any other person to establish an estimated value of our common stock and do not constitute a recommendation to any person to purchase or sell any shares of our common stock. In preparing its appraisal reports, Duff & Phelps did not solicit third-party indications of interest for our real estate properties. While Duff & Phelps is responsible for providing appraisals for our real estate properties, Duff & Phelps is not responsible for, did not calculate, and did not participate in, the determination of the estimated value per share of our common stock.
The foregoing is a summary of the standard assumptions, qualifications and limitations that generally apply to Duff & Phelps’ appraisal reports. All of the Duff & Phelps appraisal reports, including the analyses, opinions and conclusions set forth in such reports, are qualified by the assumptions, qualifications and limitations set forth in the respective appraisal reports.
Historical Real Estate Properties: As of September 30, 2013, we owned 21 real estate properties (excluding the GKK properties) consisting of office and industrial properties. We engaged Duff & Phelps to provide appraisals for these historical investments, with the exception of one property that was sold subsequent to September 30, 2013 and was valued based on the sales price less estimated closing costs. Duff & Phelps appraised the other 20 of our historical real estate properties, using various methodologies including the direct capitalization approach, 10-year discounted cash flow analyses and sales comparison approach and relied primarily on 10-year discounted cash flow analyses for the final appraisals of each of these 20 historical real estate properties. Duff & Phelps calculated the discounted cash flow value of these 20 historical real estate properties using property level cash flow estimates, terminal capitalization rates and discount rates that fall within ranges it believes would be used by similar investors to value the properties we own based on recent comparable market transactions, adjusted for unique property and market-specific factors.
The total appraised value of our 20 historical real estate properties appraised by Duff & Phelps using the valuation methods described above was $708.9 million. The estimated value for the historical real estate property sold subsequent to September 30, 2013 was $78.3 million. Based on all of the information obtained from these various sources the estimated value of the 21 historical real estate properties was $787.2 million, compared to a total cost basis, including acquisition fees and expenses and capital expenditures through September 30, 2013, of $1,024.6 million.
The following summarizes the key assumptions that Duff & Phelps used in the 10-year discounted cash flow models to appraise these 20 historical real estate properties:
|
| | | |
| | Range in Values | | Weighted-Average Basis |
| Terminal capitalization rate | 6.25% to 8.75% | | 7.31% |
| Discount rate | 7.25% to 11.0% | | 8.08% |
Annual net operating income growth rate (1) | (0.6)% to 10.3% | | 5.38% |
_____________________
(1) The net operating income compounded annual growth rates (the “CAGRs”) reflect both the contractual and market rents (in cases where the contractual lease period is less than the hold period) net of expenses over the holding period. The range of CAGRs shown is the constant annual rate at which the net operating income is projected to grow to reach the net operating income in the final year of the hold period for each of the properties.
While we believe that Duff & Phelps’ assumptions and inputs are reasonable, a change in these assumptions and inputs would change the appraised value of our real estate properties and thus, our estimated value per share. The table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the terminal capitalization rates or discount rates were adjusted by 25 basis points, and assuming all other factors remain unchanged, with respect to the 20 real estate properties referenced in the table above. Additionally, the table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the terminal capitalization rates or discount rates were adjusted by 5% in accordance with the IPA guidance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Increase (Decrease) on the Estimated Value per Share due to |
| | | Decrease of 25 basis points | | Increase of 25 basis points | | Decrease of 5% | | Increase of 5% |
| Terminal capitalization rates | | $ | 0.09 |
| | $ | (0.08 | ) | | $ | 0.13 |
| | $ | (0.11 | ) |
| Discount rates | | 0.07 |
| | (0.07 | ) | | 0.12 |
| | (0.12 | ) |
GKK Properties: As of September 30, 2013, the GKK properties (including 21 properties that were held for sale and seven properties that were held for non-sale disposition) consisted of 417 bank branch properties, office buildings, operations centers and other properties. We engaged Duff & Phelps to provide appraisals for 406 of the GKK properties. The total appraised value for these 406 GKK properties totaled $756.0 million. With respect to 11 GKK properties that were under contract to sell as of December 18, 2013 or were sold subsequent to September 30, 2013, the estimated value was based on contractual sale prices, net of actual or expected selling costs. The estimated value for these 11 GKK properties was $13.0 million. Based on all of the information obtained from these various sources, the estimated value of the GKK properties was $769.0 million, compared to a total cost basis, including capital expenditures through September 30, 2013, of $752.8 million.
Duff & Phelps appraised 352 of the GKK properties using the direct capitalization method, which applies a current market capitalization rate to the properties’ net operating income. In cases where a property was not stabilized, the estimated value was based on a stabilized property reduced for capital costs that would be incurred to lease up the property. The following summarizes the key assumption that was used to appraise these 352 GKK properties:
|
| | |
| Range in Direct Capitalization Rate | | Weighted-Average Direct Capitalization Rate |
| 5.50% to 11.50% | | 8.01% |
While we believe that Duff & Phelps’ assumptions and inputs are reasonable, a change in these assumptions and inputs would change the appraised value of the 352 GKK properties that Duff & Phelps valued using the direct capitalization method and thus, our estimated value per share. The table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the direct capitalization rates were adjusted by 25 basis points, and assuming all other factors remain unchanged, with respect to the 352 GKK properties valued by Duff & Phelps using the direct capitalization method. Additionally, the table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the capitalization rates were adjusted by 5% in accordance with the IPA guidance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Increase (Decrease) on the Estimated Value per Share due to |
| | | Decrease of 25 basis points | | Increase of 25 basis points | | Decrease of 5% | | Increase of 5% |
| Capitalization rates | | $ | 0.12 |
| | $ | (0.12 | ) | | $ | 0.20 |
| | $ | (0.18 | ) |
Duff & Phelps appraised 25 of the GKK properties by performing a 10-year discounted cash flow analysis. The following table summarizes the key assumptions that were used by Duff & Phelps in the discounted cash flow models to appraise these 25 GKK properties:
|
| | | |
| | Range in Values | | Weighted-Average Basis |
| Terminal capitalization rate | 6.50% to 9.25% | | 8.82% |
| Discount rate | 7.00% to 11.50% | | 10.70% |
Annual net operating income growth rate (1) | (3.01)% to 41.36% | | 4.03% |
_____________________
(1) The net operating income CAGRs reflect both the contractual and market rents (in cases where the contractual lease period is less than the hold period) net of expenses over the holding period. The range of CAGRs shown is the constant annual rate at which the net operating income is projected to grow to reach the net operating income in the final year of the hold period for each of the properties.
While we believe that Duff & Phelps’ assumptions and inputs are reasonable, a change in these assumptions and inputs would change the appraised value of these 25 GKK properties and, thus our estimated value per share. The table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the terminal capitalization rates or discount rates were adjusted by 25 basis points, and assuming all other factors remain unchanged, with respect to the 25 GKK properties valued by Duff & Phelps using the discounted cash flow analysis. Additionally, the table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the terminal capitalization rates or discount rates were adjusted by 5% in accordance with the IPA guidance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Increase (Decrease) on the Estimated Value per Share due to |
| | | Decrease of 25 basis points | | Increase of 25 basis points | | Decrease of 5% | | Increase of 5% |
| Terminal capitalization rates | | $ | 0.01 |
| | $ | (0.01 | ) | | $ | 0.01 |
| | $ | (0.01 | ) |
| Discount rates | | 0.01 |
| | (0.01 | ) | | 0.02 |
| | (0.01 | ) |
The remaining 29 GKK properties were appraised by Duff & Phelps using a present value cash flow analysis as we do not have a fee ownership interest in these GKK properties (with the exception of one vacant building with a long-term ground lease), but instead holds leasehold interests in the properties.
Finally, each 1% change in the appraised or estimated value of real estate, including both historical REIT properties and GKK properties, would result in a change of $0.08 to our estimated value per share.
Foreclosed Real Estate Held-for-Sale: The estimated value for our foreclosed condos held-for-sale is equal to their book value of $21.5 million as of September 30, 2013, which our advisor believes approximates net realizable value. Our advisor believes the book value of the foreclosed condos held-for-sale is fully recoverable upon the sales of the condos.
Real Estate Loans Receivable: The estimated values for our real estate loans receivable are equal to the GAAP fair values disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013, but do not equal the book value of the loans in accordance with GAAP. The values of the real estate loans receivable were estimated by applying a discounted cash flow analysis over the remaining expected lives of the investments, excluding any potential transaction costs. The cash flow estimates used in the analysis during the term of the investments were based on the investments’ contractual cash flows, which we anticipate we will receive. The expected cash flows for the loans were discounted at rates that we expect a market participant would require for instruments with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value ratios, type of collateral, current performance, credit enhancements and other factors.
As of September 30, 2013, we owned four real estate loans receivable, consisting of a mortgage loan, a mezzanine loan and two B-notes. The cost of our real estate loans receivable, including origination fees and costs but excluding principal repayments, was $28.0 million. As of September 30, 2013, the fair value of our investments in real estate loans receivable was $25.5 million. The weighted-average discount rate applied to the cash flows from the real estate loans receivable, which have a weighted-average remaining term of 2.8 years, was approximately 15.0%. Similar to the valuation for real estate, a change in the assumptions and inputs would change the fair value of our real estate loans receivable and thus, our estimated value per share. Assuming all other factors remain unchanged, a decrease or increase in the discount rates of 25 basis points would have no impact on the estimated value per share. Additionally, a 5% decrease or increase in the discount rates would have no impact on the estimated value per share.
Real Estate Securities: The estimated value of our real estate securities of $19.3 million is equal to the GAAP fair value disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013.
Participation Interest in Unconsolidated Joint Venture: As of September 30, 2013, we held an interest in an unconsolidated joint venture through which we have been granted a participation interest in certain future profits generated by the joint venture. Our advisor estimated the value of our participation interest in this unconsolidated joint venture using a discounted cash flow analysis of the expected distributions to us. The cash flow estimates used in the analysis were based on our participation interest in the estimated cash flows available after paying debt service and making distributions to the other joint venture members until such members have received distributions sufficient to recover the entire amount of their invested capital plus a stipulated return. The cash flow estimates of the joint venture were reviewed by our advisor. As of September 30, 2013, the carrying value and estimated fair value of our investment in this unconsolidated joint venture were $0 and $28.0 million, respectively. The estimated value of our unconsolidated joint venture for purposes of our estimated value per share was calculated by applying a 12% discount rate to the estimated cash flows for a total value of $0.15 per share. Assuming all other factors remain unchanged, a decrease or increase in the discount rate of 25 basis points would have no impact on the estimated value per share. Additionally, a 5% decrease or increase in the discount rates would have no impact on the estimated value per share.
Notes Payable: The estimated values of our notes payable are equal to the GAAP fair values as disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2013, but do not equal the book value of the loans in accordance with GAAP. The values of our notes payable were determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. The cash flows were based on the remaining loan terms, including extensions we expect to be exercised, and the discount rates were based on management’s estimates of current market interest rates for instruments with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value ratio and type of collateral.
As of September 30, 2013, the fair value and carrying value of our notes payable were $981.7 million and $974.7 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate applied to the future estimated debt payments, which have a weighted-average remaining term of 4.4 years, was approximately 5.1%. The table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the discount rates were adjusted by 25 basis points, and assuming all other factors remain unchanged, with respect to our notes payable. Additionally, the table below illustrates the impact on the estimated value per share if the discount rates were adjusted by 5% in accordance with the IPA guidance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Increase (Decrease) on the Estimated Value per Share due to |
| | | Decrease of 25 basis points | | Increase of 25 basis points | | Decrease of 5% | | Increase of 5% |
| Discount rates | | $ | (0.03 | ) | | $ | 0.03 |
| | $ | (0.02 | ) | | $ | 0.02 |
|
Other Assets and Liabilities: The carrying values of a majority of our other assets and liabilities are considered to equal their fair values due to their short maturities or liquid nature. Certain balances, such as straight-line rent receivables, lease intangible assets and liabilities, deferred financing costs, unamortized lease commissions and unamortized lease incentives have been eliminated for the purpose of the valuation due to the fact that the value of those balances was already considered in the valuation of the respective investments. Additionally, we excluded other net assets of approximately $4.8 million from the valuation related to certain real estate properties for which the estimated value was less than the face amount of the related notes payable secured by such properties. We believe that these properties may be foreclosed upon or otherwise turned over to the respective lenders in the near future and the value of the other assets may not ever be realized. Our advisor has also excluded redeemable common stock, as temporary equity does not represent a true liability to us and the shares that this amount represents are included in our total outstanding shares of common stock for purposes of calculating the estimated value per share of our common stock.
Different parties using different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, and these differences could be significant. The value of our shares will fluctuate over time in response to developments related to individual assets in our portfolio and the management of those assets and in response to the real estate and finance markets.
Limitations of Estimated Value Per Share
As mentioned above, we are providing this estimated value per share to assist broker dealers that participated in our initial public offering in meeting their customer account statement reporting obligations. As with any valuation methodology, the methodologies used are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Different parties with different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share. The estimated value per share is not audited and does not represent the fair value of our assets or liabilities according to GAAP.
Accordingly, with respect to the estimated value per share, we can give no assurance that:
| |
| • | a stockholder would be able to resell his or her shares at this estimated value; |
| |
| • | a stockholder would ultimately realize distributions per share equal to our estimated value per share upon liquidation of our assets and settlement of our liabilities or a sale of our company; |
| |
| • | our shares of common stock would trade at the estimated value per share on a national securities exchange; |
| |
| • | an independent third-party appraiser or other third-party valuation firm would agree with our estimated value per share; or |
| |
| • | the methodology used to estimate our value per share would be acceptable to FINRA or for compliance with ERISA reporting requirements. |
Further, the estimated value per share as of December 18, 2013 is based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013 with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. The value of our shares will fluctuate over time in response to developments related to individual assets in our portfolio and the management of those assets and in response to the real estate and finance markets. The estimated value per share does not reflect a discount for the fact that we are externally managed, nor does it reflect a real estate portfolio premium/discount versus the sum of the individual property values. The estimated value per share does not take into account estimated disposition costs and fees for real estate properties that are not held for sale, debt prepayment penalties or defeasance costs that could apply upon the prepayment of certain of our debt obligations or the impact of restrictions on the assumption of debt. We currently expect to utilize our advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, in accordance with the recommended IPA guidelines, but are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
Historical Estimated Values per Share
The historical reported estimated values per share of our common stock approved by our board of directors are set forth below:
|
| | | | |
| Estimated Value per Share | | Effective Date of Valuation | | Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission |
| $5.18 | | December 18, 2012 | | Current Report on Form 8-K, filed December 19, 2012 |
| $5.16 | | March 22, 2012 | | Current Report on Form 8-K, filed March 26, 2012 |
| $7.32 | | December 2, 2010 | | Current Report on Form 8-K, filed December 10, 2010 |
| $7.17 | | November 20, 2009 | | Current Report on Form 8-K, filed November 23, 2009 |
Distribution Information
We elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code and have operated as such beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 2006. To qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must meet certain organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction or net capital gain and which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP). Our board of directors may authorize distributions in excess of those required for us to maintain REIT status depending on our financial condition and such other factors as our board of directors deems relevant.
On November 6, 2013, our board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013. We paid this distribution on December 5, 2013. During 2012, we declared distributions based on daily record dates for each day during the period commencing January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2012. Distributions declared during 2013 and 2012, aggregated by quarter, are as follows (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2013 |
| | | 1st Quarter | | 2nd Quarter | | 3rd Quarter | | 4th Quarter | | Total |
| Total Distributions Declared | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 75,015 |
| | $ | 75,015 |
|
| Total Per Share Distribution | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 0.395 |
| | $ | 0.395 |
|
Annualized Rate Based on Purchase Price of $10.00 Per Share | | — | % | | — | % | | — | % | | (1) |
| | 3.95 | % |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2012 |
| | | 1st Quarter | | 2nd Quarter | | 3rd Quarter | | 4th Quarter | | Total |
| Total Distributions Declared | | $ | 16,227 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 16,227 |
|
| Total Per Share Distribution | | $ | 0.085 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 0.085 |
|
Annualized Rate Based on Purchase Price of $10.00 Per Share | | (2) |
| | — | % | | — | % | | — | % | | 0.85 | % |
(1) On November 6, 2013, our board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013.
(2) On March 20, 2012, our board of directors approved the suspension of monthly distribution payments.
The tax composition of our distributions declared for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 was as follows:
|
| | | | | | |
| | | 2013 | | 2012 |
| Ordinary Income | | — | % | | — | % |
| Capital Gain | | — | % | | — | % |
| Return of Capital | | 100 | % | | 100 | % |
| Total | | 100 | % | | 100 | % |
For more information with respect to our distributions paid, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Distributions.”
On March 20, 2012, our board of directors approved the suspension of monthly distribution payments in order to manage our reduced cash flows from operations and to redirect available funds to reduce our debt. Our primary concern was the repayment of certain debt obligations. Our focus in 2014 is to manage our existing investment portfolio, which includes strategically selling assets and exploring value-add opportunities for existing assets (primarily the GKK Properties), refinancing upcoming maturities and paying down debt and distributing available cash to stockholders. Reducing our debt will allow us to hold certain assets in our portfolio to improve their value and the returns to our stockholders. We plan to make certain strategic asset sales and, from time to time, may declare special distributions to our stockholders that would be funded with the net proceeds from those asset sales or from cash flow from other sources. We will continue our existing strategy of selling assets when we believe the assets have reached the stage that disposition will assist in improving returns to our investors.
As a result of general economic conditions over the last several years, our portfolio has experienced declines in cash flow from a number of our investments. Economic conditions have impacted our real estate investments resulting in a general decline in the occupancy of our portfolio, an important element to the continued growth of our portfolio, that has resulted in lower current cash flow. Tenant-specific issues, including bankruptcy and down sizing, have resulted in decreases in on our operating cash flow because these tenants have terminated their leases early, not renewed their leases or have not paid their contractual rent to us. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of increases in future rental concessions, including three or more months of free rent to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to sign new tenants, may result in additional decreases in cash flow. Asset sales over the past three years and expected future asset sales have resulted in and will result in further decreases in operating cash flow. In addition, we have experienced a decline in cash flow from our real estate-related investments, as current economic conditions have impacted the ability of some borrowers under our loans to make contractual interest payments to us. In particular, our investments in mezzanine and mortgage loans have been impacted as the operating performance and values of buildings directly or indirectly securing our investment positions have decreased from the date of our acquisition or origination of these investments. In such instances, some of the borrowers have not been able to refinance their debt to us or sell the collateral at a price sufficient to repay our note balances in full when they become due.
Due to these factors, we may not generate sufficient operating cash flow on a quarterly basis to fund our operations. If our cash flow from operations deteriorates, we will be more dependent on asset sales to fund our operations and for our liquidity needs. These factors could also reduce our stockholders’ overall investment return.
In connection with the change to our distribution policy, our board of directors terminated our dividend reinvestment plan effective April 10, 2012. In addition, our board of directors amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation, which was $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2013, and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program plan document. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved the same annual dollar limitation of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by the board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program. Based on historical redemption activity, we believe the $10.0 million redemption limitation for the calendar year 2014 will be sufficient for these special redemptions. During each calendar year, the annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program will be reviewed and adjusted from time to time, if necessary.
Our operating performance cannot be accurately predicted and may deteriorate in the future due to numerous factors, including those discussed under “Forward-Looking Statements,” Part I, Item 1, “Business — Market Outlook — Real Estate and Real Estate Finance Markets,” Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Those factors include: the future operating performance of our investments in the existing real estate and financial environment; the success and economic viability of our tenants; the ability of our borrowers and their sponsors to continue to make their debt service payments and/or to repay their loans upon maturity; our ability to refinance existing indebtedness at comparable terms; changes in interest rates on our variable rate debt obligations; our ability to sell assets to cover our liquidity needs; our ability to successfully operate and sell the GKK Properties given current economic conditions and the concentration of the GKK Properties in the financial services sector; the significant debt obligations we assumed with respect to the GKK Properties; and our advisor’s limited experience operating and selling bank branch properties.
Equity Compensation Plan
We have adopted an Employee and Independent Director Incentive Stock Plan to (i) furnish incentives to individuals chosen to receive share-based awards because we consider them capable of improving our operations and increasing our profits; (ii) encourage selected persons to accept or continue employment with our advisor; and (iii) increase the interest of our independent directors in our welfare through their participation in the growth in the value of our shares of common stock. The total number of shares of common stock we have reserved for issuance under the Employee and Independent Director Incentive Stock Plan is equal to 5% of our outstanding shares at any time, but not to exceed 10,000,000 shares. No awards have been granted under the plan as of March 7, 2014. We have no timetable for the grant of any awards under the Employee and Independent Director Incentive Stock Plan, and our board of directors has adopted a policy that prohibits grants of any awards of shares of common stock to any person under the Employee and Independent Director Stock Plan. Our Employee and Independent Director Incentive Stock Plan was approved prior to the commencement of our public offering by our board of directors and initial stockholder, KBS Capital Advisors, our advisor.
Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we did not sell any equity securities that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
Share Redemption Program
We have a share redemption program pursuant to which stockholders may only sell their shares to us in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). On March 20, 2012, our board of directors amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for these special redemptions. Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation and are further subject to the other limitations described in the share redemption program, including:
| |
| • | During each calendar year, redemptions sought in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined under the share redemption program) are limited to an annual amount determined by our board of directors. The annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program may be reviewed and adjusted from time to time during the year. The dollar limitation for calendar year 2013 was $10.0 million in the aggregate. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an annual dollar limitation of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by our board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program. |
| |
| • | During any calendar year, we may redeem no more than 5% of the weighted-average number of shares outstanding during the prior calendar year. |
| |
| • | We have no obligation to redeem shares if the redemption would violate the restrictions on distributions under Maryland law, which prohibits distributions that would cause a corporation to fail to meet statutory tests of solvency. |
We do not currently expect to have funds available for ordinary redemptions in the future.
On March 6, 2013, our board of directors approved an amended and restated share redemption program. Pursuant to the amended and restated share redemption program, we modified how we process eligible redemptions that result in a stockholder owning less than the minimum purchase requirement described in our currently effective, or the most recently effective, registration statement as such registration statement has been amended or supplemented (the “Minimum Purchase Requirement”). Specifically, if we cannot repurchase all shares presented for redemption in any month because of the limitations on redemptions set forth in the program, then we will honor redemption requests on a pro rata basis, except that if a pro rata redemption would result in a stockholder owning less than the Minimum Purchase Requirement, then we would redeem all of such stockholder’s shares. The amended and restated share redemption program became effective on April 12, 2013.
The complete amended and restated share redemption program plan document is filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 and is available at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.
The only redemptions we made under the share redemption program in 2013 were those that qualified as, and met the requirements for, special redemptions under our share redemption program, i.e., all redemptions under the program were made in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence.” In 2013, we fulfilled all redemption requests that qualified as special redemptions under the share redemption program with proceeds from the sale of properties in 2013 and 2012.
In accordance with our share redemption program, once we establish an estimated value per share, the redemption price for all stockholders whose shares are eligible for redemption is equal to the estimated value per share as of the applicable redemption date. On December 18, 2012, our board of directors approved an estimated value per share of our shares of common stock of $5.18 per share (unaudited), based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, all as of September 30, 2012. As such, the redemption price for all stockholders whose shares were eligible for redemption was $5.18 per share (unaudited) for redemption dates from December 2012 through November 2013.
On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an estimated value per share of our shares of common stock of $4.45 per share (unaudited), based on the estimated value of our assets less the estimated value of our liabilities, divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of our appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. Commencing with the December 2013 redemption date, the redemption price for all shares eligible for redemption is $4.45 per share (unaudited). For a full description of the methodologies used to value our assets and liabilities in connection with the calculation of the estimated value per share, see Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities — Market Information.” We currently expect to utilize our advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, but are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
During the year ended December 31, 2013 we redeemed shares pursuant to our share redemption program as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Month | | Total Number of Shares Redeemed (1) | | Average Price Paid Per Share | | Approximate Dollar Value of Shares Available That May Yet Be Redeemed Under the Program |
| January 2013 | | 141,953 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| February 2013 | | 38,146 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| March 2013 | | 116,598 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| April 2013 | | 108,108 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| May 2013 | | 80,634 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| June 2013 | | 110,574 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| July 2013 | | 174,526 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| August 2013 | | 118,130 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| September 2013 | | 98,840 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| October 2013 | | 159,210 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| November 2013 | | 160,233 |
| | $ | 5.18 |
| (2) | (3) |
| December 2013 | | 137,363 |
| | $ | 4.45 |
| (2) | (3) |
| Total | | 1,444,315 |
| | | | |
(1) We announced commencement of our share redemption program on April 6, 2006 and amendments to the program on August 16, 2006 (which amendment became effective on December 14, 2006), August 1, 2007 (which amendment became effective on September 13, 2007), August 14, 2008 (which amendment became effective on September 13, 2008), March 26, 2009 (which amendment became effective on April 26, 2009), May 13, 2009 (which amendment became effective on June 12, 2009), March 26, 2012 (which amendment became effective on April 25, 2012) and March 13, 2013 (which amendment became effective on April 12, 2013).
(2) In accordance with our share redemption program, the redemption price for all stockholders is equal to the most recent estimated value per share of our common stock as of the redemption date (described above).
(3) We limit the dollar value of shares that may be redeemed under our share redemption program as described above. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we redeemed $7.4 million of shares of common stock. The only redemptions we made under our share redemption program during the year ended December 31, 2013 were those that qualified as, and met the requirements for, special redemptions under our share redemption program, i.e., all redemptions under the program were made in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence.” For the year ended December 31, 2013, we fulfilled all redemption requests that qualified as special redemptions under our share redemption program. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an annual dollar limitation for redemptions of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014.
We may amend, suspend or terminate the program upon 30 days’ notice to our stockholders. We may provide this notice by including such information in a Current Report on Form 8-K or in our annual or quarterly reports, all publicly filed with the SEC, or by a separate mailing to our stockholders.
| |
| ITEM 6. | SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA |
The following selected financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto and Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” below (in thousands, except share and per share amounts):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | As of December 31, |
| | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2010 | | 2009 |
| Balance sheet data | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total real estate and real estate-related investments, net | | $ | 1,335,604 |
| | $ | 1,820,366 |
| | $ | 3,084,354 |
| | $ | 2,204,198 |
| | $ | 2,507,327 |
|
| Total assets | | 1,744,897 |
| | 2,303,555 |
| | 3,504,788 |
| | 2,433,390 |
| | 2,640,011 |
|
| Total notes payable and repurchase agreements | | 962,282 |
| | 1,320,533 |
| | 2,299,208 |
| | 1,479,015 |
| | 1,504,720 |
|
| Total liabilities | | 1,089,004 |
| | 1,522,140 |
| | 2,644,531 |
| | 1,548,506 |
| | 1,590,650 |
|
| Redeemable common stock | | 10,000 |
| | 10,000 |
| | 45,376 |
| | 45,382 |
| | 56,741 |
|
| Total KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. stockholders’ equity | | 645,893 |
| | 771,415 |
| | 814,881 |
| | 861,838 |
| | 987,833 |
|
| | | For the Years Ended December 31, |
| | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2010 | | 2009 |
| Operating data | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total revenues | | $ | 218,108 |
| | $ | 217,912 |
| | $ | 143,513 |
| | $ | 131,316 |
| | $ | 150,441 |
|
| (Loss) income from continuing operations | | (88,294 | ) | | (78,292 | ) | | (63,577 | ) | | 8,221 |
| | (158,588 | ) |
| (Loss) income from continuing operations per common share - basic and diluted | | $ | (0.46 | ) | | $ | (0.41 | ) | | $ | (0.34 | ) | | $ | 0.05 |
| | $ | (0.89 | ) |
| Net loss attributable to common stockholders | | (46,495 | ) | | (43,142 | ) | | (19,338 | ) | | (90,352 | ) | | (182,966 | ) |
| Net loss per common share, basic and diluted | | $ | (0.24 | ) | | $ | (0.23 | ) | | $ | (0.10 | ) | | $ | (0.50 | ) | | $ | (1.03 | ) |
| Other data | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cash flows provided by operating activities | | $ | 9,506 |
| | $ | 34,438 |
| | $ | 39,059 |
| | $ | 53,388 |
| | $ | 99,738 |
|
| Cash flows provided by investing activities | | 184,803 |
| | 888,678 |
| | 189,322 |
| | 166,931 |
| | 1,358 |
|
| Cash flows used in financing activities | | (237,496 | ) | | (722,529 | ) | | (326,298 | ) | | (123,840 | ) | | (91,306 | ) |
| Distributions declared | | $ | 75,015 |
| | $ | 16,227 |
| | $ | 98,776 |
| | $ | 95,761 |
| | $ | 108,811 |
|
Distributions declared per common share (1) | | 0.395 |
| | 0.085 |
| | 0.525 |
| | 0.525 |
| | 0.612 |
|
Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted | | 190,454,153 |
| | 191,547,385 |
| | 188,134,294 |
| | 182,437,352 |
| | 177,959,297 |
|
Reconciliation of funds from operations (2) | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net loss attributable to common stockholders | | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | (19,338 | ) | | $ | (90,352 | ) | | $ | (182,966 | ) |
| Depreciation of real estate assets | | 41,798 |
| | 43,040 |
| | 25,941 |
| | 17,414 |
| | 16,099 |
|
| Depreciation of real estate assets - discontinued operations | | 3,954 |
| | 27,353 |
| | 34,961 |
| | 25,721 |
| | 25,606 |
|
| Amortization of lease-related costs | | 33,777 |
| | 38,696 |
| | 24,818 |
| | 18,412 |
| | 28,385 |
|
| Amortization of lease-related costs - discontinued operations | | 2,730 |
| | 30,974 |
| | 24,318 |
| | 19,126 |
| | 50,221 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate | | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate - discontinued operations | | 8,975 |
| | 37,218 |
| | 45,744 |
| | 123,453 |
| | — |
|
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | | (378 | ) | | (127 | ) | | (134 | ) | | (2,011 | ) | | — |
|
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | | (47,997 | ) | | (53,691 | ) | | (5,141 | ) | | (5,646 | ) | | — |
|
| Gain on sale of real estate securities | | (10,470 | ) | | (25,456 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
Adjustments for noncontrolling interest - consolidated entity (3) | | — |
| | — |
| | (2,053 | ) | | (27,699 | ) | | (8,183 | ) |
| FFO | | $ | 26,084 |
| | $ | 86,747 |
| | $ | 135,949 |
| | $ | 78,418 |
| | $ | (70,838 | ) |
_____________________
(1) Distributions declared per common share assumes each share was issued and outstanding each day from January 1, 2009 through February 28, 2012 and was outstanding as of November 8, 2013. Distributions for the period from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 were based on daily record dates and calculated at a rate of $0.0019178 per share per day. Distributions for the period from July 1, 2009 through February 28, 2012 were based on daily record dates and calculated at a rate of $0.00143836 per share per day. On November 6, 2013, our board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013.
(2) We believe that funds from operations (“FFO”) is a beneficial indicator of the performance of an equity REIT. We compute FFO in accordance with the current National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”) definition. FFO represents net income, excluding gains and losses from sales of operating real estate assets (which can vary among owners of identical assets in similar conditions based on historical cost accounting and useful-life estimates), impairment losses on real estate assets, depreciation and amortization of real estate assets, and adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. In connection with NAREIT’s Accounting and Financial Standards Hot Topics, we are excluding impairment charges on real estate assets in our calculation of FFO. We have also restated FFO from prior periods to exclude these impairment charges. NAREIT believes that impairment charges on real estate assets are often early recognition of losses on prospective sales of properties, and therefore, the exclusion of these impairments is consistent with the exclusion of gains and losses recognized from the sales of real estate. Although these losses are included in the calculation of net income (loss), we have excluded these impairment charges in our calculation of FFO because impairments do not impact the current operating performance of our investments, and may or may not provide an indication of future operating performance. We believe FFO facilitates comparisons of operating performance between periods and among other REITs. However, our computation of FFO may not be comparable to other REITs that do not define FFO in accordance with the current NAREIT definition or that interpret the current NAREIT definition differently than we do. Our management believes that historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time. Since real estate values have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many industry investors and analysts have considered the presentation of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient by themselves. As a result, we believe that the use of FFO, together with the required GAAP presentations, provides a more complete understanding of our performance relative to our competitors and a more informed and appropriate basis on which to make decisions involving operating, financing, and investing activities.
FFO is a non-GAAP financial measure and does not represent net income as defined by GAAP. Net income as defined by GAAP is the most relevant measure in determining our operating performance because FFO includes adjustments that investors may deem subjective, such as adding back expenses such as depreciation and amortization. Accordingly, FFO should not be considered as an alternative to net income as an indicator of our operating performance.
(3) The noncontrolling interest holder’s share of our consolidated venture’s real estate depreciation was $1.7 million, $1.8 million and $2.0 million, respectively, in 2011, 2010 and 2009 . Its share of amortization of lease-related costs was $0.3 million, $1.2 million and $6.2 million, respectively, in 2011, 2010 and 2009.
| |
| ITEM 7. | MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the “Selected Financial Data” above and our accompanying consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. Also see “Forward-Looking Statements” preceding Part I, Part I, Item 1, “Business” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”
Overview
We are a Maryland corporation that was formed on June 13, 2005 to invest in a diverse portfolio of real estate properties and real estate-related investments. We elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2006 and we intend to operate in such a manner. We own substantially all of our assets and conduct our operations through our Operating Partnership, of which we are the sole general partner. Subject to certain restrictions and limitations, our business is managed by KBS Capital Advisors LLC (“KBS Capital Advisors”), our external advisor, pursuant to an advisory agreement. Our advisor owns 20,000 shares of our common stock. We have no paid employees.
On January 27, 2006, we launched our initial public offering of up to 200,000,000 shares of common stock in our primary offering and 80,000,000 shares of common stock under our dividend reinvestment plan. We ceased offering shares of common stock in our primary offering on May 30, 2008. We terminated our dividend reinvestment plan effective April 10, 2012. We sold 171,109,494 shares in our primary offering for gross offering proceeds of $1.7 billion and 28,306,086 shares under our dividend reinvestment plan for gross offering proceeds of $233.7 million.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 427 real estate properties (of which eight properties were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties were held for sale), including the GKK Properties. In addition, as of December 31, 2013, we owned four real estate loans receivable, a participation interest with respect to a real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units were owned by us and were held for sale.
On September 1, 2011, we, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, “KBS”), entered into a Collateral Transfer and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with, among other parties, GKK Stars Acquisition LLC (“GKK Stars”), the wholly owned subsidiary of Gramercy Property Trust, Inc. (“Gramercy”) that indirectly owned the Gramercy real estate portfolio, to effect the orderly transfer of certain assets and liabilities of the Gramercy real estate portfolio to KBS in satisfaction of certain debt obligations under a mezzanine loan owed by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy to KBS (the “GKK Mezzanine Loan”). The Settlement Agreement resulted in the transfer of the equity interests in certain subsidiaries of Gramercy (the “Equity Interests”) that indirectly owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 867 properties (the “GKK Properties”), consisting of 576 bank branch properties and 291 office buildings, operations centers and other properties. For a further discussion of the Settlement Agreement, the transfers of the GKK Properties and the debt related to these properties, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed with the SEC.
Our focus in 2014 is to manage our existing investment portfolio, including strategically selling assets, exploring value-add opportunities for existing assets (primarily certain of the GKK Properties), refinancing upcoming maturities and paying down debt, and distributing available cash to stockholders.
Our charter requires that we seek stockholder approval of our liquidation if our shares of common stock are not listed on a national securities exchange by November 2012, unless a majority of our independent directors determines that liquidation is not then in the best interest of our stockholders. Pursuant to our charter requirement, the conflicts committee assessed our portfolio of investments and related debt financings, including the assets and liabilities transferred to us under the Settlement Agreement in satisfaction of certain debt obligations owed to us by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy. The conflicts committee also considered the prepayment penalties associated with certain debt obligations assumed by us under the Settlement Agreement. Taking into consideration our portfolio and current market conditions, in November 2012 and in November 2013, the conflicts committee unanimously determined that liquidation is not now in the best interests of our stockholders. Our charter requires that the conflicts committee revisit the issue of liquidation at least annually. Given the factors noted above, the conflicts committee believes it is likely it may reach the same conclusion next year.
Market Outlook – Real Estate and Real Estate Finance Markets
The following discussion is based on management’s beliefs, observations and expectations with respect to the real estate and real estate finance markets.
In the wake of the sub-par recovery of the U.S. economy, concerns persist regarding the slow pace of job and income growth and the overall economic health of domestic consumers, businesses and governments. The federal government has employed an array of fiscal and monetary policies to attempt to help get the U.S. economy onto a sound and sustainable growth path. The road to recovery has been anything but smooth, but early estimates indicate that the second half of 2013 saw U.S. GDP increase by over 3%. For further discussion of current market conditions, see Part I, Item 1, “Business ─ Market Outlook ─ Real Estate and Real Estate Finance Markets.”
Impact on Our Real Estate Investments
The economic events that have occurred since the onset of the recession in 2008 have no precedent. While current forecasts for the U.S. economy are positive, there is a level of uncertainty inherent to this outlook. Currently, both the investing and leasing environments are highly competitive. While there has been an increase in the amount of capital flowing into the U.S. real estate markets, which has resulted in an increase in real estate values in certain markets, the uncertainty regarding the economic environment has made businesses reluctant to make long-term commitments or changes in their business plans. Possible future declines in rental rates, slower or potentially negative net absorption of leased space and expectations of future rental concessions, including free rent to renew tenants early, to retain tenants who are up for renewal or to attract new tenants, may result in decreases in cash flows. Historically low interest rates could help offset some of the impact of these potential decreases in operating cash flow for properties financed with variable rate mortgages; however, interest rates likely will not remain at these historically low levels for the remaining life of many of our investments. Recently, interest rates have become more volatile as the capital markets have begun to react to the end of QE.
Impact on Our Real Estate-Related Investments
All of our real estate-related investments are either directly secured by commercial real estate or secured by ownership interests in entities that directly or indirectly own and operate real estate. As a result, our real estate-related investments in general have been and likely will continue to be impacted by the same factors impacting our real estate investments. The relatively high yields and the improving credit position of many U.S. tenants and borrowers have attracted global capital. However, the real estate and capital markets are fluid and the positive trends can reverse quickly. Economic conditions remain relatively unstable and can have a negative impact on the performance of collateral securing our loan investments, and therefore have impacted the ability of some borrowers under our loans to make contractual interest payments to us.
We have fixed rate real estate-related loan investments with a total book value (excluding asset-specific loan loss reserves) of $31.9 million. Assuming our real estate-related loans are fully extended under the terms of the respective loan agreements and excluding our loan investments with asset-specific loan loss reserves, we have a real estate-related loan investment with a book value of $6.9 million maturing within a year from December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, we had recorded $2.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to one of our real estate-related investments.
Impact on Our Financing Activities
In light of the risks associated with potentially volatile operating cash flows from some of our real estate properties, we may have difficulty refinancing some of our debt obligations prior to or at maturity or we may not be able to refinance these obligations at terms as favorable as the terms of our existing indebtedness. Recent financial market conditions have improved from the bottom of the economic cycle, but material risks are still present. Market conditions can change quickly, potentially negatively impacting the value of our investments.
As of December 31, 2013, we had a total of $766.1 million of fixed rate notes payable and $210.4 million of variable rate notes payable. Including the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan, the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan (each defined below), we have $173.9 million of debt maturing (including principal amortization payments) during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014. The BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, with an outstanding principal balance of $6.1 million, matured on October 31, 2012. The 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan, with an outstanding principal balance of $37.6 million, matured on February 1, 2013. The Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, with an outstanding principal balance of $26.8 million, matured on August 1, 2013. The Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, with an outstanding principal balance of $13.2 million, matures on August 11, 2030 and is currently in default. See the discussions of the loan maturities and defaults under “— Contractual Commitments and Contingencies — Loan Maturities and Defaults”.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our principal demands for funds during the short- and long-term are for the payment of operating expenses, capital expenditures and general and administrative expenses and to pay down debt obligations in order to refinance loans with near term maturities. To date, we have had six primary sources of capital for meeting our cash requirements:
| |
| • | Proceeds from our primary offering, which closed in 2008; |
| |
| • | Debt financings, including mortgage loans, repurchase agreements and credit facilities; |
| |
| • | Proceeds from common stock issued under our dividend reinvestment plan (which terminated effective April 10, 2012); |
| |
| • | Cash flow generated by our real estate operations and real estate-related investments; |
| |
| • | Proceeds from the sales of real estate, real estate loans receivable and real estate securities; and |
| |
| • | Principal repayments on our real estate loans receivable. |
We ceased offering shares of common stock in our primary offering on May 30, 2008. We do not currently plan to acquire or originate additional real estate or real estate-related assets. We intend to use our cash on hand, proceeds from asset sales and principal repayments on our real estate loans receivable as our primary sources of immediate and long-term liquidity. To the extent available, we also intend to use cash flow generated by our real estate operations and real estate-related investments and funds available under our credit facilities. However, we have suffered and/or expect to suffer declines in cash flows from these sources.
On March 20, 2012, our board of directors approved the suspension of monthly distribution payments in order to manage our reduced cash flows from operations and to redirect available funds to reduce our debt. Our primary focus was and is the repayment of certain maturing debt obligations. Reducing our debt will allow us to hold certain assets in our portfolio to improve their value and the returns to our stockholders.
In connection with the change to our distribution policy, our board of directors terminated our dividend reinvestment plan effective April 10, 2012. In addition, our board of directors amended and restated our share redemption program to provide only for redemptions sought upon a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation, which was $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2013. On December 18, 2013, our board of directors approved an annual dollar limitation for redemptions of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by our board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program plan document. Based on historical redemption activity, we believe the $10.0 million redemption limitation for the calendar year 2014 will be sufficient for these special redemptions. During each calendar year, the annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program will be reviewed and adjusted from time to time, if necessary.
Our focus in 2014 is to manage our existing investment portfolio, including strategically selling assets, exploring value-add opportunities for existing assets (primarily certain of the GKK Properties), refinancing upcoming maturities and paying down debt, and distributing available cash to stockholders. We will continue our existing strategy of selling assets when we believe the assets have reached the stage that disposition will assist in improving returns to our investors.
On November 6, 2013, our board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013. We paid this distribution on December 5, 2013. This distribution was funded from the proceeds from the sales of real estate. In declaring this distribution management took into account the amount of cash on hand, anticipated refinancings, the repayment of certain of our debt obligations, capital expenditures and other potential cash needs through the remainder of 2013, as well as the proceeds from expected asset sales during the remainder of 2013. Prospectively, we intend to maintain adequate cash reserves for liquidity, capital expenditures, debt repayments, future share redemptions and other future capital needs.
Additionally, we currently expect to make a determination regarding special distributions concurrent with our future announcements of the estimated value per share of our common stock. We expect that these special distributions will also constitute a return of a portion of the stockholders’ invested capital for federal income tax purposes and that such distributions will also reduce our estimated value per share. We currently expect to utilize the advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update our estimated value per share in December 2014, in accordance with the recommended IPA Guidelines, but we are not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
Our investments in real estate generate cash flow in the form of rental revenues and tenant reimbursements, which are reduced by operating expenditures, debt service payments, the payment of asset management fees and corporate general and administrative expenses. Cash flows from operations from our real estate investments is primarily dependent upon the occupancy level of our portfolio, the net effective rental rates on our leases, the collectibility of rent and operating recoveries from our tenants and how well we manage our expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, our real estate held for investment, excluding one industrial property and seven GKK Properties held for non-sale disposition, was 85% occupied and our bad debt reserve was approximately 4.6% of annualized base rent.
Our real estate-related investments generate cash flow in the form of interest income, which is reduced by loan servicing fees, the payment of asset management fees and corporate general and administrative expenses. Cash flows from operations from our real estate-related investments is primarily dependent on the operating performance of the underlying collateral and the borrowers’ ability to make debt service payments. As of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the Sandmar Mezzanine Loan was delinquent.
As a result of the factors described above, we may experience declines in future cash flows from our real estate and real estate-related investments and we expect an increased need for capital to cover leasing costs and capital improvements needed to improve the performance of our real estate assets.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we met our cash needs for capital expenditures and the payment of debt obligations with cash on hand and proceeds from asset sales. We met our operating cash needs during the same period through cash flow generated by our real estate and real estate related investments and cash on hand. We believe that potential proceeds from the sale of real estate, cash flow from operations, potential proceeds from the sale or payoff of real estate loans receivable and cash on hand will be sufficient to meet our liquidity needs for the upcoming year.
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
As of December 31, 2013, we owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in 427 real estate properties (of which eight properties were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties were held for sale), including the GKK Properties. In addition, as of December 31, 2013, we owned four real estate loans receivable, a participation interest with respect to a real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units were owned by us and held for sale.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, net cash provided by operating activities was $9.5 million, compared to $34.4 million of net cash provided by operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2012. Net cash from operations decreased in 2013 primarily due to the sales of real estate properties.
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Net cash provided by investing activities was $184.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. The significant sources and uses of cash from investing activities were as follows:
| |
| • | $183.4 million of cash provided from the sale of real estate; |
| |
| • | $22.2 million of cash provided from the sale of real estate securities; |
| |
| • | $20.4 million of cash used for improvements to real estate; |
| |
| • | $12.0 million of cash used for payment of contingent consideration related to the GKK Properties; |
| |
| • | $7.6 million of cash provided from the sale of foreclosed real estate held for sale; and |
| |
| • | $3.9 million decrease in restricted cash for capital expenditures. |
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Net cash used in financing activities was $237.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. The significant uses of cash for financing activities were as follows:
| |
| • | $158.9 million of net cash used for the repayment of debt as a result of $343.5 million of principal payments on notes payable and $1.0 million of deferred financing costs, partially offset by proceeds from notes payable of $185.6 million; |
| |
| • | $75.0 million of net cash used for distributions; |
| |
| • | $7.4 million of cash used for redemptions of common stock; and |
| |
| • | a $3.7 million decrease in restricted cash used for debt service obligations. |
In addition to using our capital resources to meet our debt service obligations, for capital expenditures and for operating costs, we use our capital resources to make certain payments to our advisor and during our offering we made certain payments to our dealer manager. We also reimburse the advisor and dealer manager for certain costs they incur on our behalf. We pay our advisor fees in connection with the management and disposition of our assets.
Among the fees payable to our advisor is an asset management fee. With respect to investments in real estate, we pay our advisor a monthly asset management fee equal to one-twelfth of 0.75% of the amount actually paid or allocated to acquire the investment, plus the cost of any subsequent development, construction or improvements to the property. This amount includes any portion of the investment that was debt financed and is inclusive of acquisition fees and expenses related thereto. In the case of investments made through joint ventures, the asset management fee is determined based on our proportionate share of the underlying investment. We calculate the asset management fee for the GKK Properties based on the original cost of our investment in the GKK Mezzanine Loan, rather than on the gross value of the GKK Properties we own or in which we hold a leasehold interest. With respect to investments in loans and any investments other than real estate, we pay our advisor a monthly fee calculated, each month, as one twelfth of 0.75% of the lesser of (i) the amount actually paid or allocated to acquire or fund the loan or other investment (which amount includes any portion of the investment that was debt financed and is inclusive of acquisition or origination fees and expenses related thereto) and (ii) the outstanding principal amount of such loan or other investment, plus the acquisition or origination fees and expenses related to the acquisition or funding of such investment, as of the time of calculation.
With respect to an investment that has suffered an impairment in value, reduction in cash flow or other negative circumstances, such investment shall either be excluded from the calculation of the asset management fee described above or included in such calculation at a reduced value that is recommended by our advisor and our management and then approved by a majority of our independent directors, and this change in the fee shall be applicable to an investment upon the earlier to occur of the date on which (i) such investment is sold, (ii) such investment is surrendered to a person other than the company, our direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary or a joint venture or partnership in which we have an interest, (iii) our advisor determines that it will no longer pursue collection or other remedies related to such investment, or (iv) our advisor recommends a revised fee arrangement with respect to such investment.
On November 8, 2013, we renewed the advisory agreement with our advisor.
As of December 31, 2013, we had $211.4 million of cash and cash equivalents.
As of December 31, 2013, our borrowings and other liabilities were approximately 54% of both the cost (before depreciation or other noncash reserves) and book value (before depreciation) of our tangible assets, respectively. Our charter limits our total liabilities to 75% of the cost (before deducting depreciation or other non-cash reserves) of our tangible assets; however, we may exceed that limit if a majority of the conflicts committee approves each borrowing in excess of our charter limitation and we disclose such borrowing to our stockholders in our next quarterly report with an explanation from the conflicts committee of the justification for exceeding the total liabilities limitation.
Contractual Commitments and Contingencies
The following is a summary of our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Payments Due During the Years Ending December 31, |
| Contractual Obligations | Total | | 2014 | | 2015-2016 | | 2017-2018 | | Thereafter |
Outstanding debt obligations related to historical portfolio(1)(2) | $ | 375,799 |
| | $ | 103,199 |
| | $ | 272,600 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
Outstanding debt obligations related to the GKK Properties(1) (2) | $ | 600,694 |
| | $ | 70,724 |
| | $ | 122,361 |
| | $ | 141,839 |
| | $ | 265,770 |
|
Interest payments on outstanding debt obligations related to historical portfolio(3) | $ | 19,197 |
| | $ | 8,711 |
| | $ | 10,486 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
Interest payments on outstanding debt obligations related to the GKK Properties(3) | $ | 210,967 |
| | $ | 33,183 |
| | $ | 60,536 |
| | $ | 40,323 |
| | $ | 76,925 |
|
Operating leases(4) | $ | 100,849 |
| | $ | 17,359 |
| | $ | 33,488 |
| | $ | 15,197 |
| | $ | 34,805 |
|
(1) Amounts include principal payments under notes payable based on maturity dates of debt obligations as of December 31, 2013.
(2) Included in the “2014” payment column are the outstanding principal balances of the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan of $37.6 million, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan of $6.1 million and the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan of $26.8 million, which matured on February 1, 2013, October 31, 2012 and August 1, 2013, respectively, without repayment. Also included in the “2014” payment column is the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan of $14.4 million, which was in default and in receivership as of December 31, 2013. See “— Loan Maturities and Defaults” below.
(3) Projected interest payments are based on the outstanding principal amounts and weighted-average interest rates as of December 31, 2013. We incurred interest expense of $58.4 million, excluding amortization of deferred financing costs and the amortization of debt discount and premium totaling $3.3 million, during the year ended December 31, 2013.
(4) Amounts relate to future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable building and ground leases, and excludes payments owed related to properties held for non-sale disposition.
Loan Maturities and Defaults
As of December 31, 2013, one outstanding loan secured by one of our historical real estate investments and two outstanding loans we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement had matured without repayment and remain outstanding. The loans that matured without repayment had outstanding principal balances of $26.8 million (the “Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan”), $6.1 million (the “BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan”) and $37.6 million (the “801 Market Street Mortgage Loan”). Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, we did not meet the monthly debt service payment requirements with respect to one loan with an outstanding principal balance of $14.4 million (the “Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan”), which we assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and the lender declared a default on June 24, 2013.
Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan
Beginning in June 2013, we failed to meet the monthly debt service payment requirements of the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan and defaulted on this loan. As a result of the default, on June 12, 2013, the lender declared the total outstanding principal amount of $26.8 million together with any accrued interest, applicable default interest and any other interest and late charges immediately due and payable. The Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan matured on August 1, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the lender commenced proceedings to foreclose on the property securing the loan. The lender may also attempt to exercise certain of its other rights under the loan documents. The carrying value of the property securing the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan was $23.7 million as of December 31, 2013. The trustee’s sale date was originally set for February 13, 2014, but the trustee’s sale has been postponed due to discussions between us and the lender regarding a potential discounted payoff. However, we can give no assurances in this regard and the lender may ultimately end up foreclosing on the property securing the loan.
BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan
The BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan matured on October 31, 2012 and on February 14, 2013, proceedings relating to the foreclosure of the properties securing the loan were commenced. The carrying value of the properties securing the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan was $4.2 million as of December 31, 2013. On February 21, 2014, we entered into agreements for deed-in-lieu of foreclosure and transferred the properties securing the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan to the lender in full satisfaction of the debt and other obligations due under the loan.
801 Market Street Mortgage Loan
The 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan matured on February 1, 2013 and as a result of the maturity, the lender has commenced foreclosure proceedings and is seeking a judgment against us in the amount of $35.3 million, together with additional interest, fees, charges and costs recoverable under the loan documents. Effective as of June 17, 2013, we and the lender agreed to the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the foreclosure proceedings. On February 5, 2014, the lender and us entered into a release agreement whereby, in consideration of us stipulating to the entry of a foreclosure judgment and assisting with the transition of the mortgaged property, the lender agreed to release us from all matters related to the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan, with the exception of certain environmental matters, any actual fraud committed by us, and any actual physical damage to the mortgaged property caused or committed by us. The aforementioned release of us is effective immediately upon the transfer of title to the mortgaged property to the lender or its designee or a third party purchaser by execution and delivery of a deed pursuant to the ordinary course of the foreclosure sale process, and without the requirement of any further action of the parties or the court. During the time period between the execution of the release agreement and the effectiveness of the release of us, the lender has agreed not to pursue any actions against us other than completing the foreclosure action contemplated by the release agreement and other limited matters.
The Order for Entry of Judgment was signed and entered by the court on March 4, 2014, and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property is expected to take place within the next several months. The carrying value of the property securing the loan was $21.7 million as of December 31, 2013.
Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan
Beginning in June 2013, we failed to meet the monthly debt service payment requirements of the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan and defaulted on this loan. On or about August 20, 2013, the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings and is seeking a judgment against us in the amount of $13.2 million, together with additional interest, fees, charges and costs recoverable under the loan documents. Effective as of September 24, 2013, we and the lender agreed to the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the foreclosure proceedings. On December 12, 2013, the lender and us entered into a release agreement whereby, in consideration of us stipulating to the entry of a foreclosure judgment and assisting with the transition of the mortgaged property, the lender agreed to release us from all matters related to the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, with the exception of certain environmental matters, any actual fraud committed by us, and any actual physical damage to the mortgaged property caused or committed by us. The aforementioned release of us is effective immediately upon the transfer of title to the mortgaged property to the lender or its designee by execution and delivery of a deed pursuant to the ordinary course of the foreclosure sale process, and without the requirement of any further action of the parties or the court. During the time period between the execution of the release agreement and the effectiveness of the release of us, the lender has agreed not to pursue any actions against us other than completing the foreclosure action contemplated by the release agreement and other limited matters.
The Order for Entry of Judgment was signed and entered by the court on December 20, 2013, and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property is expected to take place within the next several months. The carrying value of the property securing the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan was $6.9 million as of December 31, 2013.
Debt Covenants
The documents evidencing our outstanding debt obligations typically require that specified loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratios be maintained with respect to the financed properties. A breach of the financial covenants in these documents may result in the lender imposing additional restrictions on our operations, such as restrictions on our ability to incur additional debt, or may allow the lender to impose “cash traps” with respect to cash flow from the property securing the loan. In addition, such a breach may constitute an event of default and the lender could require us to repay the debt immediately. If we fail to make such repayment in a timely manner, the lender may be entitled to take possession of any property securing the loan.
As of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan was out of debt service coverage compliance. As a result of such non-compliance, the servicer imposed a “cash trap” and has the right to replace the manager of the property securing the loan. Additionally, on June 24, 2013, the lender under the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan declared a default under the loan. For more information, see above under “—Loan Maturities and Defaults — Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan.”
Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the BBD2 Loan was alleged by the loan servicer to be out of debt service coverage compliance. As of December 31, 2013, the BBD2 Loan had an outstanding principal balance of $194.2 million. Such alleged non-compliance does not constitute an event of default under the applicable loan and security documents. However, as a result of such alleged non-compliance, the servicer has imposed a “cash trap” to restrict distributions to us to the budgeted property operating expenses and requires lender consent regarding the release of properties securing the loan. We are currently taking legal action against the servicer as we believe that the servicer failed to follow the terms of the loan agreement by miscalculating the operating income and expenses of the properties and the miscalculation led the servicer to incorrectly determine that the debt service ratio had fallen below the designated targets, which caused the “cash trap” to be triggered.
Asset Management Services Agreement Related to the GKK Properties
On March 30, 2012, we, through KBS Acquisition Sub, entered into the Services Agreement with the Property Manager with respect to the GKK Properties. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, the Property Manager agreed to provide the Services for the GKK Properties. The Property Manager is not affiliated with us or KBS Acquisition Sub.
On December 19, 2013, KBS Acquisition Sub entered into the Amended Services Agreement with the Property Manager. The effective date of the Amended Services Agreement was December 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Amended Services Agreement, we made a payment in the amount of $12.0 million to the Property Manager in satisfaction of the profit participation provisions under the Services Agreement. In addition, as compensation for the Services, we agreed to pay the Property Manager: (i) an annual fee of $7.5 million plus all GKK Property-related expenses incurred by the Property Manager, (ii) subject to certain terms and conditions in the Amended Services Agreement, a profit participation interest based on a percentage (ranging from 10% to 30%) of the amount by which the gross fair market value or gross sales price of certain identified portfolios of GKK Properties exceeds the sum of (a) an agreed-upon baseline value for such GKK Property portfolios plus (b) new capital expended to increase the value of GKK Properties within the portfolios and expenditures made to pay for tenant improvements and leasing commissions related to these GKK Properties as of the measurement date, and (iii) a monthly construction oversight fee equal to a percentage of construction costs for certain construction projects at the GKK Properties overseen by the Property Manager.
The Amended Services Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2016, with a one-year extension option at our option, subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the Amended Services Agreement. The Amended Services Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements related to the Services among us and its affiliates and the Property Manager and its affiliates.
Results of Operations
Overview
As of December 31, 2012, we owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 544 real estate properties, four real estate loans receivable (one of which was impaired), a participation interest with respect to another real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units, two retail spaces and parking spaces were owned by us and were held for sale. Subsequent to December 31, 2012, we sold one office property and 111 GKK Properties; terminated the leases of five properties in which we held a leasehold interest; sold two retail spaces and parking spaces from the 10-story condominium building; and designated 12 properties as held for sale. Accordingly, we classified these properties as discontinued operations for all periods presented in our consolidated financial statements. As a result, as of December 31, 2013, we owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 427 real estate properties, including eight properties held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties (of which 11 properties were GKK Properties) classified as held for sale. Also, as of December 31, 2013, we owned four real estate loans receivable, a participation interest with respect to a real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units were owned by us and held for sale. Our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 are not indicative of those expected in future periods due to anticipated asset sales. In general, we expect that our revenues and expenses related to our portfolio will decrease in future periods due to disposition activity, to the extent the disposed properties were not considered held for sale as of December 31, 2013. The results of operations for properties sold or held for sale are reclassified as discontinued operations for all periods presented.
Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2013 versus the year ended December 31, 2012
The following table provides summary information about our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 (dollar amounts in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | For the Years Ended December 31, | | Increase (Decrease) | | Percentage Change | | $ Change Due to GKK Properties | | $ Change Due to Historical Real Estate Properties Held Throughout Both Periods |
| | 2013 | | 2012 |
| Rental income | $ | 159,825 |
| | $ | 157,140 |
| | $ | 2,685 |
| | 2 | % | | $ | 2,927 |
| | $ | (242 | ) |
| Tenant reimbursements | 51,302 |
| | 53,268 |
| | (1,966 | ) | | (4 | )% | | (1,584 | ) | | (382 | ) |
| Interest income from real estate loans receivable | 3,258 |
| | 3,189 |
| | 69 |
| | 2 | % | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Interest income from real estate securities | — |
| | 689 |
| | (689 | ) | | (100 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Parking revenues and other operating income | 3,723 |
| | 3,626 |
| | 97 |
| | 3 | % | | 12 |
| | 85 |
|
| Operating, maintenance and management costs | 86,203 |
| | 80,899 |
| | 5,304 |
| | 7 | % | | 5,360 |
| | (56 | ) |
| Real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance | 28,988 |
| | 28,122 |
| | 866 |
| | 3 | % | | 748 |
| | 118 |
|
| Asset management fees to affiliate | 10,110 |
| | 10,355 |
| | (245 | ) | | (2 | )% | | — |
| | (245 | ) |
| General and administrative expenses | 17,907 |
| | 22,439 |
| | (4,532 | ) | | (20 | )% | | (3,405 | ) | | (1,127 | ) |
| Depreciation and amortization expense | 75,575 |
| | 81,736 |
| | (6,161 | ) | | (8 | )% | | (3,643 | ) | | (2,518 | ) |
| Interest expense | 61,666 |
| | 67,006 |
| | (5,340 | ) | | (8 | )% | | (2,365 | ) | | (2,975 | ) |
| Impairment charge on real estate | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 8,308 |
| | 26 | % | | (7,824 | ) | | 16,132 |
|
| Provision for loan losses | — |
| | 142 |
| | (142 | ) | | (100 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | 378 |
| | 127 |
| | 251 |
| | 198 | % | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Gain on sales of real estate securities | 10,470 |
| | 25,456 |
| | (14,986 | ) | | (59 | )% | | 10,470 |
| | (25,456 | ) |
| Income from unconsolidated joint venture | — |
| | 750 |
| | (750 | ) | | (100 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Other income | 2,731 |
| | — |
| | 2,731 |
| | 100 | % | | 2,731 |
| | — |
|
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | 47,997 |
| | 53,691 |
| | (5,694 | ) | | (11 | )% | | (12,268 | ) | | 6,574 |
|
| Income (loss) from discontinued operations | 2,777 |
| | (2,836 | ) | | 5,613 |
| | (198 | )% | | 6,040 |
| | (427 | ) |
| Impairment charge on discontinued operations | (8,975 | ) | | (37,218 | ) | | 28,243 |
| | (76 | )% | | 20,344 |
| | 7,899 |
|
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | — |
| | 21,513 |
| | (21,513 | ) | | (100 | )% | | (21,513 | ) | | — |
|
Rental income from our real estate properties increased by $2.7 million primarily due to higher rental rates and a net decrease of above-market in-place lease amortization for the year ended December 31, 2013 resulting from tenant lease expirations and early tenant lease renewals subsequent to December 31, 2012 with respect to the GKK Properties and slightly offset by lower occupancy (as a result of tenants vacating or tenants reducing leased space). Overall, we expect rental income to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale. Our rental income in future periods will also vary in large part based on the occupancy rates and rental rates of the properties in our portfolio.
Tenant reimbursements from our real estate properties decreased by $2.0 million primarily due to the reset of tenant base years and lower occupancy (as a result of tenants vacating or tenants reducing leased space). Our tenant reimbursements in future periods will also vary based on several factors, including the occupancy rate of the buildings, changes in base year terms, and changes in reimbursable operating expenses. Generally, as new leases are negotiated, the base year resets to operating expenses incurred in the year the lease is signed and the tenant generally only reimburses operating expenses to the extent and by the amount that its allocable share of the building’s operating expenses in future years increases from its base year. As a result, as new leases are executed, tenant reimbursements would generally decrease. Rental income may or may not change by amounts corresponding to changes in tenant reimbursements due to new leases. Overall, we expect tenant reimbursements to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale.
Interest income from real estate loans receivable remained constant at approximately $3.3 million and $3.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. In general, we expect interest income in future periods to remain fairly constant, but to decrease to the extent that we have principal repayments or dispositions of real estate-related investments. Interest income from real estate loans receivable in future periods may also be affected by potential loan impairments as a result of current or future market conditions. As of December 31, 2013, one of the borrowers under our real estate loans receivable was delinquent.
If any of the borrowers under our real estate loans receivable are unable to repay their loans at maturity or default on their loan, the impact to future interest income and loan recoveries may be significant and will depend on several factors unique to each individual loan. In general, if we have a first priority lien on the collateral securing a loan, we may agree to extend the loan at similar terms, modify the terms of the loan, or foreclose on the collateral. If we foreclose on the collateral, we may either operate the property, resulting in our receipt of any cash flows generated by the property or our payment of any cash shortfalls related to the property, or sell the property for whatever amount we are able to obtain, which may or may not be equal to the loan balance prior to foreclosure. In general, if we own a mezzanine loan or a B-Note and the borrower is unable to repay its loan at maturity, we may have more restrictions and fewer options regarding the resolution of our investment. In certain circumstances, the senior lenders, in conjunction with us, may be willing to grant the borrower extensions or may grant extensions in exchange for more favorable terms (such as higher interest rates, a partial payoff, or the entitlement to a portion of a junior lender’s interest income, etc.). If the senior lenders will not grant the borrower an extension, we, as the mezzanine lender, may foreclose on the ownership interests of the borrower and indirectly take legal title to the property subject to the existing senior loans or we may negotiate a discounted repayment. We could attempt to negotiate an extension or modification with the senior lenders as the new borrower; however, if the senior lenders were not willing to extend or modify the loans and we were not able to repay the senior loans, we would most likely relinquish our interests or rights in the investment to the holders of the senior loans. Actual outcomes may differ significantly from the above based on factors specific to individual loans and situations.
Property operating, maintenance and management costs from our real estate properties increased by $5.3 million primarily due to repair and maintenance costs, utility expenses, bad debt expenses and other general operating expenses related to the GKK Properties. Overall, we expect property operating, maintenance and management costs to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale.
Real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance from our real estate properties increased from $28.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2012 to $29.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily due to general inflation. Overall, we expect real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale.
Asset management fees decreased from $10.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2012 to $10.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 due to the dispositions of real estate-related investments and the exclusion of an impaired real estate loan receivable from our asset management fee calculation beginning in March 2012. We expect asset management fees to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale.
General and administrative expenses decreased by $4.5 million primarily due to lower legal fees and accounting fees. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of legal fees, audit fees, transfer agent fees, state and local income taxes and other professional fees.
Depreciation and amortization expense from our real estate properties decreased by $6.1 million, as a result of a decrease of $3.6 million related to the GKK Properties and a decrease of $2.5 million related to our historical real estate portfolio. The decrease in depreciation and amortization expense was primarily due to decreased amortization of tenant origination and absorption costs resulting from lease expirations. Overall, we expect depreciation and amortization expense to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale.
Interest expense from the financing of our portfolio decreased by $5.3 million, partially due to a decrease of $2.3 million related to debt secured by the GKK Properties. The $2.3 million decrease in interest expense related to the debt secured by the GKK Properties was due to a decrease in the average loan balance as a result of principal repayments or debt extinguishments subsequent to December 31, 2012. Excluding debt secured by the GKK Properties, interest expense decreased by $3.0 million primarily due to an overall decrease to the average loan balance and lower effective interest rate on our outstanding debt. Included in interest expense is the amortization of deferred financing costs of $0.8 million and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Interest expense in future periods will vary based on fluctuations in one-month LIBOR, our level of future borrowings and our ability to refinance existing indebtedness at similar rates. We do not currently plan to acquire or originate more real estate or real estate-related assets and, therefore, do not plan to enter into any purchase financing in the future. However, we will need to refinance our existing indebtedness in the future. Overall, we expect interest expense to decrease in future periods due to anticipated asset sales and dispositions other than by sale and principal paydowns.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate properties held for investment of $40.2 million, with respect to 11 properties (including five GKK Properties and one historical property held for non-sale disposition), to reduce the book values of these real estate properties to their estimated fair values. These impairment charges were reflected in the latest estimated value per share of our common stock. We recognized an impairment charge of $31.9 million on real estate held for investment during the year ended December 31, 2012 with respect to four historical office properties, three historical industrial properties and seven GKK Properties. The facts and circumstances leading to the impairments on our real estate held for investment during the year ended December 31, 2013 are as follows:
| |
| • | Tysons Dulles Plaza: We recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $19.5 million to reduce the carrying value of our investment in Tysons Dulles Plaza, an office property located in McLean, Virginia, to its estimated fair value. We revised our cash flow projections for Tysons Dulles Plaza primarily because of a decrease in demand in the Washington D.C. office rental market, resulting in lower projected revenues, and higher projected capital costs for tenant improvements and general building upgrades needed to attract additional tenants. We also revised our projections to address various deferred maintenance issues and other building system upgrades and replacements. |
| |
| • | Bridgeway Technology Center: We recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $6.6 million related to our investment in Bridgeway Technology Center, an office-flex property located in Newark, California, due to a change in the projected hold period and a decrease in projected cash flows as a result of a difficult leasing environment. We defaulted on the mortgage loan secured by Bridgeway Technology Center and the lender commenced proceedings to foreclose on the property. As of December 31, 2013, these foreclosure proceedings were ongoing. As a result, we revised the projected hold period and recognized an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of Bridgeway Technology Center to its estimated fair value. See “— Contractual Commitments and Contingencies — Loan Maturities and Defaults — Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan” for information regarding the status of the foreclosure proceedings. |
| |
| • | University Park Buildings: We recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $4.2 million related to our investment in the University Park Buildings, an office property located in Sacramento, California, due to a decrease in projected rental rates. As a result, the projected undiscounted cash flows decreased to an amount less than the carrying value of the property and we recognized an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the University Park Buildings to its estimated fair value. |
| |
| • | Other Properties: We recognized impairment charges during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $9.9 million related to eight other properties held for investment. No impairment charge related to any individual property was greater than $2.2 million. These impairments generally resulted from changes in leasing projections including longer estimated lease-up periods and lower projected rental rates, thus decreasing the projected cash flows the properties would generate. |
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we sold sold 4,613,398 shares of common stock of Gramercy and recognized a gain on the sale of real estate securities of $10.5 million. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we sold certain real estate securities to an unaffiliated buyer and recognized a gain on the sale of real estate securities of $25.5 million.
We recognized $2.7 million in other income during the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily related to the write-off of tax liabilities we recorded in connection with the transfer of the GKK Properties.
We recognized a gain on sale of real estate of $48.0 million related to the disposition of 111 GKK Properties and one historical office property during the year ended December 31, 2013. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized a gain on sale of real estate of $53.7 million related to the disposition of six historical office properties, three historical industrial properties and 190 GKK Properties.
Income (loss) from discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was $2.8 million and $(2.8) million, respectively. Income (loss) from discontinued operations is composed of the results of operations from properties sold and properties held for sale as of December 31, 2013. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we sold 111 GKK Properties and one historical office property and designated 12 properties as held for sale (of which 11 were GKK Properties). We sold six historical office properties, three historical industrial properties and 190 GKK Properties during the year ended December 31, 2012. Total revenues and other income from discontinued operations decreased from $198.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2012 to $26.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2013. Total expenses from discontinued operations decreased from $201.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2012 to $23.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2013.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate from discontinued operations of $9.0 million with respect to one historical office property and 30 GKK Properties held for sale or sold as of December 31, 2013. The impairment charge was primarily a result of a reduction in the estimated sales prices of certain properties held for sale. The estimated sales prices were based on purchase and sale agreements we have entered into, offers received which we intend to accept or broker estimates of value. These impairment charges were reflected in the latest estimated value per share of our common stock. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate from discontinued operations of $37.2 million with respect to three historical office properties, two historical industrial properties and 210 GKK Properties.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized a gain on extinguishment of debt from discontinued operations of $21.5 million related to the One Citizens Loan and the Goldman Mortgage Loan, which matured on January 11, 2012 and August 31, 2012, respectively. The gain on extinguishment of debt related to the One Citizens Loan represents the difference between the carrying amount of the outstanding debt and other liabilities of $45.9 million and the carrying value of the real estate properties and other assets of approximately $34.9 million. The gain on extinguishment of debt related to the Goldman Mortgage Loan represents the difference between the carrying amount of the outstanding debt and other liabilities of approximately $175.9 million (excluding the value of our subordinated interest in the Goldman Mortgage Loan in excess of the $12.0 million cash consideration paid to us by the lender for our subordinated interest in the loan) and the carrying value of the real estate properties and other assets of approximately $165.4 million, at the time of the transfer of the properties and other assets in satisfaction of the loan.
Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2012 versus the year ended December 31, 2011
The following table provides summary information about our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 (dollar amounts in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, | | Increase (Decrease) | | Percentage Change | | $ Change Due to GKK Properties | | $ Change Due to Historical Real Estate Properties Held Throughout Both Periods |
| | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Rental income | $ | 157,140 |
| | $ | 96,505 |
| | $ | 60,635 |
| | 63 | % | | $ | 64,918 |
| | $ | (4,283 | ) |
| Tenant reimbursements | 53,268 |
| | 28,531 |
| | 24,737 |
| | 87 | % | | 25,151 |
| | (414 | ) |
| Interest income from real estate loans receivable | 3,189 |
| | 13,383 |
| | (10,194 | ) | | (76 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Interest income from real estate securities | 689 |
| | 2,857 |
| | (2,168 | ) | | (76 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Parking revenues and other operating income | 3,626 |
| | 2,237 |
| | 1,389 |
| | 62 | % | | 1,134 |
| | 255 |
|
| Operating, maintenance, and management costs | 80,899 |
| | 45,421 |
| | 35,478 |
| | 78 | % | | 36,795 |
| | (1,317 | ) |
| Real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance | 28,122 |
| | 18,487 |
| | 9,635 |
| | 52 | % | | 9,485 |
| | 150 |
|
| Asset management fees to affiliate | 10,355 |
| | 12,012 |
| | (1,657 | ) | | (14 | )% | | 2,269 |
| | (3,926 | ) |
| General and administrative expenses | 22,439 |
| | 20,271 |
| | 2,168 |
| | 11 | % | | 3,323 |
| | (1,155 | ) |
| Depreciation and amortization expense | 81,736 |
| | 50,759 |
| | 30,977 |
| | 61 | % | | 33,689 |
| | (2,712 | ) |
| Interest expense | 67,006 |
| | 48,172 |
| | 18,834 |
| | 39 | % | | 30,463 |
| | (11,629 | ) |
| Impairment charge on real estate | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
| | 25,049 |
| | 367 | % | | 13,753 |
| | 11,296 |
|
| Provision for loan losses | 142 |
| | 11,999 |
| | (11,857 | ) | | (99 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | 127 |
| | 134 |
| | (7 | ) | | (5 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Gain on sales of real estate securities | 25,456 |
| | — |
| | 25,456 |
| | 100 | % | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Income from unconsolidated joint venture | 750 |
| | 5,029 |
| | (4,279 | ) | | (85 | )% | | N/A |
| | N/A |
|
| Other income | — |
| | 1,600 |
| | (1,600 | ) | | (100 | )% | | — |
| | (1,600 | ) |
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | 53,691 |
| | 5,141 |
| | 48,550 |
| | 944 | % | | 48,319 |
| | 231 |
|
| Loss from discontinued operations | (2,836 | ) | | (6,794 | ) | | 3,958 |
| | (58 | )% | | 5,865 |
| | (1,907 | ) |
| Impairment charge on discontinued operations | (37,218 | ) | | (45,744 | ) | | 8,526 |
| | (19 | )% | | (27,126 | ) | | 35,652 |
|
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | 21,513 |
| | 115,531 |
| | (94,018 | ) | | (81 | )% | | 21,513 |
| | (115,531 | ) |
Rental income from our real estate properties increased by $60.6 million primarily due to an increase of $64.9 million related to the transfer of the GKK Properties. Excluding the GKK Properties, rental income decreased by $4.3 million primarily due to lower occupancy (as a result of tenants vacating or tenants reducing leased space), lower rental rates for the year ended December 31, 2012 and a net decrease of below-market in-place lease amortization as a result of lease terminations.
Tenant reimbursements from our real estate properties increased by $24.7 million primarily due to an increase of $25.1 million related to the transfer of the GKK Properties. Excluding the GKK Properties, tenant reimbursements decreased by $0.4 million primarily due to lower occupancy (as a result of tenants vacating or tenants reducing leased space).
The $10.2 million decrease in interest income from loans receivable was primarily due to the following:
| |
| • | A net decrease of $7.5 million related to the GKK Mezzanine Loan. On September 1, 2011, we, through KBS, entered into the Settlement Agreement in satisfaction of the GKK Mezzanine Loan. As of December 15, 2011, GKK Stars had indirectly transferred to us all of the 867 GKK Properties that had indirectly secured the GKK Mezzanine Loan. |
| |
| • | A decrease of $2.1 million related to the sale of the San Antonio Business Park Mortgage Loan to an unaffiliated buyer on October 14, 2011. |
| |
| • | A decrease of $0.7 million related to the discounted payoff of the Park Central Mezzanine Loan by the borrower on December 29, 2011. |
Property operating, maintenance, and management costs from our real estate properties increased by $35.5 million primarily due to an increase of $36.8 million related to the transfer of the GKK Properties. Excluding the GKK Properties, property operating, maintenance, and management costs decreased by $1.3 million primarily due to a decrease of $0.5 million in bad debt expense related to rental revenues and $0.8 million of bad debt expense related to an interest receivable write-off related to the 11 South LaSalle Loan during the year ended December 31, 2011 and a net decrease of $0.1 million in utilities and other operating expenses related to our real estate portfolio.
Real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance from our real estate properties increased by $9.6 million primarily due to an increase of $9.5 million related to the transfer of the GKK Properties. Excluding the GKK Properties, real estate taxes, property-related taxes and insurance increased by $0.1 million primarily due to an adjustment in property tax estimates.
The $1.7 million decrease in asset management fees was primarily due to the dispositions of real estate loans receivable and the exclusion of certain impaired real estate loans receivable from our asset management fee calculation.
General and administrative expenses increased by $2.2 million primarily due to an increase of $3.3 million related to loan modification expenses and GKK Properties transfer expenses incurred in connection with the Settlement Agreement. Excluding loan modification expenses and the GKK Properties transfer expenses, general and administrative expenses decreased by $1.1 million due to lower legal fees and accounting fees. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of legal fees, audit fees, transfer agent fees, state and local income taxes and other professional fees.
Depreciation and amortization expense from our real estate properties increased by $31.0 million primarily due to an increase of $33.7 million related to the transfer of the GKK Properties. Excluding the GKK Properties, depreciation and amortization expense decreased by $2.7 million primarily due to decreased amortization of tenant origination and absorption costs resulting from lease expirations, partially offset by an increase of tenant improvement additions and accelerated depreciation and amortization for early lease terminations or renewals during the year ended December 31, 2012.
Interest expense from the financing of our portfolio increased by $18.8 million primarily due to an increase of $30.4 million related to debt secured by the GKK Properties. Excluding debt secured by the GKK Properties, interest expense decreased by $11.6 million primarily due to a $7.7 million decrease related to the amortization of loan fee extension costs under the Amended Repurchase Agreements and a $3.8 million decrease due to an overall decrease to the average loan balance and lower effective interest rate on our outstanding debt. Included in interest expense is the amortization of deferred financing costs of $6.8 million and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012, respectively.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate properties held for investment to reduce the book values of the real estate to their estimated fair values of $31.9 million with respect to four office properties, three industrial properties and seven GKK Properties. We recognized an impairment charge of $6.8 million on real estate held for investment during the year ended December 31, 2011 with respect to three industrial properties.
The provision for loan losses for the year ended December 31, 2012 decreased by $11.9 million compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded provision for loan losses of $0.1 million calculated on an asset-specific basis related to the 11 South LaSalle Loan and also charged-off $72.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to the write-off of the Petra Subordinated Debt Tranche A and Petra Subordinated Debt Tranche B and the sale of the 11 South LaSalle Loan. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded an overall reduction in provision for loan losses of $12.0 million, which consisted of a decrease of $18.1 million to the provision for loan losses calculated on a portfolio-basis and partially offset by an increase of $30.1 million calculated on an asset-specific basis.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we sold the Fixed Rate Securities to an unaffiliated buyer and recognized a gain on the sale of real estate securities of $25.5 million.
We recognized $5.0 million in income from an unconsolidated joint venture related to the Arden Portfolio (the “HSC Partners Joint Venture”) during the year ended December 31, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the members of the HSC Partners Joint Venture entered into an amendment to their joint venture operating agreement to convert another lender’s $30.0 million of outstanding mezzanine debt to preferred membership interests. The HSC Partners Joint Venture also agreed that any cash flows from the joint venture after monthly debt service payments to existing mortgage and mezzanine lenders would be used to pay down principal. On June 28, 2012, we entered into a membership interest repurchase agreement with HSC Partners Joint Venture to redeem our membership interest in the HSC Partners Joint Venture in exchange for a settlement of $0.8 million, which was recorded as income from an unconsolidated joint venture. As we have disposed of all of our interest in the HSC Partners Joint Venture, we will not receive further income from our investment in the HSC Partners Joint Venture.
We recognized $1.6 million in other income during the year ended December 31, 2011 due to the write-off of the liability related to the $1.6 million of advances provided by our advisor as we determined that it was unlikely that we would meet the requirements at any future date to be obligated to reimburse our advisor for these amounts.
We recognized a gain on sale of real estate of $53.7 million related to the disposition of six historical office properties, three historical industrial properties and 190 GKK Properties during the year ended December 31, 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recognized a gain on sale of real estate of $5.1 million related to the disposition of seven historical industrial properties and three historical office properties.
Loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 increased by $4.0 million compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. Loss from discontinued operations is composed of the results of operations from properties sold and properties held for sale as of December 31, 2013. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we sold six historical office properties, three historical industrial properties and 190 GKK Properties. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we sold seven historical industrial properties, three historical office properties and transferred the National Industrial Portfolio (consisting of 23 industrial properties and a master lease) to the lender in full satisfaction of the debt secured by the properties. Total revenues and other income from discontinued operations increased from $167.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 to $198.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2012. Total expenses from discontinued operations increased from $174.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 to $201.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2012.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate from discontinued operations of $37.2 million with respect to three historical office properties, two historical industrial properties and 210 GKK Properties held for sale or sold as of December 31, 2012. The impairment charge was primarily a result of a reduction in the estimated sales prices of certain properties held for sale. The estimated sales prices were based on purchase and sale agreements we have entered into, offers received which we intend to accept or broker estimates of value. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recognized an impairment charge on real estate from discontinued operations of $45.7 million with respect to eight historical office properties and eight historical industrial properties.
During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized a gain on extinguishment of debt from discontinued operations of $21.5 million related to the One Citizens Loan and the Goldman Mortgage Loan, which matured on January 11, 2012 and August 31, 2012, respectively. See “— Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2013 versus the year ended December 31, 2012.” During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recognized a gain on extinguishment of debt from discontinued operations of $115.5 million related to the National Industrial Portfolio Mortgage and Mezzanine Loans. The gain on extinguishment of debt related to the National Industrial Portfolio of $115.5 million (including amounts for noncontrolling interest of approximately $24.2 million) represents the difference between the carrying amount of the outstanding debt and other liabilities of $446.1 million and the carrying value of the real estate properties and other assets of $328.3 million, net of closing costs of $2.3 million, upon transfer of the properties.
Funds from Operations and Modified Funds from Operations
We believe that FFO is a beneficial indicator of the performance of an equity REIT. We compute FFO in accordance with the current NAREIT definition. FFO represents net income, excluding gains and losses from sales of operating real estate assets (which can vary among owners of identical assets in similar conditions based on historical cost accounting and useful-life estimates), impairment losses on real estate assets, depreciation and amortization of real estate assets, and adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. In connection with NAREIT’s Accounting and Financial Standards Hot Topics, we are excluding impairment charges on real estate assets from our calculation of FFO. We have also restated FFO from prior periods to exclude these impairment charges. NAREIT believes that impairment charges on real estate assets are often early recognition of losses on prospective sales of properties, and therefore, the exclusion of these impairments is consistent with the exclusion of gains and losses recognized from the sales of real estate. Although these losses are included in the calculation of net income (loss), we have excluded these impairment charges in our calculation of FFO because impairments do not impact the current operating performance of our investments, and may or may not provide an indication of future operating performance. We believe FFO facilitates comparisons of operating performance between periods and among other REITs. However, our computation of FFO may not be comparable to other REITs that do not define FFO in accordance with the NAREIT definition or that interpret the current NAREIT definition differently than we do. Our management believes that historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time. Since real estate values have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many industry investors and analysts have considered the presentation of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient by themselves. As a result, we believe that the use of FFO, together with the required GAAP presentations, provides a more complete understanding of our performance relative to our competitors and provides a more informed and appropriate basis on which to make decisions involving operating, financing, and investing activities.
Changes in accounting rules have resulted in a substantial increase in the number of non-operating and non-cash items included in the calculation of FFO. As a result, our management also uses modified funds from operations (“MFFO”) as an indicator of our ongoing performance. MFFO excludes from FFO: acquisition fees and expenses; adjustments related to contingent purchase price obligations; amounts relating to straight-line rents and amortization of above- and below-market intangible lease assets and liabilities; accretion of discounts and amortization of premiums on debt investments; amortization of closing costs relating to debt investments; impairments of real estate-related investments; mark-to-market adjustments included in net income; and gains or losses included in net income for the extinguishment or sale of debt or hedges. We compute MFFO in accordance with the definition of MFFO included in the practice guideline issued by the IPA in November 2010. Our computation of MFFO may not be comparable to other REITs that do not compute MFFO in accordance with the current IPA definition or that interpret the current IPA definition differently than we do.
We believe that MFFO is helpful as a measure of ongoing operating performance because it excludes non-operating items included in FFO. MFFO also excludes non-cash items such as straight-line rental revenue. Additionally, we believe that MFFO provides investors with supplemental performance information that is consistent with the performance indicators and analysis used by management, in addition to net income and cash flows from operating activities as defined by GAAP, to evaluate the sustainability of our operating performance. MFFO provides comparability in evaluating the operating performance of our portfolio with other non-traded REITs, which typically have limited lives with short and defined acquisition periods and targeted exit strategies. MFFO, or an equivalent measure, is routinely reported by non-traded REITs, and we believe often used by analysts and investors for comparison purposes.
FFO and MFFO are non-GAAP financial measures and do not represent net income as defined by GAAP. Net income as defined by GAAP is the most relevant measure in determining our operating performance because FFO and MFFO include adjustments that investors may deem subjective, such as adding back expenses such as depreciation and amortization and the other items described above. Accordingly, FFO and MFFO should not be considered as alternatives to net income as an indicator of our current and historical operating performance. In addition, FFO and MFFO do not represent cash flows from operating activities determined in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered an indication of our liquidity. We believe FFO and MFFO, in addition to net income and cash flows from operating activities as defined by GAAP, are meaningful supplemental performance measures.
Although MFFO includes other adjustments, the exclusion of straight-line rent, amortization of above- and below-market leases, gain from extinguishment of debt, impairment charges related to our real estate-related investments and the net amortization of discounts and premiums on mortgage loans related to the GKK Properties are the most significant adjustments to us at the present time. We have excluded these items based on the following economic considerations:
| |
| • | Adjustments for straight-line rent. These are adjustments to rental revenue as required by GAAP to recognize contractual lease payments on a straight-line basis over the life of the respective lease. We have excluded these adjustments in our calculation of MFFO to more appropriately reflect the current economic impact of our in-place leases, and also provide investors with a useful supplemental metric that addresses core operating performance by removing rent we hope to receive in a future period or rent that was received in a prior period; |
| |
| • | Amortization of above- and below-market leases. Similar to depreciation and amortization of real estate assets and lease related costs that are excluded from FFO, GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of intangible lease assets and liabilities diminishes predictably over time and requires that these charges be recognized currently in revenue. Since real estate values and market lease rates in the aggregate have historically risen or fallen with local market conditions, management believes that by excluding these charges, MFFO provides useful supplemental information on the operating performance of the real estate; |
| |
| • | Gain from extinguishment of debt. A gain from extinguishment of debt represents the difference between the fair value of any consideration transferred to the lender in return for the extinguishment of a debt and the net carrying value of the debt at the time of settlement. We have excluded the gain from extinguishment of debt in our calculation of MFFO because these gains do not impact the current operating performance of our investments and do not provide an indication of future operating performance; |
| |
| • | Impairment charges on real estate loans receivable. An impairment charge on real estate loans receivable represents a write-down of the carrying value of a real estate loan to reflect the current valuation of the asset, whether or not the asset is intended to be held long-term. Although these losses are included in the calculation of net income (loss), we have excluded these impairment charges in our calculation of MFFO because impairments do not impact the current operating performance of our investments, and may or may not provide an indication of future operating performance. We believe it is useful to investors to have a supplemental metric that addresses core operating performance directly and therefore excludes such things as impairment charges on real estate loans receivable; and |
| |
| • | Net amortization of discounts and premiums on mortgage loans related to the GKK Properties. Discounts and premiums on debt are amortized over the term of the loan as an adjustment to interest expense. This application results in interest expense recognition that is different than the underlying contractual terms of the debt. We have excluded the amortization of discounts and premiums related to the debt assumed in connection with the Settlement Agreement in our calculation of MFFO to more appropriately reflect the economic impact of our debt as the amortization of discounts and premiums has no ongoing economic impact on our operations. The debt assumed related to the GKK Properties was marked to market as of the date we entered into Settlement Agreement, which resulted in discounts and premiums related to the debt assumed. We believe excluding these items provides investors with a useful supplemental metric that directly addresses core operating performance. |
Our calculation of FFO and MFFO is presented in the table below for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively (in thousands). No conclusions or comparisons should be made from the presentation of these periods.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | For the Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Net loss attributable to common stockholders | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | (19,338 | ) |
| Depreciation of real estate assets | 41,798 |
| | 43,040 |
| | 25,941 |
|
| Depreciation of real estate assets - discontinued operations | 3,954 |
| | 27,353 |
| | 34,961 |
|
| Amortization of lease-related costs | 33,777 |
| | 38,696 |
| | 24,818 |
|
| Amortization of lease-related costs - discontinued operations | 2,730 |
| | 30,974 |
| | 24,318 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate - discontinued operations | 8,975 |
| | 37,218 |
| | 45,744 |
|
| Gain on sale of foreclosed real estate held for sale | (378 | ) | | (127 | ) | | (134 | ) |
| Gain on sale of real estate, net | (47,997 | ) | | (53,691 | ) | | (5,141 | ) |
| Gain on sale of real estate securities | (10,470 | ) | | (25,456 | ) | | — |
|
Adjustments for noncontrolling interest - consolidated entity (1) | — |
| | — |
| | (2,053 | ) |
| FFO | 26,084 |
| | 86,747 |
| | 135,949 |
|
| Straight-line rent and amortization of above- and below-market leases | (15,307 | ) | | (24,429 | ) | | (16,188 | ) |
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | — |
| | (21,513 | ) | | (115,531 | ) |
| Amortization of discounts and closing costs on real estate loans receivable | (1,009 | ) | | (575 | ) | | (860 | ) |
| Impairment charges on real estate loans receivable | — |
| | 142 |
| | 11,999 |
|
| Amortization of discounts and premiums on GKK notes payable, net | 4,198 |
| | 1,429 |
| | 3,983 |
|
Adjustments for noncontrolling interest - consolidated entity (1) | — |
| | — |
| | 23,867 |
|
| MFFO | $ | 13,966 |
| | $ | 41,801 |
| | $ | 43,219 |
|
_____________________
(1) Relates to the noncontrolling interest holder’s share of our consolidated joint venture for the FFO and MFFO adjustments noted above.
FFO and MFFO may be used to fund all or a portion of certain capitalizable items that are excluded from FFO and MFFO, such as tenant improvements, building improvements and deferred leasing costs.
Distributions
Distributions declared, distributions paid and cash flows from operations were as follows during 2013 (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Distributions
Declared (1) | | Distributions Declared Per
Share (1) | | Distributions Paid (1) | | Cash Flows From Operations |
| Period | | |
| First Quarter 2013 | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | (308 | ) |
| Second Quarter 2013 | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 6 |
|
| Third Quarter 2013 | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 13,197 |
|
| Fourth Quarter 2013 | | 75,015 |
| | 0.395 |
| | 75,015 |
| | (3,389 | ) |
| | | $ | 75,015 |
| | $ | 0.395 |
| | $ | 75,015 |
| | $ | 9,506 |
|
(1) On November 6, 2013, our board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013. We paid this distribution in cash on December 5, 2013. This distribution was funded from the proceeds from the sales of real estate. For more information relating to our distributions, see Part II, Item 5 “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities - Distribution Information.”
Critical Accounting Policies
Below is a discussion of the accounting policies that management considers critical in that they involve significant management judgments and assumptions, require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain and because they are important for understanding and evaluating our reported financial results. These judgments affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and our disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. With different estimates or assumptions, materially different amounts could be reported in our financial statements. Additionally, other companies may utilize different estimates that may impact the comparability of our results of operations to those of companies in similar businesses.
Revenue Recognition
Real Estate
We recognize minimum rent, including rental abatements, lease incentives and contractual fixed increases attributable to operating leases, on a straight-line basis over the term of the related leases when collectibility is reasonably assured and record amounts expected to be received in later years as deferred rent receivable. If the lease provides for tenant improvements, we determine whether the tenant improvements, for accounting purposes, are owned by the tenant or by us. When we are the owner of the tenant improvements, the tenant is not considered to have taken physical possession or have control of the physical use of the leased asset until the tenant improvements are substantially completed. When the tenant is the owner of the tenant improvements, any tenant improvement allowance (including amounts that the tenant can take in the form of cash or a credit against its rent) that is funded is treated as a lease incentive and amortized as a reduction of revenue over the lease term. Tenant improvement ownership is determined based on various factors including, but not limited to:
| |
| • | whether the lease stipulates how a tenant improvement allowance may be spent; |
| |
| • | whether the amount of a tenant improvement allowance is in excess of market rates; |
| |
| • | whether the tenant or landlord retains legal title to the improvements at the end of the lease term; |
| |
| • | whether the tenant improvements are unique to the tenant or general-purpose in nature; and |
| |
| • | whether the tenant improvements are expected to have any residual value at the end of the lease. |
We record property operating expense reimbursements due from tenants for common area maintenance, real estate taxes, and other recoverable costs in the period the related expenses are incurred.
We make estimates of the collectibility of our tenant receivables related to base rents, including deferred rent receivable, expense reimbursements and other revenue or income. Management specifically analyzes accounts receivable, deferred rent receivable, historical bad debts, customer creditworthiness, current economic trends and changes in customer payment terms when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. In addition, with respect to tenants in bankruptcy, management makes estimates of the expected recovery of pre-petition and post-petition claims in assessing the estimated collectibility of the related receivable. In some cases, the ultimate resolution of these claims can exceed one year. When a tenant is in bankruptcy, we will record a bad debt reserve for the tenant’s receivable balance and generally will not recognize subsequent rental revenue until cash is received or until the tenant is no longer in bankruptcy and has the ability to make rental payments.
Real Estate Loans Receivable
Interest income on our real estate loans receivable is recognized on an accrual basis over the life of the investment using the interest method. Direct loan origination fees and origination or acquisition costs, as well as acquisition premiums or discounts, are amortized over the term of the loan as an adjustment to interest income. We place loans on nonaccrual status when any portion of principal or interest is 90 days past due, or earlier when concern exists as to the ultimate collection of principal or interest. When a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, we reverse the accrual for unpaid interest and generally do not recognize subsequent interest income until cash is received, or the loan returns to accrual status. We will resume the accrual of interest if we determine the collection of interest according to the contractual terms of the loan is probable.
We generally recognize income on impaired loans on either a cash basis, where interest income is only recorded when received in cash, or on a cost-recovery basis, where all cash receipts are applied against the carrying value of the loan. We consider the collectibility of the loan’s principal balance in determining whether to recognize income on impaired loans on a cash basis or a cost-recovery basis.
Real Estate Securities
We recognize interest income on real estate securities that are beneficial interests in securitized financial assets and are rated “AA” and above on an accrual basis according to the contractual terms of the securities. Discounts or premiums are amortized to interest income over the life of the investment using the interest method.
We recognize interest income on real estate securities that are beneficial interests in securitized financial assets that are rated below “AA” using the effective yield method, which requires us to periodically project estimated cash flows related to these securities and recognize interest income at an interest rate equivalent to the estimated yield on the security, as calculated using the security’s estimated cash flows and amortized cost basis, or reference amount. Changes in the estimated cash flows are recognized through an adjustment to the yield on the security on a prospective basis. Projecting cash flows for these types of securities requires significant judgment, which may have a significant impact on the timing of revenue recognized on these investments.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
We recognize interest income on our cash and cash equivalents as it is earned and classify such amounts as other interest income.
Real Estate
Depreciation and Amortization
Real estate costs related to the acquisition and improvement of properties are capitalized and amortized over the expected useful life of the asset on a straight-line basis. Repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred and significant replacements and betterments are capitalized. Repair and maintenance costs include all costs that do not extend the useful life of the real estate asset. We consider the period of future benefit of an asset to determine its appropriate useful life. Expenditures for tenant improvements are capitalized and amortized over the shorter of the tenant’s lease term or expected useful life. We anticipate the estimated useful lives of our assets by class to be generally as follows:
|
| |
| Buildings | 15 - 40 years |
| Building improvements | 10 - 25 years |
| Tenant improvements | Shorter of lease term or expected useful life |
| Tenant origination and absorption costs | Remaining term of related leases, including below-market renewal periods |
Real Estate Acquisition Valuation
We record the acquisition of income-producing real estate or real estate that will be used for the production of income as a business combination. All assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination are measured at their acquisition-date fair values. Acquisition costs are expensed as incurred and restructuring costs that do not meet the definition of a liability at the acquisition date are expensed in periods subsequent to the acquisition date.
We assess the acquisition date fair values of all tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities using methods similar to those used by independent appraisers, generally utilizing a discounted cash flow analysis that applies appropriate discount and/or capitalization rates and available market information. Estimates of future cash flows are based on a number of factors, including historical operating results, known and anticipated trends, and market and economic conditions. The fair value of tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant.
We record above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties based on the present value (using a discount rate that reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for the corresponding in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of above-market in-place leases and for the initial term plus any extended term for any leases with below-market renewal options. We amortize any recorded above-market or below-market lease values as a reduction or increase, respectively, to rental income over the remaining non-cancelable terms of the respective lease, including any below-market renewal periods.
We estimate the value of tenant origination and absorption costs by considering the estimated carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease up periods, considering current market conditions. In estimating carrying costs, we include real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease up periods.
We amortize the value of tenant origination and absorption costs to depreciation and amortization expense over the remaining non-cancelable term of the leases.
Estimates of the fair values of the tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities require us to make significant assumptions to estimate market lease rates, property-operating expenses, carrying costs during lease-up periods, discount rates, market absorption periods, and the number of years the property will be held for investment. The use of inappropriate assumptions would result in an incorrect valuation of our acquired tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities, which would impact the amount of our net income.
Impairment of Real Estate and Related Intangible Assets and Liabilities
We continually monitor events and changes in circumstances that could indicate that the carrying amounts of our real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities may not be recoverable or realized. When indicators of potential impairment suggest that the carrying value of real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities may not be recoverable, we assess the recoverability by estimating whether we will recover the carrying value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities through its undiscounted future cash flows and its eventual disposition. If, based on this analysis, we do not believe that we will be able to recover the carrying value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities, we would record an impairment loss to the extent that the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities.
Projecting future cash flows involves estimating expected future operating income and expenses related to the real estate and its related intangible assets and liabilities as well as market and other trends. Using inappropriate assumptions to estimate cash flows could result in incorrect fair values of the real estate and its related intangible assets and liabilities and could result in the overstatement of the carrying values of our real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities and an overstatement of our net income.
Real Estate Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
We generally consider non-foreclosed real estate to be “held for sale” when the following criteria are met: (i) management commits to a plan to sell the property, (ii) the property is available for sale immediately, (iii) the property is actively being marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value, (iv) the sale of the property within one year is considered probable and (v) significant changes to the plan to sell are not expected. Real estate that is held for sale and its related assets are classified as “real estate held for sale” and “assets related to real estate held for sale,” respectively, for all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Notes payable and other liabilities related to real estate held for sale are classified as “notes payable related to real estate held for sale” and “liabilities related to real estate held for sale,” respectively, for all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Real estate classified as held for sale is no longer depreciated and is reported at the lower of its carrying value or its estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell. Additionally, we record the operating results related to real estate that has either been disposed of or is deemed to be held for sale as discontinued operations for all periods presented if the operations have been or are expected to be eliminated and we will not have any significant continuing involvement in the operations of the property following the sale.
Change in a Plan to Sell
When real estate is initially considered “held for sale” it is measured at the lower of its depreciated book value, or estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell. Changes in the market may compel us to decide to reclassify a property that was designated as held for sale to held for investment. A property that is reclassified from held for sale to held for investment or non-sale disposition is measured and recorded individually at the lower of (i) its carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used, or (ii) its fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any adjustment to the carrying amount of the property as a result of the reclassification is included in income from continuing operations as an impairment charge on real estate held for investment.
Real Estate Held for Non-Sale Disposition
We consider real estate assets that do not meet the criteria for held for sale but are expected to be disposed of other than by sale as real estate held for non-sale disposition. The assets and liabilities related to real estate held for non-sale disposition are included in our consolidated balance sheets and the results of operations are presented as part of continuing operations in our consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities of these properties will be removed from our consolidated balance sheets and the results of operations will be reclassified to discontinued operations on our consolidated statements of operations upon the ultimate disposition of the real estate.
Foreclosed Real Estate Held for Sale
Foreclosed real estate held for sale consists of properties to which we have received title through foreclosure or by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in full or partial satisfaction of non-performing loans that we intend to market for sale in the near term. Foreclosed real estate held for sale is initially recorded at the estimated fair value of the real estate less estimated costs to sell, or the fair value of the loan satisfied if more clearly evident. The excess of the carrying value of the loan over the fair value of the property less estimated costs to sell, if any, is charged-off against the reserve for loan losses when title to the property is obtained. Costs of holding the property are expensed as incurred in our consolidated statements of operations. The gain or loss on final disposition of foreclosed real estate held for sale is recorded as other income and is considered income (loss) from continuing operations as it represents the final stage of our loan collection process.
Real Estate Loans Receivable
Our real estate loans receivable are recorded at amortized cost, net of loan loss reserves, and evaluated for impairment at each balance sheet date. The amortized cost of a real estate loan receivable is the outstanding unpaid principal balance, net of unamortized acquisition premiums or discounts and unamortized costs and fees directly associated with the origination or acquisition of the loan.
The reserve for loan losses is a valuation allowance that reflects our estimate of loan losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the balance sheet date. The reserve is adjusted through “Provision for loan losses” in our consolidated statements of operations and is decreased by charge-offs to specific loans when losses are confirmed. The reserve for loan losses includes a portfolio-based component and an asset-specific component.
An asset-specific reserve relates to reserves for losses on loans considered impaired. We consider a loan to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, we believe that it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due under the contractual terms of the loan agreement. We also consider a loan to be impaired if we grant the borrower a concession through a modification of the loan terms or if we expect to receive assets (including equity interests in the borrower) with fair values that are less than the carrying value of our loan in satisfaction of the loan. A reserve is established when the present value of payments expected to be received, observable market prices, the estimated fair value of the collateral (for loans that are dependent on the collateral for repayment) or amounts expected to be received in satisfaction of a loan are lower than the carrying value of that loan.
A portfolio-based reserve covers the pool of loans that do not have asset-specific reserves. A provision for loan losses is recorded when available information as of each balance sheet date indicates that it is probable that a loss occurred in the pool of loans and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, but we do not know which specific loans within the pool will ultimately result in losses. Required reserve balances for this pool of loans are derived from estimated probabilities of default and estimated loss severities assuming a default occurs. On a quarterly basis, we assign estimated probabilities of default and loss severities to each loan in the portfolio based on factors such as the debt service coverage of the underlying collateral, the estimated fair value of the collateral, the significance of the borrower’s investment in the collateral, the financial condition of the borrower and/or its sponsors, the likelihood that the borrower and/or its sponsors would allow the loan to default, our willingness and ability to step in as owner in the event of default, and other pertinent factors.
Failure to recognize impairments would result in the overstatement of earnings and the carrying value of our real estate loans receivable. Actual losses, if any, could differ significantly from estimated amounts.
Fair Value Measurements
Under GAAP, we are required to measure certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. In addition, we are required to measure other financial instruments and balances at fair value on a non-recurring basis (e.g., carrying value of impaired real estate loans receivable and long-lived assets). Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The GAAP fair value framework uses a three-tiered approach. Fair value measurements are classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
| |
| • | Level 1: unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities; |
| |
| • | Level 2: quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations in which significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets; and |
| |
| • | Level 3: prices or valuation techniques where little or no market data is available that requires inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable. |
When available, we utilize quoted market prices from independent third-party sources to determine fair value and classify such items in Level 1 or Level 2. In instances where the market for a financial instrument is not active, regardless of the availability of a nonbinding quoted market price, observable inputs might not be relevant and could require us to make a significant adjustment to derive a fair value measurement. Additionally, in an inactive market, a market price quoted from an independent third party may rely more on models with inputs based on information available only to that independent third party. When we determine the market for a financial instrument owned by us to be illiquid or when market transactions for similar instruments do not appear orderly, we use several valuation sources (including internal valuations, discounted cash flow analysis and quoted market prices) and establish a fair value by assigning weights to the various valuation sources. Additionally, when determining the fair value of liabilities in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for an identical liability is not available, we measure fair value using (i) a valuation technique that uses the quoted price of the identical liability when traded as an asset or quoted prices for similar liabilities when traded as assets or (ii) another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurement, such as the income approach or the market approach.
Changes in assumptions or estimation methodologies can have a material effect on these estimated fair values. In this regard, the derived fair value estimates cannot be substantiated by comparison to independent markets and, in many cases, may not be realized in an immediate settlement of the instrument.
We consider the following factors to be indicators of an inactive market: (i) there are few recent transactions, (ii) price quotations are not based on current information, (iii) price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market makers (for example, some brokered markets), (iv) indexes that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset or liability are demonstrably uncorrelated with recent indications of fair value for that asset or liability, (v) there is a significant increase in implied liquidity risk premiums, yields, or performance indicators (such as delinquency rates or loss severities) for observed transactions or quoted prices when compared with our estimate of expected cash flows, considering all available market data about credit and other nonperformance risk for the asset or liability, (vi) there is a wide bid-ask spread or significant increase in the bid-ask spread, (vii) there is a significant decline or absence of a market for new issuances (that is, a primary market) for the asset or liability or similar assets or liabilities, and (viii) little information is released publicly (for example, a principal-to-principal market).
We consider the following factors to be indicators of non-orderly transactions: (i) there was not adequate exposure to the market for a period before the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or liabilities under current market conditions, (ii) there was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market participant, (iii) the seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership (that is, distressed), or the seller was required to sell to meet regulatory or legal requirements (that is, forced), and (iv) the transaction price is an outlier when compared with other recent transactions for the same or similar assets or liabilities.
Income Taxes
We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code. To qualify as a REIT, we must meet certain organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement to distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income to stockholders (which is computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction or net capital gain and which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP). As a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on income that we distribute as dividends to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate income tax rates and generally will not be permitted to qualify for treatment as a REIT for federal income tax purposes for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification is lost, unless the Internal Revenue Service grants us relief under certain statutory provisions. Such an event could materially and adversely affect our net income and net cash available for distribution to stockholders. However, we believe that we are organized and operate in such a manner as to qualify for treatment as a REIT.
Subsequent Events
We evaluate subsequent events up until the date the consolidated financial statements are issued.
Disposition of Properties Subsequent to December 31, 2013
Crescent Green Buildings
On January 31, 2007, we, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary, acquired three office buildings comprising 248,832 rentable square feet located on a 24-acre parcel of land in Cary, North Carolina (the “Crescent Green Buildings”). The purchase price of the Crescent Green Buildings was $48.1 million plus closing costs. On February 19, 2014, we sold the Crescent Green Buildings, which had a net book value of $36.5 million for $37.3 million. The purchaser is not affiliated with us or the advisor.
| |
| ITEM 7A. | QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
We are exposed to the effects of interest rate changes as a result of borrowings used to (i) maintain liquidity, (ii) fund the financing and refinancing of our real estate investment portfolio, and (iii) fund operations and payments on the debt assumed in connection with the Settlement Agreement. We are also exposed to the effects of changes in interest rates as a result of our investments in mortgage, mezzanine and other loans and investments in real estate-related assets. Our profitability and the value of our investment portfolio may be adversely affected during any period as a result of interest rate changes. Our interest rate risk management objectives are to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings, prepayment penalties and cash flows and to lower overall borrowing costs. We have managed and will continue to manage interest rate risk by maintaining a ratio of fixed rate, long-term debt such that floating rate exposure is kept at an acceptable level. In addition, we may utilize a variety of financial instruments, including interest rate caps, floors, and swap agreements, in order to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations. When we use these types of derivatives to hedge the risk of interest-earning assets or interest-bearing liabilities, we may be subject to certain risks, including the risk that losses on a hedge position will reduce the overall returns to our stockholders and that the losses may exceed the amount we invested in the instruments.
The table below summarizes the book values, weighted-average interest rates and fair values of our real estate loans receivable and notes payable for each category as of December 31, 2013 based on the maturity dates as of December 31, 2013 (dollars in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Maturity Date (1) | | Total Book Value (2) | | |
| | | 2014 | | 2015 | | 2016 | | 2017 | | 2018 | | Thereafter | | | Fair Value |
| Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Loans receivable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mezzanine loans - fixed rate | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 5,025 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 5,025 |
| | $ | 2,882 |
|
Average effective interest rate (3) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 7.9 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | 7.9 | % | | |
| Mortgage loans - fixed rate | | $ | 6,878 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 6,878 |
| | $ | 6,833 |
|
Average effective interest rate (3) | | 9.2 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 9.2 | % | | |
| B-notes - fixed rate | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 19,955 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 19,955 |
| | $ | 16,039 |
|
Average effective interest rate (3) | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 11.4 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | 11.4 | % | | |
| Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Notes payable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fixed rate - Historical real estate properties | | $ | 103,199 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 62,200 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 165,399 |
| | $ | 170,431 |
|
Weighted-average interest rate (4) | | 6.5 | % | | — |
| | 5.9 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 6.3 | % | | |
| Fixed rate - GKK Properties mortgage loans | | $ | 43,699 |
| | $ | 35,701 |
| | $ | 64,004 |
| | $ | 124,858 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 318,221 |
| | $ | 586,483 |
| | $ | 584,546 |
|
Weighted-average interest rate (4) | | 11.1 | % | | 5.1 | % | | 5.5 | % | | 6.2 | % | | — |
| | 6.6 | % | | 6.6 | % | | |
| Variable rate - Historical real estate properties | | $ | — |
| | $ | 25,400 |
| | $ | 185,000 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 210,400 |
| | $ | 210,486 |
|
Weighted-average interest rate (4) | | — |
| | 2.4 | % | | 2.0 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 2.0 | % | | |
(1) The maturity dates presented are as of December 31, 2013.
(2) Book value of loans receivable is presented gross of portfolio-based reserve and asset-specific reserves. Book value of notes payable is presented net of discounts and premiums on notes payable.
(3) The average effective interest rate is calculated based on actual interest income recognized in 2013, including interest income recognized through accretion of discounts, calculated using the interest method, divided by the average cost basis of the investment less the unamortized discount. The average effective interest rates and maturity dates presented are as of December 31, 2013.
(4) Average interest rate is the weighted-average interest rate. Weighted-average interest rate as of December 31, 2013 is calculated as the contractual interest rate in effect as of December 31, 2013, using interest rate indices as of December 31, 2013, where applicable.
We borrow funds and made investments at a combination of fixed and variable rates. Interest rate fluctuations will generally not affect our future earnings or cash flows on our fixed rate debt or fixed rate real estate loans receivable unless such instruments mature or are otherwise terminated. However, interest rate changes will affect the fair value of our fixed rate instruments. As of December 31, 2013, the fair value and book value of our fixed rate real estate loans receivable were $25.8 million and $29.8 million, respectively. The fair value estimate of our real estate loans receivable is calculated using an internal valuation model that considers the expected cash flows for the loans, underlying collateral values (for collateral-dependent loans) and the estimated yield requirements of institutional investors for loans with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value, type of collateral and other credit enhancements. As of December 31, 2013, the fair value of our fixed rate debt was $755.0 million and the carrying value of our fixed rate debt was $751.9 million. The fair value estimate of our fixed rate debt was calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis utilizing rates we would expect to pay for debt of a similar type and remaining maturity if the loans were originated as of December 31, 2013. As we expect to hold our fixed rate instruments to maturity and the amounts due under such instruments would be limited to the outstanding principal balance and any accrued and unpaid interest, we do not expect that fluctuations in interest rates, and the resulting changes in fair value of our fixed rate instruments, would have a significant impact on our operations.
Conversely, movements in interest rates on variable rate debt would change our future earnings and cash flows, but would not significantly affect the fair value of those instruments. However, changes in required risk premiums would result in changes in the fair value of floating rate instruments. As of December 31, 2013, we were exposed to market risks related to fluctuations in interest rates on our $210.4 million of variable rate debt outstanding. Based on interest rates as of December 31, 2013, if interest rates are 100 basis points higher during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014, interest expense on our variable rate debt outstanding would increase by approximately $2.1 million. As of December 31, 2013, one-month LIBOR was 0.1677% and if this index is reduced to 0% during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014, interest expense on our variable rate debt would decrease by $0.4 million.
The weighted-average annual effective interest rate of our fixed rate real estate loans receivable as of December 31, 2013 was 10.4%. The weighted-average annual effective interest rate represents the effective interest rate as of December 31, 2013, using the interest method, which we use to recognize interest income on our real estate loans receivable without asset-specific loan loss reserves. The weighted-average interest rates of our fixed rate debt and variable rate debt as of December 31, 2013 were 6.6% and 2.0%, respectively. The weighted-average interest rate represents the actual interest rate in effect as of December 31, 2013, using interest rate indices as of December 31, 2013, where applicable.
For developments related to our loans receivable and notes payable, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.”
| |
| ITEM 8. | FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA |
See the Index to Financial Statements at page F-1 of this report.
| |
| ITEM 9. | CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE |
None.
| |
| ITEM 9A. | CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of the end of the period covered by this report, management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based upon, and as of the date of, the evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports we file and submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported as and when required. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file and submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
In connection with the preparation of our Form 10-K, our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013. In making that assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (1992).
Based on its assessment, our management believes that, as of December 31, 2013, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2013 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
| |
| ITEM 9B. | OTHER INFORMATION |
As of the quarter ended December 31, 2013, all items required to be disclosed under Form 8-K were reported under Form 8-K.
PART III
We will file a definitive Proxy Statement for our 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2014 Proxy Statement”) with the SEC, pursuant to Regulation 14A, not later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal year. Accordingly, certain information required by Part III has been omitted under General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K. Only those sections of the 2014 Proxy Statement that specifically address the items required to be set forth herein are incorporated by reference.
| |
| ITEM 10. | DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
We have adopted a Code of Conduct and Ethics that applies to all of our executive officers and directors, including but not limited to, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer. Our Code of Conduct and Ethics can be found at http://www.kbsreit.com.
The other information required by this Item is incorporated by reference from our 2014 Proxy Statement.
| |
| ITEM 11. | EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference from our 2014 Proxy Statement.
| |
| ITEM 12. | SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS |
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference from our 2014 Proxy Statement.
| |
| ITEM 13. | CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE |
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference from our 2014 Proxy Statement.
| |
| ITEM 14. | PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES |
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference from our 2014 Proxy Statement.
PART IV
| |
| ITEM 15. | EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES |
| |
| (a) | Financial Statement Schedules |
See the Index to Financial Statements at page F-1 of this report.
The following financial statement schedules are included herein at pages F-45 through F-63 of this report:
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
Schedule III - Real Estate Assets and Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization
Schedule IV - Mortgage Loans on Real Estate
|
| | |
| Ex. | | Description |
| | |
| 3.1 | | Articles of Amendment and Restatement of the Company, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 |
| | |
| 3.2 | | Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 |
| | |
| 4.1 | | Statement regarding restrictions on transferability of shares of common stock (to appear on stock certificate or to be sent upon request and without charge to stockholders issued shares without certificates), incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-11, Commission File No. 333-126087 |
| | |
| 10.1 | | Second Omnibus Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreements (related to PB Capital), by and between First States Investors 3300 B, L.P. and National Financial Realty - WFB East Coast, LLC, dated as of January 15, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 10.2 | | Third Omnibus Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreements (related to PB Capital), by and between First States Investors 3300 B, L.P. and National Financial Realty - WFB East Coast, LLC, dated as of January 16, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 10.3 | | Fourth Omnibus Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreements (related to PB Capital), by and between First States Investors 3300 B, L.P. and National Financial Realty - WFB East Coast, LLC, dated as of January 17, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 10.4 | | Fifth Omnibus Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement and First Amendment to Omnibus Agreement (related to PB Capital), by and between First States Investors 3300 B, L.P., National Financial Realty - WFB East Coast, LLC and National Financial Realty - East Coast Portfolio I, LLC, dated as of January 18, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 10.5 | | Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (related to PB Capital), by and between First States Investors 3300 B, L.P., National Financial Realty - WFB East Coast, LLC and National Financial Realty - East Coast Portfolio I, LLC, dated as of February 28, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 10.6 | | Advisory Agreement, by and between the Company and KBS Capital Advisors, LLC, dated as of November 8, 2013, incorporated by reference to exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed November 8, 2013 |
| | | |
| 10.7 | | Amended and Restated Asset Management Services Agreement (related to the GKK Properties), by and between KBS Acquisition Sub, LLC and GKK Realty Advisors LLC, effective as of December 1, 2013 |
|
| | |
| Ex. | | Description |
| | |
| 10.8 | | Loan Agreement (related to the Portfolio Loan), by and among various indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, U.S. Bank National Association and Bank of America, N.A., dated as of December 20, 2013 |
| | | |
| 10.9 | | Promissory Note (Revolving Loan) (related to the Portfolio Loan), by and among various indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company for the benefit of U.S. Bank National Association, dated as of December 20, 2013 |
| | | |
| 10.10 | | Promissory Note (Revolving Loan) (related to the Portfolio Loan), by and among various indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company for the benefit of Bank of America, N.A., dated as of December 20, 2013 |
| | | |
| 10.11 | | Repayment Guaranty (related to the Portfolio Loan), by KBS REIT Properties, LLC for the benefit of U.S. Bank National Association, dated as of December 20, 2013 |
| | | |
| 10.12 | | Assumption and Joinder Agreement (related to the Portfolio Loan - University Avenue), by and among by and among various indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, U.S. Bank National Association and Bank of America, N.A., dated as of January 21, 2014 |
| | | |
| 10.13 | | Assumption and Joinder Agreement (related to the Portfolio Loan - Tysons Dulles Plaza), by and among by and among various indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, U.S. Bank National Association and Bank of America, N.A., dated as of January 21, 2014 |
| | | |
| 21.1 | | Subsidiaries of the Company |
| | | |
| 31.1 | | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| | | |
| 31.2 | | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| | | |
| 32.1 | | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| | | |
| 32.2 | | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| | | |
| 99.1 | | Amended and Restated Share Redemption Program, dated March 20, 2012, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 |
| | | |
| 99.2 | | Amended and Restated Share Redemption Program, dated March 6, 2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 |
| | | |
| 101.INS | | XBRL Instance Document |
| | | |
| 101.SCH | | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema |
| | | |
| 101.CAL | | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase |
| | | |
| 101.DEF | | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase |
| | | |
| 101.LAB | | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase |
| | | |
| 101.PRE | | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase |
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
| |
| Consolidated Financial Statements | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| Financial Statement Schedules | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
All other schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2013. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules listed in Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedules based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. at December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Irvine, California
March 7, 2014
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 |
| Assets | | | |
| Real estate held for investment: | | | |
| Land | $ | 303,030 |
| | $ | 312,758 |
|
| Buildings and improvements | 988,011 |
| | 1,036,816 |
|
| Tenant origination and absorption costs | 107,747 |
| | 123,988 |
|
| Total real estate held for investment, at cost and net of impairment charges | 1,398,788 |
| | 1,473,562 |
|
| Less accumulated depreciation and amortization | (171,759 | ) | | (154,893 | ) |
| Total real estate held for investment, net | 1,227,029 |
| | 1,318,669 |
|
| Real estate held for sale, net | 51,770 |
| | 430,165 |
|
| Foreclosed real estate held for sale | 19,064 |
| | 26,275 |
|
| Total real estate, net | 1,297,863 |
| | 1,775,109 |
|
| Real estate loans receivable, net | 29,768 |
| | 28,846 |
|
| Real estate securities | 7,973 |
| | 16,411 |
|
| Total real estate and real estate-related investments, net | 1,335,604 |
| | 1,820,366 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents | 211,391 |
| | 254,578 |
|
| Restricted cash | 101,069 |
| | 112,916 |
|
| Rents and other receivables, net | 39,576 |
| | 44,743 |
|
| Above-market leases, net | 27,237 |
| | 31,743 |
|
| Assets related to real estate held for sale | 1,635 |
| | 9,540 |
|
| Deferred financing costs, prepaid expenses and other assets | 28,385 |
| | 29,669 |
|
| Total assets | $ | 1,744,897 |
| | $ | 2,303,555 |
|
| Liabilities and equity | | | |
| Notes payable: |
| |
|
| Notes payable | $ | 936,882 |
| | $ | 995,866 |
|
| Notes payable related to real estate held for sale | 25,400 |
| | 324,667 |
|
| Total notes payable | 962,282 |
| | 1,320,533 |
|
| Accounts payable and accrued liabilities | 34,288 |
| | 40,506 |
|
| Due to affiliates | — |
| | 104 |
|
| Below-market leases, net | 53,978 |
| | 66,849 |
|
| Liabilities related to real estate held for sale | 2,764 |
| | 37,236 |
|
| Other liabilities | 35,692 |
| | 56,912 |
|
| Total liabilities | 1,089,004 |
| | 1,522,140 |
|
| Commitments and contingencies (Note 15) |
|
| |
|
|
| Redeemable common stock | 10,000 |
| | 10,000 |
|
| Stockholders’ equity | | | |
| Preferred stock, $.01 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding | — |
| | — |
|
| Common stock, $.01 par value; 1,000,000,000 shares authorized, 189,616,701 and 191,061,016 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively | 1,896 |
| | 1,911 |
|
| Additional paid-in capital | 1,670,356 |
| | 1,677,725 |
|
| Cumulative distributions and net losses | (1,030,911 | ) | | (909,401 | ) |
| Accumulated other comprehensive income | 4,552 |
| | 1,180 |
|
| Total stockholders’ equity | 645,893 |
| | 771,415 |
|
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 1,744,897 |
| | $ | 2,303,555 |
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Revenues: | | | | | |
| Rental income | $ | 159,825 |
| | $ | 157,140 |
| | $ | 96,505 |
|
| Tenant reimbursements | 51,302 |
| | 53,268 |
| | 28,531 |
|
| Interest income from real estate loans receivable | 3,258 |
| | 3,189 |
| | 13,383 |
|
| Interest income from real estate securities | — |
| | 689 |
| | 2,857 |
|
| Parking revenues and other operating income | 3,723 |
| | 3,626 |
| | 2,237 |
|
| Total revenues | 218,108 |
| | 217,912 |
| | 143,513 |
|
| Expenses: | | | | | |
| Operating, maintenance, and management | 86,203 |
| | 80,899 |
| | 45,421 |
|
| Real estate taxes, property-related taxes, and insurance | 28,988 |
| | 28,122 |
| | 18,487 |
|
| Asset management fees to affiliate | 10,110 |
| | 10,355 |
| | 12,012 |
|
| General and administrative expenses | 17,907 |
| | 22,439 |
| | 20,271 |
|
| Depreciation and amortization | 75,575 |
| | 81,736 |
| | 50,759 |
|
| Interest expense | 61,666 |
| | 67,006 |
| | 48,172 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate held for investment | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
|
| Provision for loan losses | — |
| | 142 |
| | 11,999 |
|
| Total expenses | 320,639 |
| | 322,581 |
| | 213,954 |
|
| Other income | | | | | |
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | 378 |
| | 127 |
| | 134 |
|
| Gain on sales of real estate securities (includes $10.6 million and $25.2 million of unrealized gains reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively) | 10,470 |
| | 25,456 |
| | — |
|
| Income from unconsolidated joint venture | — |
| | 750 |
| | 5,029 |
|
| Other interest income | 658 |
| | 44 |
| | 101 |
|
| Other income | 2,731 |
| | — |
| | 1,600 |
|
| Total other income | 14,237 |
| | 26,377 |
| | 6,864 |
|
| Loss from continuing operations | (88,294 | ) | | (78,292 | ) | | (63,577 | ) |
| Discontinued operations: | | | | | |
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | 47,997 |
| | 53,691 |
| | 5,141 |
|
| Income (loss) from discontinued operations | 2,777 |
| | (2,836 | ) | | (6,794 | ) |
| Impairment charges on discontinued operations | (8,975 | ) | | (37,218 | ) | | (45,744 | ) |
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | — |
| | 21,513 |
| | 115,531 |
|
| Total income from discontinued operations | 41,799 |
| | 35,150 |
| | 68,134 |
|
| Net (loss) income | (46,495 | ) | | (43,142 | ) | | 4,557 |
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest in discontinued operations | — |
| | — |
| | (23,895 | ) |
| Net loss attributable to common stockholders | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | (19,338 | ) |
| Basic and diluted income (loss) per common share: | | | | | |
| Continuing operations | $ | (0.46 | ) | | $ | (0.41 | ) | | $ | (0.34 | ) |
| Discontinued operations | 0.22 |
| | 0.18 |
| | 0.24 |
|
| Net loss per common share | $ | (0.24 | ) | | $ | (0.23 | ) | | $ | (0.10 | ) |
Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted | 190,454,153 |
| | 191,547,385 |
| | 188,134,294 |
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
(in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Years Ended December 31, |
| | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Net (loss) income | | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | 4,557 |
|
| Other comprehensive (loss) income | | | | | | |
| Reclassification of realized gain on real estate securities | | (10,609 | ) | | (25,240 | ) | | — |
|
| Unrealized change in market value of real estate securities | | 13,867 |
| | 1,294 |
| | 28,902 |
|
| Unrealized gains on derivative instruments | | 114 |
| | 1,348 |
| | 3,912 |
|
| Total other comprehensive (loss) income | | 3,372 |
| | (22,598 | ) | | 32,814 |
|
| Total comprehensive (loss) income | | (43,123 | ) | | (65,740 | ) | | 37,371 |
|
| Total comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests | | — |
| | — |
| | (23,986 | ) |
| Total comprehensive (loss) income attributable to common stockholders | | $ | (43,123 | ) | | $ | (65,740 | ) | | $ | 13,385 |
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EQUITY
(dollars in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Common Stock | | Additional Paid-in Capital | | Cumulative Distributions and Net Income (Loss) | | Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) | | Total Stockholders’ Equity | | Noncontrolling Interest | | Total Equity |
| | Shares | | Amounts | | | | | | |
| Balance, December 31, 2010 | 185,320,095 |
| | $ | 1,853 |
| | $ | 1,600,848 |
| | $ | (731,918 | ) | | $ | (8,945 | ) | | $ | 861,838 |
| | $ | (22,336 | ) | | $ | 839,502 |
|
| Net (loss) income | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (19,338 | ) | | — |
| | (19,338 | ) | | 23,895 |
| | 4,557 |
|
| Other comprehensive income | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 32,723 |
| | 32,723 |
| | 91 |
| | 32,814 |
|
| Distributions to noncontrolling interest | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (1,650 | ) | | (1,650 | ) |
| Issuance of common stock | 6,351,438 |
| | 63 |
| | 46,429 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 46,492 |
| | — |
| | 46,492 |
|
| Redemptions of common stock | (940,000 | ) | | (9 | ) | | (6,872 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (6,881 | ) | | — |
| | (6,881 | ) |
| Transfers from redeemable common stock | — |
| | — |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 6 |
| | — |
| | 6 |
|
| Distributions declared | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (98,776 | ) | | — |
| | (98,776 | ) | | — |
| | (98,776 | ) |
| Commissions on stock issuances to affiliate | — |
| | — |
| | (1,115 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (1,115 | ) | | — |
| | (1,115 | ) |
| Other offering costs | — |
| | — |
| | (68 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (68 | ) | | — |
| | (68 | ) |
| Balance, December 31, 2011 | 190,731,533 |
| | $ | 1,907 |
| | $ | 1,639,228 |
| | $ | (850,032 | ) | | $ | 23,778 |
| | $ | 814,881 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 814,881 |
|
| Net loss | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (43,142 | ) | | — |
| | (43,142 | ) | | — |
| | (43,142 | ) |
| Other comprehensive loss | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (22,598 | ) | | (22,598 | ) | | — |
| | (22,598 | ) |
| Issuance of common stock | 1,713,996 |
| | 17 |
| | 11,114 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 11,131 |
| | — |
| | 11,131 |
|
| Redemptions of common stock | (1,384,513 | ) | | (13 | ) | | (7,715 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (7,728 | ) | | — |
| | (7,728 | ) |
| Transfers from redeemable common stock | — |
| | — |
| | 35,376 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 35,376 |
| | — |
| | 35,376 |
|
| Distributions declared | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (16,227 | ) | | — |
| | (16,227 | ) | | — |
| | (16,227 | ) |
| Commissions on stock issuances to affiliate | — |
| | — |
| | (262 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (262 | ) | | — |
| | (262 | ) |
| Other offering costs | — |
| | — |
| | (16 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (16 | ) | | — |
| | (16 | ) |
| Balance, December 31, 2012 | 191,061,016 |
| | $ | 1,911 |
| | $ | 1,677,725 |
| | $ | (909,401 | ) | | $ | 1,180 |
| | $ | 771,415 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 771,415 |
|
| Net loss | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (46,495 | ) | | — |
| | (46,495 | ) | | — |
| | (46,495 | ) |
| Other comprehensive income | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 3,372 |
| | 3,372 |
| | — |
| | 3,372 |
|
| Redemptions of common stock | (1,444,315 | ) | | (15 | ) | | (7,369 | ) | | — |
| | — |
| | (7,384 | ) | | — |
| | (7,384 | ) |
| Distributions declared | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (75,015 | ) | | — |
| | (75,015 | ) | | — |
| | (75,015 | ) |
| Balance, December 31, 2013 | 189,616,701 |
| | $ | 1,896 |
| | $ | 1,670,356 |
| | $ | (1,030,911 | ) | | $ | 4,552 |
| | $ | 645,893 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 645,893 |
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Cash Flows from Operating Activities: | | | | | |
| Net (loss) income | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | 4,557 |
|
| Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by operating activities: | | | | | |
| Depreciation and amortization | | | | | |
| Continuing operations | 75,575 |
| | 81,736 |
| | 50,759 |
|
| Discontinued operations | 6,684 |
| | 58,327 |
| | 59,279 |
|
| Income from unconsolidated joint venture | — |
| | — |
| | (5,029 | ) |
| Distribution of earnings from unconsolidated joint venture | — |
| | — |
| | 5,029 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate - continuing operations | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate - discontinued operations | 8,975 |
| | 37,218 |
| | 45,744 |
|
| Amortization of investment in master lease | — |
| | — |
| | 436 |
|
| Noncash interest income on real estate-related investments | (1,009 | ) | | (575 | ) | | (860 | ) |
| Change in provision for loan losses | — |
| | 53 |
| | 11,935 |
|
| Deferred rent | (4,095 | ) | | (6,662 | ) | | (7,654 | ) |
| Bad debt expense | 2,490 |
| | 835 |
| | 2,276 |
|
| Amortization of deferred financing costs | 1,216 |
| | 6,850 |
| | 8,112 |
|
| Deferred interest payable | 2,184 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Amortization of above- and below-market leases, net | (11,212 | ) | | (17,767 | ) | | (8,970 | ) |
| Amortization of cost of derivative instruments | — |
| | — |
| | 474 |
|
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | (378 | ) | | (127 | ) | | (134 | ) |
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | (47,997 | ) | | (53,691 | ) | | (5,141 | ) |
| Gain on sales of real estate securities | (10,470 | ) | | (25,456 | ) | | — |
|
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | — |
| | (21,513 | ) | | (115,531 | ) |
| Amortization of discounts and premiums on notes payable, net | 4,198 |
| | 1,429 |
| | 3,983 |
|
| Changes in operating assets and liabilities: | | | | | |
| Restricted cash for operational expenditures | 4,177 |
| | 2,809 |
| | 6,782 |
|
| Rents and other receivables | 6,586 |
| | 2,801 |
| | (218 | ) |
| Prepaid expenses and other assets | (5,714 | ) | | 2,444 |
| | (15,330 | ) |
| Accounts payable and accrued liabilities | (6,076 | ) | | (5,049 | ) | | (391 | ) |
| Due to affiliates | (104 | ) | | 104 |
| | (6,995 | ) |
| Other liabilities | (9,219 | ) | | (18,068 | ) | | (887 | ) |
| Net cash provided by operating activities | 9,506 |
| | 34,438 |
| | 39,059 |
|
| Cash Flows from Investing Activities: | | | | | |
| Improvements to real estate | (20,359 | ) | | (21,805 | ) | | (34,685 | ) |
| Proceeds from sales of real estate, net | 183,379 |
| | 833,469 |
| | 176,857 |
|
| Proceeds from sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | 7,589 |
| | 2,700 |
| | 20,396 |
|
| Proceeds from sale of real estate loans receivable | — |
| | 16,830 |
| | 32,381 |
|
| Investments in real estate loans receivable | — |
| | — |
| | (41,159 | ) |
| Principal repayments on real estate loans receivable | 87 |
| | 18 |
| | 360 |
|
| Extension fees related to real estate loans receivable | — |
| | 103 |
| | 83 |
|
| Proceeds from sale of real estate securities | 22,166 |
| | 46,214 |
| | — |
|
| Purchases of pledged securities | — |
| | (1,833 | ) | | — |
|
| Maturities of pledged securities | — |
| | 10,424 |
| | — |
|
| Cash received from the Transfer of the GKK Properties | — |
| | — |
| | 32,141 |
|
| Net change in restricted cash for capital expenditures | 3,941 |
| | 2,558 |
| | 2,948 |
|
| Payment of contingent consideration related to the GKK Properties | (12,000 | ) | | — |
| | — |
|
| Net cash provided by investing activities | 184,803 |
| | 888,678 |
| | 189,322 |
|
| Cash Flows from Financing Activities: | | | | | |
| Proceeds from notes payable | 185,634 |
| | 159,382 |
| | 172,839 |
|
| Principal payments on notes payable | (343,498 | ) | | (699,525 | ) | | (260,312 | ) |
| Principal payments on repurchase agreements | — |
| | (149,657 | ) | | (162,396 | ) |
| Cash surrendered from deed in lieu of foreclosures | — |
| | (162 | ) | | (2,349 | ) |
| Net change in restricted cash for debt service obligations | 3,729 |
| | (8,410 | ) | | — |
|
| Payments of deferred financing costs | (962 | ) | | (2,557 | ) | | (12,326 | ) |
| Payments to redeem common stock | (7,384 | ) | | (7,728 | ) | | (6,881 | ) |
| Payments of commissions on stock issuances and other offering costs | — |
| | (278 | ) | | (1,183 | ) |
| Distributions paid to common stockholders | (75,015 | ) | | (13,594 | ) | | (52,040 | ) |
| Distributions paid to noncontrolling interest | — |
| | — |
| | (1,650 | ) |
| Net cash used in financing activities | (237,496 | ) | | (722,529 | ) | | (326,298 | ) |
| Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents | (43,187 | ) | | 200,587 |
| | (97,917 | ) |
| Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period | 254,578 |
| | 53,991 |
| | 151,908 |
|
| Cash and cash equivalents, end of period | $ | 211,391 |
| | $ | 254,578 |
| | $ | 53,991 |
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2013
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) was formed on June 13, 2005 as a Maryland corporation and has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). Substantially all of the Company’s assets are held by, and the Company conducts substantially all of its operations through, KBS Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”), and its subsidiaries. The Company is the sole general partner of and directly owns a 99% partnership interest in the Operating Partnership. The Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, KBS REIT Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“KBS REIT Holdings”), owns the remaining 1% partnership interest in the Operating Partnership and is its sole limited partner.
The Company owns a diverse portfolio of real estate and real estate-related investments. As of December 31, 2013, the Company owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 427 real estate properties (of which eight properties were held for non-sale disposition and 12 properties were held for sale), including the GKK Properties (defined below). In addition, as of December 31, 2013, the Company owned four real estate loans receivable, a participation interest with respect to another real estate joint venture and a 10-story condominium building with 62 units acquired through foreclosure, of which three condominium units were owned by the Company and are held for sale.
On September 1, 2011, the Company, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, “KBS”), entered into a Collateral Transfer and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with, among other parties, GKK Stars Acquisition LLC (“GKK Stars”), the wholly owned subsidiary of Gramercy Property Trust, Inc. (“Gramercy”) that indirectly owned the Gramercy real estate portfolio, to effect the orderly transfer of certain assets and liabilities of the Gramercy real estate portfolio to KBS in satisfaction of certain debt obligations under a mezzanine loan owed by wholly owned subsidiaries of Gramercy to KBS (the “GKK Mezzanine Loan”). The Settlement Agreement resulted in the transfer of the equity interests in certain subsidiaries of Gramercy (the “Equity Interests”) that indirectly owned or, with respect to a limited number of properties, held a leasehold interest in, 867 properties (the “GKK Properties”), consisting of 576 bank branch properties and 291 office buildings, operations centers and other properties. As of December 15, 2011, GKK Stars had transferred all of the Equity Interests to the Company, giving the Company title to or, with respect to a limited number of GKK Properties, a leasehold interest in, 867 GKK Properties as of that date.
Subject to certain restrictions and limitations, the business of the Company is managed by KBS Capital Advisors LLC (the “Advisor”), an affiliate of the Company, pursuant to an advisory agreement with the Company (the “Advisory Agreement”) in effect through November 8, 2014. The Advisory Agreement may be renewed for an unlimited number of one-year periods upon the mutual consent of the Advisor and the Company. Either party may terminate the Advisory Agreement upon 60 days written notice. The Advisor owns 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.
Upon commencing its initial public offering (the “Offering”), the Company retained KBS Capital Markets Group LLC (the “Dealer Manager”), an affiliate of the Advisor, to serve as the dealer manager of the Offering pursuant to a dealer manager agreement dated January 27, 2006 (the “Dealer Manager Agreement”). The Company ceased offering shares of common stock in its primary offering on May 30, 2008. The Company terminated its dividend reinvestment plan effective April 10, 2012.
The Company sold 171,109,494 shares of common stock in its primary offering for gross offering proceeds of $1.7 billion. The Company sold 28,306,086 shares of common stock under its dividend reinvestment plan for gross offering proceeds of $233.7 million. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had redeemed 9,818,879 of the shares sold in the Offering for $77.6 million.
Asset Management Services Agreement Related to the GKK Properties
On March 30, 2012, the Company, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary (“KBS Acquisition Sub”), entered into an Asset Management Services Agreement (the “Services Agreement”) with GKK Realty Advisors LLC (the“Property Manager”), an affiliate of Gramercy, with respect to the GKK Properties. Pursuant to the Services Agreement, the Property Manager agreed to provide, among other services: standard asset management services, assistance related to dispositions, accounting services and budgeting and business plans (the “Services”) for the GKK Properties. The Property Manager is not affiliated with the Company or KBS Acquisition Sub.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
On December 19, 2013, KBS Acquisition Sub entered into an amended and restated asset management services agreement (the “Amended Services Agreement”) with the Property Manager. The effective date of the Amended Services Agreement was December 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Amended Services Agreement, the Company made a payment in the amount of $12.0 million to the Property Manager in satisfaction of the profit participation provisions under the Services Agreement. In addition, as compensation for the Services, the Company agreed to pay the Property Manager: (i) an annual fee of $7.5 million plus all GKK Property-related expenses incurred by the Property Manager, (ii) subject to certain terms and conditions in the Amended Services Agreement, a profit participation interest based on a percentage (ranging from 10% to 30%) of the amount by which the gross fair market value or gross sales price of certain identified portfolios of GKK Properties exceeds the sum of (a) an agreed-upon baseline value for such GKK Property portfolios plus (b) new capital expended to increase the value of GKK Properties within the portfolios and expenditures made to pay for tenant improvements and leasing commissions related to these GKK Properties as of the measurement date, and (iii) a monthly construction oversight fee equal to a percentage of construction costs for certain construction projects at the GKK Properties overseen by the Property Manager.
The Amended Services Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2016, with a one-year extension option at the Company’s option, subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the Amended Services Agreement. The Amended Services Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements related to the Services among the Company and its affiliates and the Property Manager and its affiliates.
| |
| 2. | SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of Presentation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, KBS REIT Holdings, the Operating Partnership, their direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, and joint ventures the Company controls or for which it is the primary beneficiary, as well as the related amounts of noncontrolling interests. All significant intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated in consolidation.
The Company evaluates the need to consolidate joint ventures and consolidates joint ventures that it determines to be variable interest entities for which it is the primary beneficiary. The Company also consolidates joint ventures that are not determined to be variable interest entities, but for which it exercises control over major operating decisions through substantive participation rights, such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, asset management, investment activity and changes in financing.
The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) as contained within the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Use of Estimates
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could materially differ from those estimates.
Reclassifications
Certain amounts in the Company’s prior period consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. These reclassifications have not changed the results of operations of prior periods. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had classified 108 GKK Properties as held for sale and reclassified one property that was previously held for sale to held for investment. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company disposed of 112 properties (of which 111 were GKK Properties), some of which were held for sale as of December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had classified 12 properties (of which 11 were GKK Properties) as held for sale. As a result, certain reclassifications were made to the consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and footnote disclosures for all periods presented to reflect all properties sold or held for sale during the period ended December 31, 2013, as discontinued operations for all periods presented.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Revenue Recognition
Real Estate
The Company recognizes minimum rent, including rental abatements, lease incentives and contractual fixed increases attributable to operating leases, on a straight-line basis over the term of the related leases when collectibility is reasonably assured and records amounts expected to be received in later years as deferred rent receivable. If the lease provides for tenant improvements, the Company determines whether the tenant improvements, for accounting purposes, are owned by the tenant or the Company. When the Company is the owner of the tenant improvements, the tenant is not considered to have taken physical possession or have control of the physical use of the leased asset until the tenant improvements are substantially completed. When the tenant is the owner of the tenant improvements, any tenant improvement allowance (including amounts that the tenant can take in the form of cash or a credit against its rent) that is funded is treated as a lease incentive and amortized as a reduction of revenue over the lease term. Tenant improvement ownership is determined based on various factors including, but not limited to:
| |
| • | whether the lease stipulates how a tenant improvement allowance may be spent; |
| |
| • | whether the amount of a tenant improvement allowance is in excess of market rates; |
| |
| • | whether the tenant or landlord retains legal title to the improvements at the end of the lease term; |
| |
| • | whether the tenant improvements are unique to the tenant or general-purpose in nature; and |
| |
| • | whether the tenant improvements are expected to have any residual value at the end of the lease. |
The Company records property operating expense reimbursements due from tenants for common area maintenance, real estate taxes, and other recoverable costs in the period the related expenses are incurred.
The Company makes estimates of the collectibility of its tenant receivables related to base rents, including deferred rent receivable, expense reimbursements and other revenue or income. Management specifically analyzes accounts receivable, deferred rent receivable, historical bad debts, customer creditworthiness, current economic trends and changes in customer payment terms when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. In addition, with respect to tenants in bankruptcy, management makes estimates of the expected recovery of pre-petition and post-petition claims in assessing the estimated collectibility of the related receivable. In some cases, the ultimate resolution of these claims can exceed one year. When a tenant is in bankruptcy, the Company will record a bad debt reserve for the tenant’s receivable balance and generally will not recognize subsequent rental revenue until cash is received or until the tenant is no longer in bankruptcy and has the ability to make rental payments.
Real Estate Loans Receivable
Interest income on the Company’s real estate loans receivable is recognized on an accrual basis over the life of the investment using the interest method. Direct loan origination fees and origination or acquisition costs, as well as acquisition premiums or discounts, are amortized over the term of the loan as an adjustment to interest income. The Company places loans on nonaccrual status when any portion of principal or interest is 90 days past due, or earlier when concern exists as to the ultimate collection of principal or interest. When a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, the Company reverses the accrual for unpaid interest and generally does not recognize subsequent interest income until cash is received, or the loan returns to accrual status. The Company will resume the accrual of interest if it determines the collection of interest according to the contractual terms of the loan is probable.
The Company generally recognizes income on impaired loans on either a cash basis, where interest income is only recorded when received in cash, or on a cost-recovery basis, where all cash receipts are applied against the carrying value of the loan. The Company considers the collectibility of the loan’s principal balance in determining whether to recognize income on impaired loans on a cash basis or a cost-recovery basis.
Real Estate Securities
The Company recognizes interest income on real estate securities that are beneficial interests in securitized financial assets and are rated “AA” and above on an accrual basis according to the contractual terms of the securities. Discounts or premiums are amortized to interest income over the life of the investment using the interest method.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company recognizes interest income on real estate securities that are beneficial interests in securitized financial assets that are rated below “AA” using the effective yield method, which requires the Company to periodically project estimated cash flows related to these securities and recognize interest income at an interest rate equivalent to the estimated yield on the security, as calculated using the security’s estimated cash flows and amortized cost basis, or reference amount. Changes in the estimated cash flows are recognized through an adjustment to the yield on the security on a prospective basis. Projecting cash flows for these types of securities requires significant judgment, which may have a significant impact on the timing of revenue recognized on these investments.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Company recognizes interest income on its cash and cash equivalents as it is earned and classifies such amounts as other interest income.
Real Estate
Depreciation and Amortization
Real estate costs related to the acquisition and improvement of properties are capitalized and amortized over the expected useful life of the asset on a straight-line basis. Repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred and significant replacements and betterments are capitalized. Repair and maintenance costs include all costs that do not extend the useful life of the real estate asset. The Company considers the period of future benefit of an asset to determine its appropriate useful life. Expenditures for tenant improvements are capitalized and amortized over the shorter of the tenant’s lease term or expected useful life. The Company anticipates the estimated useful lives of its assets by class to be generally as follows:
|
| |
| Buildings | 15 - 40 years |
| Building improvements | 10 - 25 years |
| Tenant improvements | Shorter of lease term or expected useful life |
| Tenant origination and absorption costs | Remaining term of related leases, including below-market renewal periods |
Real Estate Acquisition Valuation
The Company records the acquisition of income-producing real estate or real estate that will be used for the production of income as a business combination. All assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination are measured at their acquisition-date fair values. Acquisition costs are expensed as incurred and restructuring costs that do not meet the definition of a liability at the acquisition date are expensed in periods subsequent to the acquisition date.
The Company assesses the acquisition date fair values of all tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities using methods similar to those used by independent appraisers, generally utilizing a discounted cash flow analysis that applies appropriate discount and/or capitalization rates and available market information. Estimates of future cash flows are based on a number of factors, including historical operating results, known and anticipated trends, and market and economic conditions. The fair value of tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant.
The Company records above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties based on the present value (using a discount rate that reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for the corresponding in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the non-cancelable term of above-market in-place leases and for the initial term plus any extended term for any leases with below-market renewal options. The Company amortizes any recorded above-market or below-market lease values as a reduction or increase, respectively, to rental income over the remaining non-cancelable terms of the respective lease, including any below-market renewal periods.
The Company estimates the value of tenant origination and absorption costs by considering the estimated carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease up periods, considering current market conditions. In estimating carrying costs, the Company includes real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease up periods.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company amortizes the value of tenant origination and absorption costs to depreciation and amortization expense over the remaining average non-cancelable term of the leases.
Estimates of the fair values of the tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities require the Company to make significant assumptions to estimate market lease rates, property-operating expenses, carrying costs during lease-up periods, discount rates, market absorption periods, and the number of years the property will be held for investment. The use of inappropriate assumptions would result in an incorrect valuation of the Company’s acquired tangible assets, identifiable intangibles and assumed liabilities, which would impact the amount of the Company’s net income.
Impairment of Real Estate and Related Intangible Assets and Liabilities
The Company continually monitors events and changes in circumstances that could indicate that the carrying amounts of its real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities may not be recoverable or realized. When indicators of potential impairment suggest that the carrying value of real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities may not be recoverable, the Company assesses the recoverability by estimating whether the Company will recover the carrying value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities through its undiscounted future cash flows and its eventual disposition. If, based on this analysis, the Company does not believe that it will be able to recover the carrying value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities, the Company would record an impairment loss to the extent that the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the real estate and related intangible assets and liabilities.
Real Estate Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
The Company generally considers real estate to be “held for sale” when the following criteria are met: (i) management commits to a plan to sell the property, (ii) the property is available for sale immediately, (iii) the property is actively being marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value, (iv) the sale of the property within one year is considered probable and (v) significant changes to the plan to sell are not expected. Real estate that is held for sale and its related assets are classified as “real estate held for sale” and “assets related to real estate held for sale,” respectively, for all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Notes payable and other liabilities related to real estate held for sale are classified as “notes payable related to real estate held for sale” and “liabilities related to real estate held for sale,” respectively, for all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Real estate classified as held for sale is no longer depreciated and is reported at the lower of its carrying value or its estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell. Additionally, the Company records the operating results related to real estate that has either been disposed of or is deemed to be held for sale as discontinued operations for all periods presented if the operations have been or are expected to be eliminated and the Company will not have any significant continuing involvement in the operations of the property following the sale.
Change in a Plan to Sell
When real estate is initially considered “held for sale” it is measured at the lower of its depreciated book value, or estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell. Changes in the market may compel the Company to decide to reclassify a property that was designated as held for sale to held for investment. A property that is reclassified from held for sale to held for investment or non-sale disposition is measured and recorded individually at the lower of (i) its carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used, or (ii) its fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any adjustment to the carrying amount of the property as a result of the reclassification is included in income from continuing operations as an impairment charge on real estate held for investment.
Real Estate Held for Non-Sale Disposition
The Company considers real estate assets that do not meet the criteria for held for sale but are expected to be disposed of other than by sale as real estate held for non-sale disposition. The assets and liabilities related to real estate held for non-sale disposition are included in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets and the results of operations are presented as part of continuing operations in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities of these properties will be removed from the Company’s consolidated balance sheets and the results of operations will be reclassified to discontinued operations on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations upon the ultimate disposition of the real estate.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Foreclosed Real Estate Held for Sale
Foreclosed real estate held for sale consists of properties to which the Company has received title through foreclosure or by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in full or partial satisfaction of non-performing loans that the Company intends to market for sale in the near term. Foreclosed real estate held for sale is initially recorded at the estimated fair value of the real estate less estimated costs to sell, or the fair value of the loan satisfied if more clearly evident. The excess of the carrying value of the loan over the fair value of the property less estimated costs to sell, if any, is charged-off against the reserve for loan losses when title to the property is obtained. Costs of holding the property are expensed as incurred in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. The gain or loss on final disposition of foreclosed real estate held for sale is recorded as other income and is considered income (loss) from continuing operations as it represents the final stage of the Company’s loan collection process.
Real Estate Loans Receivable
The Company’s real estate loans receivable are recorded at amortized cost, net of loan loss reserves, and evaluated for impairment at each balance sheet date. The amortized cost of a real estate loan receivable is the outstanding unpaid principal balance, net of unamortized acquisition premiums or discounts and unamortized costs and fees directly associated with the origination or acquisition of the loan.
The reserve for loan losses is a valuation allowance that reflects management’s estimate of loan losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the balance sheet date. The reserve is adjusted through “Provision for loan losses” on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and is decreased by charge-offs to specific loans when losses are confirmed. The reserve for loan losses includes a portfolio-based component and an asset-specific component.
An asset-specific reserve relates to reserves for losses on loans considered impaired. The Company considers a loan to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, it believes that it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due under the contractual terms of the loan agreement. The Company also considers a loan to be impaired if it grants the borrower a concession through a modification of the loan terms or if it expects to receive assets (including equity interests in the borrower) with fair values that are less than the carrying value of the loan in satisfaction of the loan. A reserve is established when the present value of payments expected to be received, observable market prices, the estimated fair value of the collateral (for loans that are dependent on the collateral for repayment) or amounts expected to be received in satisfaction of a loan are lower than the carrying value of that loan.
A portfolio-based reserve covers the pool of loans that do not have asset-specific reserves. A provision for loan losses is recorded when available information as of each balance sheet date indicates that it is probable that a loss occurred in the pool of loans and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, but the Company does not know which specific loans within the pool will ultimately result in losses. Required reserve balances for this pool of loans are derived from estimated probabilities of default and estimated loss severities assuming a default occurs. On a quarterly basis, the Company’s management assigns estimated probabilities of default and loss severities to each loan in the portfolio based on factors such as the debt service coverage of the underlying collateral, the estimated fair value of the collateral, the significance of the borrower’s investment in the collateral, the financial condition of the borrower and/or its sponsors, the likelihood that the borrower and/or its sponsors would allow the loan to default, the Company’s willingness and ability to step in as owner in the event of default, and other pertinent factors.
Failure to recognize impairments would result in the overstatement of earnings and the carrying value of the Company’s real estate loans receivable. Actual losses, if any, could differ significantly from estimated amounts.
Participation Interest in an Unconsolidated Joint Venture
The Company holds a participation interest with respect to a real estate joint venture. The carrying value of this participation interest as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $0 and the Company did not record any income or losses with respect to this participation interest during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Company considers all short-term (with an original maturity of three months or less), highly-liquid investments utilized as part of the Company’s cash-management activities to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents may include cash and short-term investments. Short-term investments are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company’s cash and cash equivalents balance exceeded federally insurable limits as of December 31, 2013. The Company monitors the cash balances in its operating accounts and adjusts the cash balances as appropriate; however, these cash balances could be impacted if the underlying financial institutions fail or are subject to other adverse conditions in the financial markets. To date, the Company has experienced no loss or lack of access to cash in its operating accounts.
Restricted Cash
Restricted cash is comprised of lender impound reserve accounts on the Company’s borrowings for security deposits, property taxes, insurance, rent from master lease, letters of credit, debt service obligations and capital improvements and replacements.
Real Estate Securities
The Company classifies its investments in real estate securities as available-for-sale, since the Company may sell them prior to their maturity but does not hold them principally for the purpose of making frequent investments and sales with the objective of generating profits on short-term differences in price. These investments are carried at estimated fair value, with unrealized gains and losses reported in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Estimated fair values are generally based on quoted market prices, when available, or on estimates provided by independent pricing sources or dealers who make markets in such securities. In certain circumstances, such as when the market for the securities becomes inactive, the Company may determine it is appropriate to perform an internal valuation of the securities. Upon the sale of a security, the previously recognized unrealized gain (loss) is reversed out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and the actual realized gain (loss) recognized in earnings.
On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates its real estate securities for other-than-temporary impairment. The Company reviews the projected future cash flows from these securities for changes in assumptions due to prepayments, credit loss experience and other factors. If, based on the Company’s quarterly estimate of cash flows, there has been an adverse change in the estimated cash flows from the cash flows previously estimated, the present value of the revised cash flows is less than the present value previously estimated, and the fair value of the securities is less than its amortized cost basis, an other-than-temporary impairment is deemed to have occurred.
The Company is required to distinguish between other-than-temporary impairments related to credit and other-than-temporary impairments related to other factors (e.g., market fluctuations) on its debt securities that it does not intend to sell and where it is not likely that the Company will be required to sell the security prior to the anticipated recovery of its amortized cost basis. The Company calculates the credit component of the other-than-temporary impairment as the difference between the amortized cost basis of the security and the present value of its estimated cash flows discounted at the yield used to recognize interest income. The credit component will be charged to earnings and the component related to other factors is recorded to other comprehensive income (loss).
Derivative Instruments
The Company enters into derivative instruments for risk management purposes to hedge its exposure to cash flow variability caused by changing interest rates on its variable rate real estate loans receivable and notes payable. The Company records these derivative instruments at fair value on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Derivative instruments designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows or other types of forecasted transactions are considered cash flow hedges. The change in fair value of the effective portion of a derivative instrument that is designated as a cash flow hedge is recorded as other comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying consolidated statements of equity. The changes in fair value for derivative instruments that are not designated as a hedge or that do not meet the hedge accounting criteria are recorded as gain or loss on derivative instruments in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
In addition to recording any changes in fair value for interest rate caps and floors, the purchase price of an interest rate cap or floor is amortized over the contractual life of the instrument. Interest rate caps (floors) are viewed as a series of call (put) options or caplets (floorlets) and as the caplets (floorlets) expire, the related cost of the expiring caplet (floorlet) is amortized to interest expense (income) and the remaining caplets and floorlets are carried at fair value.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk-management objectives and strategy for undertaking various hedge transactions. This process includes designating all derivative instruments that are part of a hedging relationship to specific forecasted transactions or recognized obligations on the consolidated balance sheets. The Company also assesses and documents, both at the hedging instrument’s inception and on a quarterly basis thereafter, whether the derivative instruments that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows associated with the respective hedged items. When it is determined that a derivative instrument ceases to be highly effective as a hedge, or that it is probable the underlying forecasted transaction will not occur, the Company discontinues hedge accounting prospectively and reclassifies amounts recorded to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to earnings. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had no derivative instruments.
Deferred Financing Costs
Deferred financing costs represent commitment fees, loan fees, legal fees and other third-party costs associated with obtaining financing. These costs are amortized over the terms of the respective financing agreements using the interest method. Unamortized deferred financing costs are generally expensed when the associated debt is refinanced or repaid before maturity unless specific rules are met that would allow for the carryover of such costs to the refinanced debt. Costs incurred in seeking financing transactions that do not close are expensed in the period in which it is determined that the financing will not close.
Fair Value Measurements
Under GAAP, the Company is required to measure certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. In addition, the Company is required to measure other financial instruments and balances at fair value on a non-recurring basis (e.g., carrying value of impaired real estate loans receivable and long-lived assets). Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The GAAP fair value framework uses a three-tiered approach. Fair value measurements are classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
| |
| • | Level 1: unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities; |
| |
| • | Level 2: quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations in which significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets; and |
| |
| • | Level 3: prices or valuation techniques where little or no market data is available that requires inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable. |
When available, the Company utilizes quoted market prices from independent third-party sources to determine fair value and classifies such items in Level 1 or Level 2. In instances where the market for a financial instrument is not active, regardless of the availability of a nonbinding quoted market price, observable inputs might not be relevant and could require the Company to make a significant adjustment to derive a fair value measurement. Additionally, in an inactive market, a market price quoted from an independent third party may rely more on models with inputs based on information available only to that independent third party. When the Company determines the market for a financial instrument owned by the Company to be illiquid or when market transactions for similar instruments do not appear orderly, the Company uses several valuation sources (including internal valuations, discounted cash flow analysis and quoted market prices) and establishes a fair value by assigning weights to the various valuation sources. Additionally, when determining the fair value of liabilities in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for an identical liability is not available, the Company measures fair value using (i) a valuation technique that uses the quoted price of the identical liability when traded as an asset or quoted prices for similar liabilities when traded as assets or (ii) another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurement, such as the income approach or the market approach.
Changes in assumptions or estimation methodologies can have a material effect on these estimated fair values. In this regard, the derived fair value estimates cannot be substantiated by comparison to independent markets and, in many cases, may not be realized in an immediate settlement of the instrument.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company considers the following factors to be indicators of an inactive market: (i) there are few recent transactions, (ii) price quotations are not based on current information, (iii) price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market makers (for example, some brokered markets), (iv) indexes that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset or liability are demonstrably uncorrelated with recent indications of fair value for that asset or liability, (v) there is a significant increase in implied liquidity risk premiums, yields, or performance indicators (such as delinquency rates or loss severities) for observed transactions or quoted prices when compared with the Company’s estimate of expected cash flows, considering all available market data about credit and other nonperformance risk for the asset or liability, (vi) there is a wide bid-ask spread or significant increase in the bid-ask spread, (vii) there is a significant decline or absence of a market for new issuances (that is, a primary market) for the asset or liability or similar assets or liabilities, and (viii) little information is released publicly (for example, a principal-to-principal market).
The Company considers the following factors to be indicators of non-orderly transactions: (i) there was not adequate exposure to the market for a period before the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or liabilities under current market conditions, (ii) there was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market participant, (iii) the seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership (that is, distressed), or the seller was required to sell to meet regulatory or legal requirements (that is, forced), and (iv) the transaction price is an outlier when compared with other recent transactions for the same or similar assets or liabilities.
Share Redemption Program
The Company has a share redemption program pursuant to which stockholders may sell their shares to the Company only in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined in the share redemption program). On March 20, 2012, the Company’s board of directors amended and restated the share redemption program, which amendment was effective on April 25, 2012, to provide only for these special redemptions. Such redemptions are subject to an annual dollar limitation and are further subject to the other limitations described in the share redemption program, including:
| |
| • | During each calendar year, redemptions sought in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” (each as defined under the share redemption program) are limited to an annual amount determined by the board of directors. The annual dollar limitation for the share redemption program may be reviewed and adjusted from time to time during the year. The dollar limitation for calendar year 2013 was $10.0 million in the aggregate. On December 18, 2013, the Company’s board of directors approved an annual dollar limitation of $10.0 million in the aggregate for the calendar year 2014 (subject to review and adjustment during the year by the board of directors), and further subject to the limitations described in the share redemption program. |
| |
| • | During any calendar year, the Company may redeem no more than 5% of the weighted-average number of shares outstanding during the prior calendar year. |
| |
| • | The Company has no obligation to redeem shares if the redemption would violate the restrictions on distributions under Maryland law, which prohibits distributions that would cause a corporation to fail to meet statutory tests of solvency. |
The Company currently does not expect to have funds available for ordinary redemptions in the future.
On March 6, 2013, the Company’s board of directors approved an amended and restated share redemption program. Pursuant to the amended and restated share redemption program, the Company modified how it processes eligible redemptions that result in a stockholder owning less than the minimum purchase requirement described in the Company’s currently effective, or the most recently effective, registration statement as such registration statement has been amended or supplemented (the “Minimum Purchase Requirement”). Specifically, if the Company cannot repurchase all shares presented for redemption in any month because of the limitations on redemptions set forth in the program, then the Company will honor redemption requests on a pro rata basis, except that if a pro rata redemption would result in a stockholder owning less than the Minimum Purchase Requirement, then the Company would redeem all of such stockholder’s shares. The amended and restated share redemption program became effective on April 12, 2013.
The Company redeems shares eligible for redemption at the estimated value per share of the Company’s common stock as of the applicable redemption date.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
On December 18, 2012, the Company’s board of directors approved an estimated value per share of the Company’s shares of common stock of $5.18 per share (unaudited), based on the estimated value of the Company’s assets less the estimated value of its liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding, all as of September 30, 2012. As such, the redemption price for shares eligible for redemption was $5.18 per share for redemption dates from December 2012 through November 2013.
On December 18, 2013, the Company’s board of directors approved an estimated value per share of the Company’s shares of common stock of $4.45 per share (unaudited), based on the estimated value of the Company’s assets less the estimated value of its liabilities, or net asset value, divided by the number of shares outstanding, as of September 30, 2013, with the exception of the Company’s appraised real estate properties, which were appraised as of November 30, 2013. Commencing with the December 2013 redemption date, the redemption price for all shares eligible for redemption is $4.45 per share (unaudited).
The estimated value per share was based upon the recommendation and valuation of the Advisor. As with any valuation methodology, the methodologies used are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Different parties with different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, and these differences could be significant. The estimated value per share is not audited and does not represent the fair value of the Company’s assets less the fair value of its liabilities according to GAAP, nor does it represent a liquidation value of the Company’s assets and liabilities or the price at which the Company’s shares of common stock would trade on a national securities exchange. The estimated value per share does not reflect a discount for the fact that the Company is externally managed, nor does it reflect a real estate portfolio premium/discount versus the sum of the individual property values. The estimated value per share also does not take into account estimated disposition costs and fees for real estate properties that are not held for sale, debt prepayment penalties or defeasance costs that could apply upon the prepayment of certain of the Company’s debt obligations or the impact of restrictions on the assumption of debt.
The value of the Company’s shares will fluctuate over time in response to developments related to individual assets in the portfolio and the management of those assets and in response to the real estate and finance markets. The Company currently expects to utilize the Advisor and/or an independent valuation firm to update the estimated value per share in December 2014, but is not required to update the estimated value per share more frequently than every 18 months.
The Company’s board of directors may amend, suspend or terminate the share redemption program upon 30 days’ notice to its stockholders. The Company may provide this notice by including such information in a Current Report on Form 8-K or in the Company’s annual or quarterly reports, all publicly filed with the SEC, or by a separate mailing to its stockholders.
The Company records amounts that are redeemable under the share redemption program as redeemable common stock in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets because the shares are mandatorily redeemable at the option of the holder upon the stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence” and therefore their redemption is outside the control of the Company. Pursuant to the share redemption program, beginning in 2012, the maximum amount redeemable under the Company’s share redemption program is limited to an annual dollar amount determined by the Company’s board of directors, as described above. However, because the amounts that can be redeemed in future periods are determinable and only contingent on an event that is likely to occur (e.g., the passage of time), the Company presents the amounts available for redemptions in future periods as redeemable common stock in the accompanying balance sheets.
The Company classifies financial instruments that represent a mandatory obligation of the Company to redeem shares as liabilities. The Company’s redeemable common shares are contingently redeemable at the option of the holder upon the stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence.” When shares are tendered for redemption and the Company determines that it has a mandatory obligation to redeem shares under the share redemption program, it will reclassify such obligations from temporary equity to a liability based upon their respective settlement values.
The Company limits the dollar value of shares that may be redeemed under the share redemption program as described above. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company redeemed $7.4 million of common stock. The only redemptions the Company made under the share redemption program in 2013 were those that qualified as, and met the requirements for, special redemptions under the share redemption program, i.e., all redemptions under the plan were made in connection with a stockholder’s death, “qualifying disability” or “determination of incompetence.” In 2013, the Company fulfilled all redemption requests that qualified as special redemptions under the Company’s share redemption program.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Related Party Transactions
Pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Company is obligated to pay the Advisor specified fees upon the provision of certain services, including the management of the Company’s investments and other services (including, but not limited to, the disposition of investments). The Company also reimbursed the Advisor for offering costs related to the dividend reinvestment plan (which terminated effective April 10, 2012) and for acquisition and origination expenses, and reimburses certain operating expenses incurred by the Advisor on behalf of the Company or incurred in connection with providing services to the Company such as certain costs of managing or selling the Company’s assets. As detailed in the Advisory Agreement, the Advisor is also entitled to certain other fees, including an incentive fee, upon achieving certain performance goals, and the Advisor and its affiliates may receive compensation in the form of stock-based awards.
Also, under the Dealer Manager Agreement, and to the extent permitted under state securities laws and subject to certain exceptions, if the Company paid selling commissions in connection with the issuance of shares to an investor in the primary offering, the Company paid the Dealer Manager selling commissions of up to 3.0% of gross offering proceeds from the issuance of shares to that investor under the dividend reinvestment plan (which terminated effective April 10, 2012). The Dealer Manager reallowed all such selling commissions to the broker-dealer associated with such account. The Company also reimbursed the Dealer Manager for certain expenses related to the dividend reinvestment plan offering.
The Company has also entered into a fee reimbursement agreement (the “AIP Reimbursement Agreement”) with the Dealer Manager pursuant to which the Company reimburses the Dealer Manager for certain fees and expenses it incurs for administering the Company’s participation in the DTCC Alternative Investment Product Platform with respect to certain accounts of the Company’s investors serviced through the platform.
On January 6, 2014, the Company, together with KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III, Inc., KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc., KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, Inc., KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, Inc., the Dealer Manager, the Advisor and other KBS-affiliated entities, entered into an errors and omissions and directors and officers liability insurance program where the lower tiers of coverage are shared. The cost of these lower tiers is allocated by the Advisor and its insurance broker among each of the various entities covered by the plan, and is billed directly to each entity. The allocation of these shared coverage costs is proportionate to the pricing by the insurance marketplace for the first tiers of directors and officers liability coverage purchased individually by each REIT. The Advisor’s and the Dealer Manager’s portion of the shared lower tiers’ cost is proportionate to the respective entities’ prior cost for the errors and omissions insurance.
During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, no other transactions occurred between the Company and the other KBS-sponsored programs, except that on May 18, 2012, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc. made an $8.0 million investment in a joint venture in which the Company indirectly owns a participation interest through another joint venture investment.
The Company records all related party fees as incurred, subject to any limitations described in the Advisory Agreement. The Company has granted no stock-based compensation awards to the Advisor or its affiliates and it did not incur any subordinated participation in net cash flows or subordinated incentive listing fees during the year ended December 31, 2013 or any previous periods.
Operating Expenses
Under the Advisory Agreement, the Advisor has the right to seek reimbursement from the Company for all costs and expenses it incurs in connection with the provision of services to the Company, including the Company’s allocable share of the Advisor’s overhead, such as rent, employee costs, utilities and information technology costs. Commencing July 1, 2010, the Company has reimbursed the Advisor for the Company’s allocable portion of the salaries, benefits and overhead of internal audit department personnel providing services to the Company. In the future, the Advisor may seek reimbursement for additional employee costs. The Company will not reimburse the Advisor for employee costs in connection with services for which the Advisor earns acquisition, origination or disposition fees (other than reimbursement of travel and communication expenses) or for the salaries and benefits the Advisor or its affiliates may pay to the Company’s executive officers.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Asset Management Fee
With respect to investments in real estate, the Company pays the Advisor a monthly asset management fee equal to one-twelfth of 0.75% of the amount paid or allocated to acquire the investment, plus the cost of any subsequent development, construction or improvements to the property. This amount includes any portion of the investment that was debt financed and is inclusive of acquisition fees and expenses related thereto. In the case of investments made through joint ventures, the asset management fee will be determined based on the Company’s proportionate share of the underlying investment. The Company calculates the asset management fee for its investment in the GKK Properties based on the original cost of the Company’s investment in the GKK Mezzanine Loan, rather than on the gross value of the GKK Properties it owns or in which it holds a leasehold interest.
With respect to investments in loans and any investments other than real estate, the Company pays the Advisor a monthly fee calculated, each month, as one-twelfth of 0.75% of the lesser of (i) the amount paid or allocated to acquire or fund the loan or other investment (which amount includes any portion of the investment that was debt financed and is inclusive of acquisition or origination fees and expenses related thereto) and (ii) the outstanding principal amount of such loan or other investment, plus the acquisition or origination fees and expenses related to the acquisition or funding of such investment, as of the time of calculation.
With respect to an investment that has suffered an impairment in value, reduction in cash flow or other negative circumstances, such investment shall either be excluded from the calculation of the asset management fee described above or included in such calculation at a reduced value that is recommended by the Advisor and the Company’s management and then approved by a majority of the Company’s independent directors, and this change in the fee shall be applicable to an investment upon the earlier to occur of the date on which (i) such investment is sold, (ii) such investment is surrendered to a person other than the Company, its direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary or a joint venture or partnership in which the Company has an interest, (iii) the Advisor determines that it will no longer pursue collection or other remedies related to such investment, or (iv) the Advisor recommends a revised fee arrangement with respect to such investment.
Disposition Fees
For substantial assistance in connection with the sale of properties or other investments, the Company pays the Advisor or its affiliates a disposition fee of 1% of the contract sales price of the properties or other investments sold. However, in no event may the real estate commissions paid to the Advisor, its affiliates and unaffiliated third parties exceed 6% of the contract sales price of the properties or other investments sold.
Income Taxes
The Company has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”). To qualify as a REIT, the Company must meet certain organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement to distribute at least 90% of the Company’s annual REIT taxable income to stockholders (which is computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction or net capital gain and which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP). As a REIT, the Company generally will not be subject to federal income tax on income that it distributes as dividends to its stockholders. If the Company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, it will be subject to federal income tax on its taxable income at regular corporate income tax rates and generally will not be permitted to qualify for treatment as a REIT for federal income tax purposes for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification is lost, unless the Internal Revenue Service grants the Company relief under certain statutory provisions. Such an event could materially and adversely affect the Company’s net income and net cash available for distribution to stockholders. However, the Company believes that it is organized and operates in such a manner as to qualify for treatment as a REIT.
The Company has concluded that there are no significant uncertain tax positions requiring recognition in its financial statements. Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been assessed interest or penalties by any major tax jurisdictions. The Company’s evaluations were performed for the tax years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. As of December 31, 2013, returns for the calendar years 2009 through 2012 remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Per Share Data
Basic net income (loss) per share of common stock is calculated by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock issued and outstanding during such period. Diluted net income (loss) per share of common stock equals basic net income (loss) per share of common stock, as there were no potentially dilutive securities outstanding during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Distributions declared per share of common stock were $0.395, $0.085 and $0.525 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For the period from January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2012, distributions were based on daily record dates and calculated at a rate of $0.00143836 per share per day. Each day during the period from January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2012 was a record date for distributions. On November 6, 2013, the Company’s board of directors declared a distribution in the amount of $0.395 per share of common stock to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013.
Segments
The Company’s segments are based on the Company’s method of internal reporting, which classifies its operations by investment type: (i) real estate, (ii) real estate-related and (iii) commercial properties primarily leased to financial institutions received under the Settlement Agreement, the GKK Properties. For financial data by segment, see Note 13, “Segment Information.”
Square Footage, Occupancy and Other Measures
Square footage, occupancy and other measures used to describe real estate and real estate-related investments included in these Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are presented on an unaudited basis.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards Update
In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-02, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“ASU No. 2013-02”). ASU No. 2013-02 requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. An entity is also required to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by respective line items of net income only if the amount reclassified is required under GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under GAAP that provide additional detail about these amounts, such as when a portion of the amount reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income is reclassified to a balance sheet account instead of directly to income or expense in the same reporting period. ASU No. 2013-02 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 31, 2012. The Company adopted ASU No. 2013-02 and elected to present significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income and into net income on the face of the financial statements.
In April 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-07, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205): Liquidation Basis of Accounting (“ASU No. 2013-07”). ASU No. 2013-07 requires an entity to use the liquidation basis of accounting when liquidation is determined to be imminent. The guidance in ASU 2013-07 would not be applied for limited-life entities unless an approved plan for liquidation differs from the plan for liquidation specified at the entity’s inception, primarily considering whether the entity would be compelled to sell its assets through liquidation in exchange for proceeds not commensurate with their fair value. ASU 2013-07 is effective for entities that determine liquidation is imminent during interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013, and early adoption is permitted. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2013-07 to have an impact on its financial statements.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 3. | REAL ESTATE HELD FOR INVESTMENT |
As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s portfolio of real estate held for investment, including the GKK Properties, was composed of approximately 10.7 million rentable square feet and was 85% occupied. These properties are located in 31 states and include office properties, industrial properties and bank branch properties. Included in the Company’s portfolio of real estate held for investment was 6.6 million rentable square feet related to the GKK Properties held for investment, which were 82% occupied as of December 31, 2013. In addition to the properties discussed in the preceding sentences, the Company owned one industrial property and seven GKK Properties encompassing approximately 0.8 million rentable square feet that were held for non-sale disposition as of December 31, 2013, see “—Real Estate Held for Non-Sale Disposition” below.
The following table summarizes the Company’s investments in real estate as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands), including real estate held for non-sale disposition:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Land | | Buildings and Improvements | | Tenant Origination and Absorption Costs | | Total Real Estate Held for Investment |
| As of December 31, 2013: | | | | | | | | |
| Office | | $ | 75,797 |
| | $ | 429,455 |
| | $ | 5,765 |
| | $ | 511,017 |
|
| Industrial | | 24,289 |
| | 113,706 |
| | 5,220 |
| | 143,215 |
|
| GKK Properties | | 202,944 |
| | 444,850 |
| | 96,762 |
| | 744,556 |
|
Real estate held for investment, at cost and net of impairment charges (1) | | $ | 303,030 |
| | $ | 988,011 |
| | $ | 107,747 |
| | $ | 1,398,788 |
|
| Accumulated depreciation/amortization | | — |
| | (132,800 | ) | | (38,959 | ) | | (171,759 | ) |
| Real estate held for investment, net | | $ | 303,030 |
| | $ | 855,211 |
| | $ | 68,788 |
| | $ | 1,227,029 |
|
| As of December 31, 2012: | | | | | | | | |
| Office | | $ | 82,189 |
| | $ | 468,063 |
| | $ | 16,605 |
| | $ | 566,857 |
|
| Industrial | | 26,465 |
| | 123,219 |
| | 5,261 |
| | 154,945 |
|
| GKK Properties | | 204,104 |
| | 445,534 |
| | 102,122 |
| | 751,760 |
|
| Real estate held for investment, at cost and net of impairment charges | | $ | 312,758 |
| | $ | 1,036,816 |
| | $ | 123,988 |
| | $ | 1,473,562 |
|
| Accumulated depreciation/amortization | | — |
| | (118,256 | ) | | (36,637 | ) | | (154,893 | ) |
| Real estate held for investment, net | | $ | 312,758 |
| | $ | 918,560 |
| | $ | 87,351 |
| | $ | 1,318,669 |
|
_____________________
(1) See “—Impairment of Real Estate.”
Operating Leases
The Company’s real estate assets are leased to tenants under operating leases for which the terms and expirations vary. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s leases, including the GKK Properties held for investment and excluding options to extend and leases on properties held for non-sale disposition, had remaining terms of up to 13.2 years with a weighted-average remaining term of 5.4 years. As of December 31, 2013, leases related to the GKK Properties, excluding options to extend and leases on properties held for non-sale disposition, had remaining terms of up to 13.2 years with a weighted-average remaining term of 5.8 years. Some of the Company’s leases referenced above have provisions to extend the term of the leases, options for early termination for all or a part of the leased premises after paying a specified penalty, rights of first refusal to purchase the property at competitive market rates, and other terms and conditions as negotiated. Additionally, the Company assumed several leases related to the GKK Properties which contain shedding rights provisions. As of December 31, 2013, these shedding rights totaled approximately 0.3 million square feet and can be exercised at various dates during 2014 through 2016. The Company retains substantially all of the risks and benefits of ownership of the real estate assets leased to tenants. Generally, upon the execution of a lease, the Company requires a security deposit from the tenant in the form of a cash deposit and/or a letter of credit. The amount required as a security deposit varies depending upon the terms of the respective lease and the creditworthiness of the tenant, but generally is not a significant amount. Therefore, exposure to credit risk exists to the extent that a receivable from a tenant exceeds the amount of its security deposit. Security deposits received in cash related to tenant leases are included in other liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and totaled $3.2 million and $3.6 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized deferred rent from tenants of $4.0 million, $5.2 million and $3.6 million, respectively. These excess amounts for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were net of $1.4 million, $0.4 million and $0.3 million of lease incentive amortization, respectively. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the cumulative deferred rent balance was $30.0 million and $23.0 million, respectively, and is included in rents and other receivables on the accompanying balance sheets. The cumulative deferred rent balance included $7.2 million and $5.0 million of unamortized lease incentives as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Company records property operating expense reimbursements due from tenants for common area maintenance, real estate taxes and other recoverable costs in the period the related expenses are incurred.
The future minimum rental income from the Company’s properties under non-cancelable operating leases, including leases subject to shedding rights, and excluding options to extend and leases on properties held for non-sale disposition, as of December 31, 2013 for the years ending December 31 is as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| 2014 | $ | 129,295 |
|
| 2015 | 123,385 |
|
| 2016 | 116,962 |
|
| 2017 | 102,853 |
|
| 2018 | 89,893 |
|
| Thereafter | 243,610 |
|
| | $ | 805,998 |
|
As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s highest tenant industry concentration (greater than 10% of annualized base rent), excluding properties held for non-sale disposition, was as follows:
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Industry | | Number of Tenants (1) | | Annualized
Base Rent (1) (2) (in thousands) | | Percentage of Annualized Base Rent (1) |
| Finance | | 69 | | $ | 63,131 |
| | 45.6 | % |
_____________________
(1) Excludes properties held for non-sale disposition.
(2) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
As of December 31, 2013, no other tenant industries accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s annualized base rent. Excluding properties held for non-sale disposition, the Company currently has approximately 400 tenants over a diverse range of industries and geographical regions. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had a bad debt expense reserve of $6.4 million, which represents approximately 4.6% of its annualized base rent. The Company’s bad debt expense reserve included $6.3 million related to the GKK Properties. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded bad debt expense related to its tenant receivables of $2.2 million, $0.7 million and $2.2 million, respectively.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
As of December 31, 2013, the Company had a concentration of credit risk related to leases, excluding properties held for non-sale disposition, with the following tenant that represented more than 10% of the Company’s annualized base rent:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Annualized Base Rent Statistics (1) | | |
| Tenant | | Property | | Tenant Industry | | Rentable Square Feet | | % of Portfolio Rentable Sq. Ft. Leased (1) | | Annualized Base Rent (2) (in thousands) | | % of Portfolio Annualized Base Rent | | Annualized Base Rent per Square Foot | | Lease Expirations |
| Bank of America, N.A. | | Various | | Finance | | 3,243,129 | | 30.4 | % | | $ | 28,589 |
| | 20.7 | % | | $ | 8.82 |
| | (3) |
_____________________
(1) Excludes properties held for non-sale disposition.
(2) Annualized base rent represents annualized contractual base rental income as of December 31, 2013, adjusted to straight-line any contractual tenant concessions (including free rent), rent increases and rent decreases from the lease’s inception through the balance of the lease term.
(3) As of December 31, 2013, lease expiration dates ranged from 2014 to 2026 with a weighted-average remaining term of 6.3 years. Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, some of Bank of America’s leases contained shedding right provisions. These shedding rights totaled approximately 0.3 million square feet and can be exercised at various dates from 2014 through 2016.
Bank of America Corporation is the guarantor of various leases that its subsidiary, Bank of America, N.A., has with the Company. The condensed consolidated financial information of Bank of America Corporation has been included herein because of the significant credit concentration the Company has with this guarantor. Bank of America Corporation currently files its financial statements in reports filed with the SEC, and the following unaudited summary financial data regarding Bank of America Corporation is taken from its previously filed public reports. For more detailed financial information regarding Bank of America Corporation, please refer to its financial statements, which are publicly available with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Consolidated Statements of Income (in millions) | | | | | |
| Total revenue, net of interest expense | $ | 88,942 |
| | $ | 83,334 |
| | $ | 93,454 |
|
| Income (loss) before income taxes | 16,172 |
| | 3,072 |
| | (230 | ) |
| Net income | 11,431 |
| | 4,188 |
| | 1,446 |
|
| | | | | | |
| | As of | | |
| | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 | | |
| Consolidated Balance Sheets (in millions) | | | | | |
| Total assets | $ | 2,102,273 |
| | $ | 2,209,974 |
| | |
| Total liabilities | 1,869,588 |
| | 1,973,018 |
| | |
| Total stockholders’ equity | 232,685 |
| | 236,956 |
| | |
Geographic Concentration Risk
As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s net investments in real estate in North Carolina, excluding properties held for non-sale disposition, represented 10% of the Company’s total assets. As a result, the geographic concentration of the Company’s portfolio makes it particularly susceptible to adverse economic developments in North Carolina’s real estate market. Any adverse economic or real estate developments in this market, such as business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, changing demographics and other factors, or any decrease in demand for office or bank branch space resulting from the local business climate, could adversely affect the Company’s operating results.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Impairment of Real Estate
Due to changes in cash flow estimates and hold periods, the Company has recognized non-cash impairment charges to write-down the carrying value of certain of its real estate investments to their estimated fair values. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $40.2 million with respect to 11 of its real estate properties held for investment. See Note 7, “Real Estate Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations,” for information regarding impairments of assets related to real estate held for sale. The facts and circumstances leading to the impairments on the Company’s real estate held for investment are as follows:
Tysons Dulles Plaza
The Company recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $19.5 million to reduce the carrying value of the Company’s investment in Tysons Dulles Plaza, an office property located in McLean, Virginia, to its estimated fair value. The Company revised its cash flow projections for Tysons Dulles Plaza primarily because of a decrease in demand in the Washington D.C. office rental market, resulting in lower projected revenues, higher projected capital costs for tenant improvements and general building upgrades needed to attract additional tenants. The Company also revised its projections to address various deferred maintenance issues and other building system upgrades and replacements.
Bridgeway Technology Center
The Company recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $6.6 million related to its investment in Bridgeway Technology Center, an office-flex property located in Newark, California, due to a change in the projected hold period and a decrease in projected cash flows as a result of a difficult leasing environment. The Company defaulted on the mortgage loan secured by Bridgeway Technology Center and the lender commenced proceedings to foreclose on the property. As of December 31, 2013, these foreclosure proceedings were ongoing. As a result, the Company revised the projected hold period and recognized an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of Bridgeway Technology Center to its estimated fair value. See Note 9, “Notes Payable — Loan Maturities and Defaults — Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan,” for information regarding the status of the foreclosure proceedings.
University Park Buildings
The Company recognized an impairment charge during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $4.2 million related to its investment in the University Park Buildings, an office property located in Sacramento, California, due to a decrease in projected rental rates. As a result, the projected undiscounted cash flows decreased to an amount less than the carrying value of the property and the Company recognized an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the University Park Buildings to its estimated fair value.
Other Properties
The Company recognized impairment charges during the year ended December 31, 2013 of $9.9 million related to eight other properties held for investment. No impairment charge related to any individual property was greater than $2.2 million. These impairments generally resulted from changes in leasing projections including longer estimated lease-up periods and lower projected rental rates, thus decreasing the projected cash flows the properties would generate.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Real Estate Held for Non-Sale Disposition
As of December 31, 2013, the Company owned one industrial property and seven GKK Properties that were held for non-sale disposition. These properties were security for the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan, the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan, the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan and the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan (each defined below), each of which was in default as of December 31, 2013. In the event the Company relinquishes the assets that are security for these loans to the respective lenders, the Company would record a gain on extinguishment of debt equal to the difference between the carrying amount of the debt and the carrying amount of the collateral. For information with respect to the maturity defaults, rights of the lenders and subsequent developments, see Note 9, “Notes Payable.” The following table summarizes the revenue and expenses related to properties held for non-sale disposition (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Revenues related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | | | | | |
| Total revenues | $ | 13,671 |
| | $ | 13,482 |
| | $ | 5,827 |
|
| Expenses related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | | | | | |
| Operating expenses | 18,128 |
| | 12,001 |
| | 5,875 |
|
| Impairment charge | 6,614 |
| | 20,631 |
| | — |
|
| Depreciation and amortization | 2,848 |
| | 6,052 |
| | 3,056 |
|
| Total expenses related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | 27,590 |
| | 38,684 |
| | 8,931 |
|
| Net loss related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | $ | (13,919 | ) | | $ | (25,202 | ) | | $ | (3,104 | ) |
The following table summarizes the assets and liabilities related to properties held for non-sale disposition as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | |
| | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 |
| Assets related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | | | |
| Total real estate, at cost and net of impairment charges | $ | 62,192 |
| | $ | 71,321 |
|
| Accumulated depreciation and amortization | (5,581 | ) | | (5,627 | ) |
| Real estate held for non-sale disposition, net | 56,611 |
| | 65,694 |
|
| Restricted cash | 11,780 |
| | 7,033 |
|
| Above-market leases, net | 499 |
| | 725 |
|
| Other assets | 2,059 |
| | 3,887 |
|
| Total assets | $ | 70,949 |
| | $ | 77,339 |
|
| Liabilities related to real estate held for non-sale disposition | | | |
| Notes payable, net | 80,469 |
| | 79,319 |
|
| Accounts payable and accrued liabilities | 8,535 |
| | 2,523 |
|
| Below-market leases, net | 627 |
| | 809 |
|
| Other liabilities | 683 |
| | 642 |
|
| Total liabilities | $ | 90,314 |
| | $ | 83,293 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 4. | TENANT ORIGINATION AND ABSORPTION COSTS, ABOVE-MARKET LEASE ASSETS AND BELOW-MARKET LEASE LIABILITIES |
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s tenant origination and absorption costs, above-market lease assets, and below-market lease liabilities (excluding fully amortized assets and liabilities and accumulated amortization) were as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Tenant Origination and Absorption Costs | | Above-Market Lease Assets | | Below-Market Lease Liabilities |
| | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 |
Cost, net of impairments (1) | $ | 107,747 |
| | $ | 123,988 |
| | $ | 37,435 |
| | $ | 40,785 |
| | $ | (84,357 | ) | | $ | (86,362 | ) |
Accumulated Amortization (1) | (38,959 | ) | | (36,637 | ) | | (10,198 | ) | | (9,042 | ) | | 30,379 |
| | 19,513 |
|
| Net Amount | $ | 68,788 |
| | $ | 87,351 |
| | $ | 27,237 |
| | $ | 31,743 |
| | $ | (53,978 | ) | | $ | (66,849 | ) |
(1) In 2013 and 2012, the Company wrote-off fully amortized tenant origination and absorption costs of $16.1 million and $11.2 million, respectively, above-market lease assets of $3.4 million and $5.0 million, respectively, and below-market lease liabilities of $2.0 million and $5.6 million, respectively.
Increases (decreases) in net income as a result of amortization of the Company’s tenant origination and absorption costs, above-market lease assets and below-market lease liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Tenant Origination and Absorption Costs | | Above-Market Lease Assets | | Below-Market Lease Liabilities |
| | For the Years Ended December 31, | | For the Years Ended December 31, | | For the Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Amortization | $ | (18,433 | ) | | $ | (22,373 | ) | | $ | (14,350 | ) | | $ | (4,506 | ) | | $ | (6,824 | ) | | $ | (4,620 | ) | | $ | 12,845 |
| | $ | 13,545 |
| | $ | 7,773 |
|
The remaining unamortized balance for these outstanding intangible assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2013 is expected to be amortized for the years ending December 31 as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Tenant Origination and Absorption Costs | | Above-Market Lease Assets | | Below-Market Lease Liabilities |
| 2014 | $ | (14,556 | ) | | $ | (3,918 | ) | | $ | 11,449 |
|
| 2015 | (11,443 | ) | | (3,658 | ) | | 10,551 |
|
| 2016 | (10,071 | ) | | (3,391 | ) | | 10,061 |
|
| 2017 | (9,152 | ) | | (2,808 | ) | | 8,862 |
|
| 2018 | (8,599 | ) | | (2,507 | ) | | 5,755 |
|
| Thereafter | (14,967 | ) | | (10,955 | ) | | 7,300 |
|
| | $ | (68,788 | ) | | $ | (27,237 | ) | | $ | 53,978 |
|
| Weighted-Average Remaining Amortization Period | 6.5 years |
| | 9.3 years |
| | 5.7 years |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 5. | REAL ESTATE LOANS RECEIVABLE |
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, had invested in or originated real estate loans receivable as follows (dollars in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Loan Name Location of Related Property or Collateral | | Date Acquired/ Originated | | Property Type | | Loan Type | | Outstanding Principal Balance as of December 31, 2013 (1) | | Book Value as of December 31, 2013 (2) | | Book Value as of December 31, 2012 (2) | | Contractual Interest Rate (3) | | Annualized Effective Interest Rate (3) | | Maturity Date |
Sandmar Mezzanine Loan Southeast U.S. (4) | | 01/09/2007 | | Retail | | Mezzanine | | $ | 5,000 |
| | $ | 5,025 |
| | $ | 5,033 |
| | 5.4% | | 7.9 | % | | 01/01/2017 |
Lawrence Village Plaza Loan Origination New Castle, Pennsylvania | | 08/06/2007 | | Retail | | Mortgage | | 6,878 |
| | 6,878 |
| | 6,850 |
| | 8.0% | | 9.2 | % | | 09/01/2014 |
San Diego Office Portfolio B-Note San Diego, California (5) | | 10/26/2007 | | Office | | B-Note | | 20,000 |
| | 16,710 |
| | 16,048 |
| | 5.8% | | 11.2 | % | | 10/11/2017 |
4929 Wilshire B-Note Los Angeles, California | | 11/19/2007 | | Office | | B-Note | | 3,936 |
| | 3,245 |
| | 3,137 |
| | 6.1% | | 12.4 | % | | 07/11/2017 |
| | | | | | | | | $ | 35,814 |
| | $ | 31,858 |
| | $ | 31,068 |
| | | | | | |
Reserve for Loan Losses (6) | | | | | | | | — |
| | (2,090 | ) | | (2,222 | ) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | $ | 35,814 |
| | $ | 29,768 |
| | $ | 28,846 |
| | | | | | |
(1) Outstanding principal balance as of December 31, 2013 represents original principal balance outstanding under the loan, increased for any subsequent fundings and reduced for any principal paydowns.
(2) Book value represents outstanding principal balance, adjusted for unamortized acquisition discounts, origination fees and direct origination and acquisition costs. Loan balances are presented gross of any asset-specific reserves.
(3) Contractual interest rate is the stated interest rate on the face of the loan. Annualized effective interest rate is calculated as the actual interest income recognized in 2013, using the interest method, divided by the average amortized cost basis of the investment during 2013. The contractual interest rates and the annualized effective interest rates presented are for the year ended December 31, 2013.
(4) The Company had recorded an asset-specific loan loss reserve against this investment during the year ended December 31, 2013. See “—Reserve for Loan Losses.”
(5) The borrower under this note is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Irvine Company. Donald Bren, who is the brother of Peter Bren (one of the Company’s executive officers and sponsors), is the chairman of the Irvine Company. During year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recognized $1.8 million of interest income related to its investment in this loan.
(6) See “—Reserve for Loan Losses.”
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, interest receivable from real estate loans receivable was $0.5 million and $0.4 million, respectively, and is included in rents and other receivables.
The following is a schedule of maturities for all real estate loans receivable outstanding as of December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| | Face Value (Funded) |
| 2014 | $ | 6,878 |
|
| 2015 | — |
|
| 2016 | — |
|
| 2017 | 28,936 |
|
| 2018 | — |
|
| Thereafter | — |
|
| | $ | 35,814 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The following summarizes the activity related to real estate loans receivable for the year ended December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| Real estate loans receivable, net - December 31, 2012 | $ | 28,846 |
|
| Principal repayments received on real estate loans receivable | (87 | ) |
| Interest accretion | 972 |
|
| Amortization of origination fees and costs, net | 37 |
|
| Real estate loans receivable, net - December 31, 2013 | $ | 29,768 |
|
The following summarizes the Company’s investments in real estate loans receivable as of December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| Outstanding principal balance | $ | 35,814 |
|
| Discounts on real estate loans receivable | (8,060 | ) |
| Accumulated accretion of discounts on purchases of real estate loans receivable | 3,955 |
|
| Origination fees and costs on purchases and originations of real estate loans receivable | 348 |
|
| Accumulated amortization of origination fees and costs, net | (199 | ) |
| Reserve for loan losses | (2,090 | ) |
| Real estate loans receivable, net - December 31, 2013 | $ | 29,768 |
|
For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, interest income from real estate loans receivable consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Contractual interest income | $ | 2,249 |
| | $ | 2,363 |
| | $ | 11,592 |
|
| Interest accretion | 972 |
| | 767 |
| | 1,099 |
|
| Amortization of origination fees and costs, net | 37 |
| | 59 |
| | 692 |
|
| Interest income from real estate loans receivable | $ | 3,258 |
| | $ | 3,189 |
| | $ | 13,383 |
|
The Company generally recognizes income on impaired loans on either a cash basis, where interest income is only recorded when received in cash, or on a cost-recovery basis, where all cash receipts are applied against the carrying value of the loan. The Company will resume the accrual of interest if it determines the collection of interest according to the contractual terms of the loan is probable. The Company considers the collectibility of the loan’s principal balance in determining whether to recognize income on impaired loans on a cash basis or a cost-recovery basis. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recognized $0.4 million and $0.4 million, respectively, of interest income related to the Sandmar Mezzanine Loan with an asset-specific reserve. Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the Company had interest income receivable of $0.4 million related to the Sandmar Mezzanine Loan.
Reserve for Loan Losses
Changes in the Company’s reserve for loan losses for the year ended December 31, 2013 were as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| Reserve for loan losses, December 31, 2012 | $ | 2,222 |
|
| Charge-offs to reserve for loan losses | (132 | ) |
| Reserve for loan losses, December 31, 2013 | $ | 2,090 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
As of December 31, 2013, the total reserve for loan losses consisted of $2.1 million of asset-specific reserves related to the Sandmar Mezzanine Loan, which had an amortized cost basis of $5.0 million.
The Company did not record a provision for loan loss reserves during the year ended December 31, 2013 and charged -off $0.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to the Sandmar Mezzanine Loan. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded a provision for loan loss reserves of $0.1 million and also charged-off $72.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to the write-off of the Petra Subordinated Debt Tranche A and Petra Subordinated Debt Tranche B and the sale of the 11 South LaSalle Loan. As of December 31, 2013, the Company did not record a portfolio-based loan loss reserve, as each loan was evaluated for an asset-specific reserve. As of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the Sandmar Mortgage Loan was delinquent. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the provision for loan loss reserves was comprised of an increase of $30.1 million to the asset-specific loan loss reserves, offset by a decrease of $18.1 million of loan loss reserves previously calculated on a portfolio-basis. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company also charged-off $35.4 million of reserves for loan losses. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recovered $0.1 million of reserves for loan losses related to the foreclosure of the 200 Professional Drive Loan.
As of December 31, 2013, the Company owned 1,386,602 shares of common stock, par value of $0.001 per share, of Gramercy. The Company classified its investment in the Gramercy shares as available-for-sale as the Company did not have the ability to sell the shares during certain lockout periods at the time the shares were acquired. As of December 31, 2013, there were no restrictions on the Company’s ability to sell its remaining shares of common stock of Gramercy. As of December 31, 2013, the carrying value of the Gramercy shares was $8.0 million based on a closing market price of $5.75 per share of common stock, as of December 31, 2013.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company sold 4,613,398 shares of common stock of Gramercy for an aggregate sales price of $22.3 million. As a result, during the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company realized a gain on sale of its shares of common stock of Gramercy of $10.6 million. The following summarizes the activity related to real estate securities for the year ended December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Amortized Cost Basis | | Unrealized Gains (Losses) | | Total |
| Real estate securities - December 31, 2012 | $ | 15,117 |
| | $ | 1,294 |
| | $ | 16,411 |
|
| Unrealized change in market value of real estate securities | — |
| | 13,867 |
| | 13,867 |
|
| Sale of real estate securities | (11,696 | ) | | (10,609 | ) | | (22,305 | ) |
| Real estate securities - December 31, 2013 | $ | 3,421 |
| | $ | 4,552 |
| | $ | 7,973 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 7. | REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE AND DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS |
The operations of properties held for sale or to be disposed of and the aggregate net gains recognized upon their disposition are presented as discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company disposed of six office properties, three industrial properties and 190 GKK Properties. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company disposed of 112 properties (of which 111 were GKK Properties) and classified 12 properties (of which 11 were GKK Properties) with an aggregate net book value of $51.8 million as held for sale. The Company recorded impairment charges of $9.0 million, $37.2 million and $45.7 million related to discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The impairment charges were primarily a result of a reduction in the estimated sales prices of certain properties held for sale. The estimated sales prices were based on purchase and sale agreements the Company had entered into, offers received which the Company intends to accept or broker estimates of value. The following table summarizes operating income from discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Total revenues and other income | $ | 26,493 |
| | $ | 198,569 |
| | $ | 167,595 |
|
| Total expenses | 23,716 |
| | 201,405 |
| | 174,389 |
|
| Income (loss) from discontinued operations before gain on sales of real estate, net and impairment charge | 2,777 |
| | (2,836 | ) | | (6,794 | ) |
| Gain on sales of real estate, net | 47,997 |
| | 53,691 |
| | 5,141 |
|
| Impairment charge | (8,975 | ) | | (37,218 | ) | | (45,744 | ) |
| Gain from extinguishment of debt | — |
| | 21,513 |
| | 115,531 |
|
| Income from discontinued operations | $ | 41,799 |
| | $ | 35,150 |
| | $ | 68,134 |
|
The following summary presents the major components of real estate held for sale and liabilities related to real estate held for sale as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | |
| | December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 |
| Assets related to real estate held for sale | | | |
| Total real estate, at cost and net of impairment charges | $ | 62,050 |
| | $ | 480,053 |
|
| Accumulated depreciation and amortization | (10,280 | ) | | (49,888 | ) |
| Real estate held for sale, net | 51,770 |
| | 430,165 |
|
| Other assets | 1,635 |
| | 9,540 |
|
| Total assets related to real estate held for sale | $ | 53,405 |
| | $ | 439,705 |
|
| Liabilities related to real estate held for sale | | | |
| Notes payable | 25,400 |
| | 324,667 |
|
| Other liabilities | 2,764 |
| | 37,236 |
|
| Total liabilities related to real estate held for sale | $ | 28,164 |
| | $ | 361,903 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Significant Transactions
PB Capital Properties
On November 6, 2012, the Company, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary that owns certain office properties, operations centers and bank branches (the “PB Capital Owner”), entered into various purchase and sale agreements (collectively, the “PB Capital Sale Agreement”) for the sale of 41 properties, containing 3.4 million rentable square feet (the “PB Capital Properties”), to National Financial Realty — WFB East Coast, LLC (the “PB Capital Buyer”), an unaffiliated entity. Pursuant to the PB Capital Sale Agreement, the purchase price for the PB Capital Properties was $250.0 million. On March 8, 2013, the Company sold 40 of the PB Capital Properties to the PB Capital Buyer for an aggregate purchase price of $240.9 million, excluding closing costs. The aggregate purchase price includes the assumption by the PB Capital Buyer of a mortgage loan at the face amount secured by the PB Capital Properties. This mortgage loan had an outstanding principal balance of $210.5 million.
Certain of the PB Capital Properties are leased to Wells Fargo under a master lease whereby Wells Fargo may exercise rights of first offer or rights of first refusal. Wells Fargo exercised its right of first refusal with respect to one of the PB Capital Properties containing 111,898 rentable square feet and on January 10, 2013, Wells Fargo purchased that PB Capital Property from the PB Capital Owner for a purchase price of $9.1 million.
| |
| 8. | FORECLOSED REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE |
In 2006 and 2007, the Company originally made three debt investments (collectively, the “Tribeca Loans”) related to the conversion of an eight-story loft building into a 10-story condominium building with 62 units (the “Tribeca Building”) located at 415 Greenwich Street in New York, New York. On February 19, 2010, the borrowers under the Tribeca Loans defaulted and the Company foreclosed on the Tribeca Building by exercising its right to accept 100% of the ownership interest of the borrowers. The Company acquired the remaining unsold condominium units of the Tribeca Building and assumed the project liabilities. The Company recorded the Tribeca Building at fair value using a discounted cash flow valuation model based on the net realizable value (expected sales price less estimated costs to sell the unsold units) of the real estate.
As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s investment in the Tribeca Building consisted of three condominium units with a carrying value of $19.1 million and is presented as foreclosed real estate held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company sold two retail spaces and parking spaces and recognized a gain on sale of $0.4 million and recorded expenses of $1.5 million related to foreclosed real estate held for sale. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company sold one condominium unit of the Tribeca Building and recognized a gain on sale of $0.1 million and recorded expenses of $2.6 million related to foreclosed real estate held for sale. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company sold seven condominium units of the Tribeca Building and recognized a gain on sale of $0.1 million and recorded expenses of $2.3 million related to foreclosed real estate held for sale.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
9. NOTES PAYABLE
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s notes payable, including notes payable related to real estate held for sale, consisted of the following (dollars in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Loan Type | | Book Value as of December 31, 2013 | | Book Value as of December 31, 2012 | | Contractual Interest Rates as of December 31, 2013 (1) | | Weighted-Average Interest Rate as of December 31, 2013 (1) | | Weighted-Average Remaining Term in Years (2) |
| Fixed Rate | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mortgage loans | | $ | 165,399 |
| | $ | 227,017 |
| | 5.9% - 8.3% | | 6.3% | | 1.1 |
| GKK Properties mortgage loans | | 600,694 |
| | 641,384 |
| | 5.1% - 15.3% | | 6.7% | | 6.1 |
| | | 766,093 |
| | 868,401 |
| | | | | | |
| Variable Rate | | | | | | | | | | |
Mortgage loans | | 210,400 |
| | 212,433 |
| | (3) | | 2.0% | | 2.0 |
| GKK Properties mortgage loans | | — |
| | 259,476 |
| | N/A | | N/A | | N/A |
| | | 210,400 |
| | 471,909 |
| | | | | | |
| Total notes payable principal outstanding | | 976,493 |
| | 1,340,310 |
| | | | | | |
Discount on notes payable, net (4) | | (14,211 | ) | | (19,777 | ) | | | | | | |
| Total notes payable, net | | $ | 962,282 |
| | $ | 1,320,533 |
| | | | | | |
(1) Contractual interest rates as of December 31, 2013 represent the range of interest rates in effect under these loans as of December 31, 2013. Weighted-average interest rate as of December 31, 2013 is calculated as the actual interest rates in effect under these loans as of December 31, 2013 (consisting of the contractual interest rates), using interest rate indices as of December 31, 2013, where applicable.
(2) Weighted-average remaining term in years represents the initial maturity dates or the maturity dates as extended as of December 31, 2013; subject to certain conditions, the maturity dates of certain loans may be further extended.
(3) The contractual interest rates of these loans will vary based on one-month LIBOR plus a fixed spread. The spreads on the mortgage loans range from 1.8% to 2.3%.
(4) Represents the unamortized discount and premium on notes payable due to the above- and below-market interest rates when the loans were assumed. The discount and premium are amortized over the remaining life of the respective loan.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s deferred financing costs were $2.3 million and $1.6 million, respectively, net of amortization. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company incurred interest expense, net of discontinued operations, of $61.7 million, $67.0 million and $48.2 million, respectively. Included in interest expense was: (i) the amortization of deferred financing costs of $0.8 million, $6.0 million and $6.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively; (ii) interest expense incurred as a result of the Company’s interest rate swap agreements of $0.1 million, $1.2 million and $2.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively; and (iii) the amortization of discount and premium on notes payable, which increased interest expense by $2.5 million and $2.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and decreased interest expense by $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, $7.9 million and $7.3 million of interest was payable, respectively.
The following is a schedule of maturities, including principal amortization payments, for all notes payable outstanding as of December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| 2014 | $ | 173,923 |
|
| 2015 | 72,788 |
|
| 2016 | 322,173 |
|
| 2017 | 131,121 |
|
| 2018 | 10,718 |
|
| Thereafter | 265,770 |
|
| | $ | 976,493 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The following summarizes the activity related to notes payable for the year ended December 31, 2013 (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| Total notes payable, net - December 31, 2012 | $ | 1,320,533 |
|
| Proceeds from notes payable | 185,634 |
|
| Deferred interest payable | 4,592 |
|
| Mortgage debt transferred to buyer in connection with sale of the underlying real estate | (210,545 | ) |
| Principal repayments | (343,498 | ) |
| Amortization of discount on notes payable, net | 4,198 |
|
| Write-off of premium on notes payable related to sale | 1,368 |
|
| Total notes payable, net - December 31, 2013 | $ | 962,282 |
|
Significant Financing Transaction
Portfolio Loan
On December 20, 2013, the Company, through indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (the “Borrowers”), entered into a two-year portfolio loan with unaffiliated lenders for borrowings of up to $250.0 million (the “Portfolio Loan”), of which $187.5 million is non-revolving debt and $62.5 million is revolving debt. The Portfolio Loan is initially secured by ADP Plaza, City Gate Plaza, Cumberland Business Center, Great Oaks Center, Meridian Tower, North Creek Parkway Center, Rivertech I & II, Riverview Business Center I & II, Royal Parkway Center I & II, Royal Ridge Building, Sabal VI Building, University Park Buildings and Woodfield Preserve Office Center. As of December 31, 2013, $185.0 million of the non-revolving debt had been funded and the remaining $2.5 million of non-revolving debt and $62.5 million of revolving debt was available for future disbursements upon the addition of certain real estate properties as additional collateral for the Portfolio Loan. The Company used $152.2 million of the proceeds funded at closing to repay outstanding debt obligations. On January 21, 2014, the Company added 825 University Avenue Building and Tyson Dulles Plaza as additional collateral for the Portfolio Loan and also drew the remaining $2.5 million of non-revolving debt. As of January 21, 2014, the $62.5 million of revolving debt was available for future disbursements.
The Portfolio Loan matures on January 1, 2016, with two one-year extension options, subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the loan documents. The Portfolio Loan bears interest at a floating rate of 180 basis points over one-month, three-month or six-month LIBOR as elected by the Company. Monthly payments are interest only with the entire principal balance and all outstanding interest due at maturity. The Company will have the right to prepay the loan in whole at any time or in part from time to time, subject to the payment of certain expenses, costs or liabilities potentially incurred by the lenders as a result of the prepayment and subject to certain other conditions contained in the loan documents.
KBS REIT Properties, LLC, the Company’s indirect wholly owned subsidiary through which the Company indirectly owns all of its real estate assets (“KBS REIT Properties”), is providing a guaranty of 25% of the outstanding principal amount due and payable under the Portfolio Loan. KBS REIT Properties is also providing a guaranty of: (i) any indebtedness and any other sums payable by the Borrowers to the lenders related to any Portfolio Loan swap transactions; (ii) in certain circumstances, any amounts owed by the Borrowers pursuant to the related environmental indemnity; and (iii) any deficiency, loss or damage suffered by the lenders resulting from (a) certain intentional acts committed by the Borrowers and, in certain circumstances, KBS REIT Properties, or (b) certain bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving the Borrowers.
Loan Maturities and Defaults
As of December 31, 2013, one outstanding loan secured by one of the Company’s historical real estate investments and two outstanding loans the Company assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement had matured without repayment and remain outstanding. These loans had outstanding principal balances of $26.8 million (the “Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan”), $6.1 million (the “BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan”) and $37.6 million (the “801 Market Street Mortgage Loan”). Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the Company did not meet the monthly debt service payment requirements with respect to one loan with an outstanding principal balance of $14.4 million (the “Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan”), which the Company assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and the lender declared a default on June 24, 2013.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan
Beginning in June 2013, the Company failed to meet the monthly debt service payment requirements of the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan and defaulted on this loan. As a result of the default, on June 12, 2013, the lender declared the total outstanding principal amount of $26.8 million together with any accrued interest, applicable default interest and any other interest and late charges immediately due and payable. The Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan matured on August 1, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the lender commenced proceedings to foreclose on the property securing the loan. The lender may also attempt to exercise certain of its other rights under the loan documents. The carrying value of the property securing the Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan was $23.7 million as of December 31, 2013. The trustee’s sale date was originally set for February 13, 2014, but the trustee’s sale has been postponed due to discussions between the Company and the lender regarding a potential discounted payoff. However, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and the lender may ultimately end up foreclosing on the property securing the loan.
BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan
The BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan matured on October 31, 2012 and on February 14, 2013, proceedings relating to the foreclosure of the properties securing the loan were commenced. The carrying value of the properties securing the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan was $4.2 million as of December 31, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the Company entered into agreements for deed-in-lieu of foreclosure and transferred the properties securing the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio Loan to the lender in full satisfaction of the debt and other obligations due under the loan.
801 Market Street Mortgage Loan
The 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan matured on February 1, 2013 and as a result of the maturity, the lender has commenced foreclosure proceedings and is seeking a judgment against the Company in the amount of $35.3 million, together with additional interest, fees, charges and costs recoverable under the loan documents. Effective as of June 17, 2013, the Company and the lender agreed to the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the foreclosure proceedings. On February 5, 2014, the lender and the Company entered into a release agreement whereby, in consideration of the Company stipulating to the entry of a foreclosure judgment and assisting with the transition of the mortgaged property, the lender agreed to release the Company from all matters related to the 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan, with the exception of certain environmental matters, any actual fraud committed by the Company, and any actual physical damage to the mortgaged property caused or committed by the Company. The aforementioned release of the Company is effective immediately upon the transfer of title to the mortgaged property to the lender or its designee or a third party purchaser by execution and delivery of a deed pursuant to the ordinary course of the foreclosure sale process, and without the requirement of any further action of the parties or the court. During the time period between the execution of the release agreement and the effectiveness of the release of the Company, the lender has agreed not to pursue any actions against the Company other than completing the foreclosure action contemplated by the release agreement and other limited matters.
The Order for Entry of Judgment was signed and entered by the court on March 4, 2014, and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property is expected to take place within the next several months. The carrying value of the property securing the loan was $21.7 million as of December 31, 2013.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan
Beginning in June 2013, the Company failed to meet the monthly debt service payment requirements of the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan and defaulted on this loan. On or about August 20, 2013, the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings and is seeking a judgment against the Company in the amount of $13.2 million, together with additional interest, fees, charges and costs recoverable under the loan documents. Effective as of September 24, 2013, the Company and the lender agreed to the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the foreclosure proceedings. On December 12, 2013, the lender and the Company entered into a release agreement whereby, in consideration of the Company stipulating to the entry of a foreclosure judgment and assisting with the transition of the mortgaged property, the lender agreed to release the Company from all matters related to the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan, with the exception of certain environmental matters, any actual fraud committed by the Company, and any actual physical damage to the mortgaged property caused or committed by the Company. The aforementioned release of the Company is effective immediately upon the transfer of title to the mortgaged property to the lender or its designee by execution and delivery of a deed pursuant to the ordinary course of the foreclosure sale process, and without the requirement of any further action of the parties or the court. During the time period between the execution of the release agreement and the effectiveness of the release of the Company, the lender has agreed not to pursue any actions against the Company other than completing the foreclosure action contemplated by the release agreement and other limited matters.
The Order for Entry of Judgment was signed and entered by the court on December 20, 2013, and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property is expected to take place within the next several months. The carrying value of the property securing the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan was $6.9 million as of December 31, 2013.
Debt Covenants
The documents evidencing the Company’s debt obligations typically require that specified loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratios be maintained with respect to the financed properties. A breach of the financial covenants in these documents may result in the lender imposing additional restrictions on the Company’s operations, such as restrictions on the Company’s ability to incur additional debt, or may allow the lender to impose “cash traps” with respect to cash flow from the property securing the loan. In addition, such a breach may constitute an event of default and the lender could require the Company to repay the debt immediately. If the Company fails to make such repayment in a timely manner, the lender may be entitled to take possession of any property securing the loan.
As of December 31, 2013, the borrower under the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan was out of debt service compliance. As a result of such non-compliance, the loan servicer imposed a “cash trap” and has the right to replace the manager of the property securing the loan. Additionally, on June 24, 2013, the lender under the Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan declared a default under the loan. For more information, see above under “—Loan Maturities and Defaults — Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan.”
Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the borrower under another loan, which the Company assumed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (the “BBD2 Loan”), was alleged by the loan servicer to be out of debt service coverage compliance. As of December 31, 2013, the BBD2 Loan had an outstanding principal balance of $194.2 million. Such alleged non-compliance does not constitute an event of default under the applicable loan and security documents. However, as a result of such alleged non-compliance, the servicer has imposed a “cash trap” to restrict distributions to the Company to the budgeted property operating expenses and requires lender consent regarding the release of the properties securing the loan.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 10. | FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES |
Under GAAP, the Company is required to measure certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. In addition, the Company is required to measure other financial instruments and balances at fair value on a non-recurring basis (e.g., carrying value of impaired real estate loans receivable and long-lived assets). Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The GAAP fair value framework uses a three-tiered approach. Fair value measurements are classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
| |
| • | Level 1: unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities; |
| |
| • | Level 2: quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations in which significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets; and |
| |
| • | Level 3: prices or valuation techniques where little or no market data is available that requires inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable. |
The fair value for certain financial instruments is derived using a combination of market quotes, pricing models and other valuation techniques that involve significant management judgment. The price transparency of financial instruments is a key determinant of the degree of judgment involved in determining the fair value of the Company’s financial instruments. Financial instruments for which actively quoted prices or pricing parameters are available and for which markets contain orderly transactions will generally have a higher degree of price transparency than financial instruments for which markets are inactive or consist of non-orderly trades. The Company evaluates several factors when determining if a market is inactive or when market transactions are not orderly. The following is a summary of the methods and assumptions used by management in estimating the fair value of each class of assets and liabilities for which it is practicable to estimate the fair value:
Cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, rent and other receivables, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities: These balances reasonably approximate their fair values due to the short maturities of these items.
Real estate loans receivable: These instruments are presented in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at their amortized cost net of recorded loan loss reserves and not at fair value. The fair values of real estate loans receivable were estimated using an internal valuation model that considered the expected cash flows for the loans, underlying collateral values (for collateral-dependent loans) and estimated yield requirements of institutional investors for loans with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value, type of collateral and other credit enhancements. The Company classifies these inputs as Level 3 inputs.
Real estate securities: As of December 31, 2013, the Company owned 1,386,602 shares of common stock, par value of $0.001 per share, of Gramercy. These securities are classified as available-for-sale and presented at fair value as the Company did not have the ability to sell the shares during certain lockout periods. The most recent lockout period terminated on December 6, 2013 and as of December 31, 2013, there were no restrictions on the Company’s ability to sell its remaining shares of Gramercy common stock and the fair value measurement of these shares is based on a quoted price in an active market. The Company categorizes the measurement of such securities as Level 1 inputs. Prior to the termination of the lockout periods, the Company categorized the measurement of these securities as Level 2 inputs as the valuation of the stock was adjusted for the lack of marketability based on market-corroborated inputs.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Notes payable: The fair values of the Company’s notes payable are estimated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on management’s estimates of current market interest rates for instruments with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value ratio, type of collateral and other credit enhancements. Additionally, when determining the fair value of liabilities in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for an identical liability is not available, the Company measures fair value using (i) a valuation technique that uses the quoted price of the identical liability when traded as an asset or quoted prices for similar liabilities when traded as assets or (ii) another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurement, such as the income approach or the market approach. The Company classifies these inputs as Level 3 inputs.
The following were the face values, carrying amounts and fair values of the Company’s real estate loans receivable and notes payable as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, which carrying amounts do not approximate the fair values (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | December 31, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 |
| | Face Value | | Carrying Amount | | Fair Value | | Face Value | | Carrying Amount | | Fair Value |
| Financial assets: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Real estate loans receivable (1) | $ | 35,814 |
| | $ | 29,768 |
| | $ | 25,754 |
| | $ | 35,902 |
| | $ | 28,846 |
| | $ | 25,167 |
|
| Financial liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Notes payable | $ | 976,493 |
| | $ | 962,282 |
| | $ | 965,463 |
| | $ | 1,340,310 |
| | $ | 1,320,533 |
| | $ | 1,315,923 |
|
(1) Face value of real estate loans receivable is net of unfunded commitments. Carrying amount of real estate loans receivable includes loan loss reserves.
Disclosure of the fair values of financial instruments is based on pertinent information available to the Company as of the period end and requires a significant amount of judgment. The actual value of these investments could be materially different from the Company’s estimate of value.
Assets Recorded at Fair Value
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company measured the following assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Fair Value Measurements Using |
| | Total | | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) | | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) | | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
| Recurring Basis: | | | | | | | |
| Real estate securities | $ | 7,973 |
| | $ | 7,973 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
As of December 31, 2013, the Company measured the following assets and liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Fair Value Measurements Using |
| | Total | | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) | | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) | | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
| Nonrecurring Basis: | | | | | | | |
| Impaired real estate - continuing operations | $ | 38,034 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 38,034 |
|
| Impaired real estate - discontinued operations | $ | 41,439 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 41,439 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
As of December 31, 2013, five of the Company’s real estate properties held for investment were measured at estimated fair value as these properties were impaired and the carrying value of each property was adjusted to estimated fair value. The Company estimated the fair value for two of these impaired real estate properties held for investment by performing a 10-year discounted cash flow analysis. These two properties had stabilized occupancy and the range of the terminal capitalization rates used to estimate the fair values was 7.0% to 7.25%. The Company estimated the fair value for its other three impaired real estate properties held for investment (all of which were GKK Properties) by performing a direct capitalization analysis. These properties had unstabilized occupancy and the range of the direct capitalization rates used to estimate the fair values was 8.0% to 8.25%.
Also as of December 31, 2013, five of the Company’s real estate properties held for sale were measured at estimated fair value as these properties were impaired and the carrying value of each of these properties was adjusted to estimated fair value. The Company determined the fair value for two of its impaired real estate properties held for sale (including one GKK Property) based on the estimated sales price less costs to sell. The estimated sales prices were based on purchase and sale agreements the Company has entered into or offers received, which offers the Company intends to accept. The Company estimated the fair value for the other three of its impaired real estate properties held for sale (all of which were GKK Properties) by performing a direct capitalization analysis. These properties had unstabilized occupancy and the range of the direct capitalization rates used to estimate the fair values was 8.0% to 9.25%.
The estimated terminal capitalization rates selected by the Company vary on a property by property basis based upon several factors such as asset location, occupancy, lease terms and quality of the tenants in place. The range of capitalization rates disclosed above should not be relied upon as an indication of the price at which other properties in the Company’s real estate portfolio may sell, as there are many factors that influence the capitalization rate on a property by property basis.
| |
| 11. | RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS |
The Company has entered into an Advisory Agreement with the Advisor that is in effect through November 8, 2014 and a Dealer Manager Agreement with the Dealer Manager. These agreements entitled the Advisor and/or the Dealer Manager to specified fees upon the provision of certain services with regard to the Offering and entitle the Advisor to specified fees for the management and disposition of investments, among other services, as well as reimbursement of organization and offering costs that were incurred by the Advisor, the Dealer Manager, and their affiliates on behalf of the Company in connection with the Company’s now terminated Offering and entitle the Advisor to reimbursement for certain costs incurred by the Advisor in providing services to the Company. In addition, the Advisor is entitled to certain other fees, including an incentive fee upon achieving certain performance goals, as detailed in the Advisory Agreement. The Company has also entered into the AIP Reimbursement Agreement with the Dealer Manager pursuant to which the Company agreed to reimburse the Dealer Manager for certain fees and expenses it incurs for administering the Company’s participation in the DTCC Alternative Investment Product Platform with respect to certain accounts of the Company’s investors serviced through the platform. The Advisor and Dealer Manager also serve as the advisor and dealer manager, respectively, for KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III, Inc., KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc., KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, Inc and KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, Inc.
On January 6, 2014, the Company, together with KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., KBS Real Estate Investment Trust III, Inc., KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc., KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, Inc., KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT II, Inc., the Dealer Manager, the Advisor and other KBS-affiliated entities, entered into an errors and omissions and directors and officers liability insurance program where the lower tiers of coverage are shared. The cost of these lower tiers is allocated by the Advisor and its insurance broker among each of the various entities covered by the plan, and is billed directly to each entity. The allocation of these shared coverage costs is proportionate to the pricing by the insurance marketplace for the first tiers of directors and officers liability coverage purchased individually by each REIT. The Advisor’s and the Dealer Manager’s portion of the shared lower tiers’ cost is proportionate to the respective entities’ prior cost for the errors and omissions insurance.
During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, no other transactions occurred between the Company and the other KBS-sponsored programs, except that on May 18, 2012, KBS Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc. made an $8.0 million investment in a joint venture in which the Company indirectly owns a participation interest through another joint venture investment.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
Pursuant to the terms of the Advisory Agreement, Dealer Manager Agreement and the AIP Reimbursement Agreement, summarized below are the related-party costs incurred by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and any related amounts payable as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Incurred | | Payable as of |
| | Year Ended December 31, | | December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2013 | | 2012 |
| Expensed | | | | | | | | | |
Asset management fees(1) | $ | 11,034 |
| | $ | 12,211 |
| | $ | 12,328 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
Reimbursement of operating expenses(2) | 187 |
| | 212 |
| | 94 |
| | — |
| | 104 |
|
Disposition fees(3) | 3,315 |
| | 8,260 |
| | 2,089 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| Additional Paid-in Capital | | | | | | | | | |
| Selling commissions | — |
| | 262 |
| | 1,115 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| | $ | 14,536 |
| | $ | 20,945 |
| | $ | 15,626 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 104 |
|
_____________________
(1) Amounts include asset management fees from discontinued operations totaling $0.9 million, $1.9 million and $0.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. On March 20, 2012, the Company entered into an amendment to the Advisory Agreement with the Advisor pursuant to which the Advisor agreed to forgive debt related to $1.6 million of advances from the Advisor to the Company related to distributions and the Advisor agreed to waive the approximately $5.4 million of performance fees related to the National Industrial Portfolio.
(2) The Advisor may seek reimbursement for certain employee costs under the Advisory Agreement. The Company reimburses the Advisor for the Company’s allocable portion of the salaries, benefits and overhead of internal audit department personnel providing services to the Company. These amounts totaled $180,000, $121,000 and $94,000 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and were the only employee costs reimbursed under the Advisory Agreement through December 31, 2013. The Company will not reimburse for employee costs in connection with services for which the Advisor earns acquisition, origination or disposition fees (other than reimbursement of travel and communication expenses) or for the salaries or benefits the Advisor or its affiliates may pay to the Company’s executive officers.
(3) Disposition fees with respect to real estate sold are included in the gain on sales of real estate in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Disposition fees with respect to real estate loans receivable sold are reflected in the provision for loan losses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Disposition fees with respect to real estate securities sold are included in the gain on sales of real estate securities in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
| |
| 12. | SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW AND SIGNIFICANT NONCASH TRANSACTION DISCLOSURES |
Supplemental cash flow and significant noncash transaction disclosures were as follows (in thousands): |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | For the Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information: | | | | | |
| Interest paid | $ | 60,598 |
| | $ | 108,801 |
| | $ | 84,389 |
|
| Supplemental Disclosure of Significant Noncash Transactions: | | | | | |
| Mortgage loans satisfied in connection with deed in lieu of foreclosure | $ | — |
| | $ | 207,189 |
| | $ | 441,244 |
|
| Distributions paid to common stockholders through common stock issuances pursuant to the dividend reinvestment plan | $ | — |
| | $ | 11,131 |
| | $ | 46,492 |
|
| Increase in accrued improvements to real estate | $ | 1,319 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 191 |
|
| Assets and liabilities assumed in connection with the Settlement Agreement | | | | | |
| Transfer of the GKK Properties | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 1,827,553 |
|
| Liabilities related to the GKK Properties | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 1,509,673 |
|
| Pledged government securities | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 93,623 |
|
| Restricted cash | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 124,261 |
|
| Accounts payable and other liabilities | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 106,027 |
|
| Accounts receivable and assets | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 37,524 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company presently operates in three business segments based on its investment types: real estate, real estate-related and commercial properties primarily leased to financial institutions received under the Settlement Agreement, or the GKK Properties. Under the real estate segment, the Company has invested primarily in office and industrial properties located throughout the United States. The real estate segment excludes all real estate sold or held for sale as of December 31, 2013. Under the real estate-related segment, the Company has invested in or originated mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and other real estate-related assets, including real estate securities and preferred membership interest investments. The GKK Properties segment consists of primarily office properties, bank branch properties and operations centers located in 30 states but excludes GKK Properties sold or held for sale as of December 31, 2013. All revenues earned from the Company’s three reporting segments were from external customers and there were no intersegment sales or transfers. The Company does not allocate corporate-level accounts to its reporting segments. Corporate-level accounts include corporate general and administrative expenses, non-operating interest income and other corporate-level expenses. The accounting policies of the reporting segments are consistent with those described in Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
The Company evaluates the performance of its segments based upon net operating income from continuing operations (“NOI”), which is a non-GAAP supplemental financial measure. The Company defines NOI for its real estate segment and the GKK Properties segment as operating revenues (rental income, tenant reimbursements and other operating income) less property and related expenses (property operating expenses, real estate taxes, insurance, asset management fees and provision for bad debt) less interest expense. The Company defines NOI for its real estate-related segment as interest income and income from its unconsolidated joint venture investment less loan servicing costs (if applicable), asset management fees and interest expense (if applicable). NOI excludes certain items that are not considered to be controllable in connection with the management of an asset such as non-property income and expenses, depreciation and amortization, and corporate general and administrative expenses. The Company uses NOI to evaluate the operating performance of the Company’s real estate investments, real estate-related investments and the GKK Properties and to make decisions about resource allocations. The Company believes that net income is the GAAP measure that is most directly comparable to NOI; however, NOI should not be considered as an alternative to net income as the primary indicator of operating performance as it excludes the items described above. Additionally, NOI as defined above may not be comparable to other REITs or companies as their definitions of NOI may differ from the Company’s definition.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The following tables summarize total revenues, interest expense and NOI for each reportable segment for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, and total assets and total liabilities for each reportable segment as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Revenues: | | | | | |
Real estate segment(1) | $ | 76,087 |
| | $ | 76,626 |
| | $ | 81,068 |
|
| Real estate-related segment | 3,258 |
| | 3,878 |
| | 16,240 |
|
GKK Properties segment(1) | 138,763 |
| | 137,408 |
| | 46,205 |
|
| Total revenues | $ | 218,108 |
| | $ | 217,912 |
| | $ | 143,513 |
|
| Interest Expense: | | | | | |
Real estate segment(1) | $ | 18,001 |
| | $ | 20,953 |
| | $ | 24,798 |
|
| Real estate-related segment | — |
| | 24 |
| | 7,808 |
|
GKK Properties segment(1) | 43,665 |
| | 46,029 |
| | 15,566 |
|
| Total interest expense | $ | 61,666 |
| | $ | 67,006 |
| | $ | 48,172 |
|
| NOI: | | | | | |
Real estate segment(1) | $ | 18,052 |
| | $ | 15,693 |
| | $ | 15,783 |
|
| Real estate-related segment | 3,046 |
| | 4,154 |
| | 8,244 |
|
GKK Properties segment(1) | 10,043 |
| | 12,433 |
| | 423 |
|
| Total NOI | $ | 31,141 |
| | $ | 32,280 |
| | $ | 24,450 |
|
| | | | | | |
| | December 31, | | |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | |
| Assets: | | | | | |
| Real estate segment | $ | 631,846 |
| | $ | 675,787 |
| | |
| Real estate-related segment | 38,332 |
| | 45,662 |
| | |
| GKK Properties segment | 815,138 |
| | 903,166 |
| | |
| Total segment assets | 1,485,316 |
| | 1,624,615 |
| | |
| Real estate held for sale | 53,405 |
| | 439,705 |
| | |
| Foreclosed real estate held for sale | 19,064 |
| | 26,275 |
| | |
Corporate-level(2) | 187,112 |
| | 212,960 |
| | |
| Total assets | $ | 1,744,897 |
| | $ | 2,303,555 |
| | |
| Liabilities: | | | | | |
| Real estate segment | $ | 367,531 |
| | $ | 410,499 |
| | |
| Real estate-related segment | 3 |
| | — |
| | |
| GKK Properties segment | 691,965 |
| | 748,167 |
| | |
| Total segment liabilities | 1,059,499 |
| | 1,158,666 |
| | |
| Real estate held for sale | 28,164 |
| | 361,903 |
| | |
Corporate-level(3) | 1,341 |
| | 1,571 |
| | |
| Total liabilities | $ | 1,089,004 |
| | $ | 1,522,140 |
| | |
_____________________
(1) Amounts include properties held for non-sale disposition but do not include properties held for sale and discontinued operations.
(2) Total corporate-level assets consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents of approximately $186.7 million and $212.4 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
(3) As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, corporate-level liabilities consisted primarily of accounts payable and accrued liabilities for general and administrative expenses.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The following table reconciles the Company’s net (loss) income to its NOI for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (amounts in thousands):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Years Ended December 31, |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| Net (loss) income | $ | (46,495 | ) | | $ | (43,142 | ) | | $ | 4,557 |
|
| Gain on sales of foreclosed real estate held for sale | (378 | ) | | (127 | ) | | (134 | ) |
| Gain on sales of real estate securities | (10,470 | ) | | (25,456 | ) | | — |
|
| Other income and interest income | (3,389 | ) | | (44 | ) | | (1,701 | ) |
| General and administrative expenses | 17,907 |
| | 22,439 |
| | 20,271 |
|
| Depreciation and amortization | 75,575 |
| | 81,736 |
| | 50,759 |
|
| Impairment charges on real estate held for investment | 40,190 |
| | 31,882 |
| | 6,833 |
|
| Provision for loan losses | — |
| | 142 |
| | 11,999 |
|
| Total income from discontinued operations | (41,799 | ) | | (35,150 | ) | | (68,134 | ) |
| NOI | $ | 31,141 |
| | $ | 32,280 |
| | $ | 24,450 |
|
| |
| 14. | SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED) |
Presented below is a summary of the unaudited quarterly financial information for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2013 |
| | | First Quarter | | Second Quarter | | Third Quarter | | Fourth Quarter |
| Revenues | | $ | 54,431 |
| | $ | 55,392 |
| | $ | 54,061 |
| | $ | 54,224 |
|
| Total income (loss) from discontinued operations | | $ | 28,877 |
| | $ | 1,073 |
| | $ | (924 | ) | | $ | 12,773 |
|
| Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders | | $ | 11,254 |
| | $ | (40,885 | ) | | $ | (14,915 | ) | | $ | (1,949 | ) |
| Income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted | | $ | 0.06 |
| | $ | (0.21 | ) | | $ | (0.08 | ) | | $ | (0.01 | ) |
Distributions declared per common share (1) | | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 0.395 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2012 |
| | | First Quarter | | Second Quarter | | Third Quarter | | Fourth Quarter |
| Revenues | | $ | 55,969 |
| | $ | 53,614 |
| | $ | 54,926 |
| | $ | 53,403 |
|
| Total (loss) income from discontinued operations | | $ | (4,664 | ) | | $ | (6,630 | ) | | $ | 1,926 |
| | $ | 44,518 |
|
| Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders | | $ | 2,988 |
| | $ | (24,207 | ) | | $ | (16,712 | ) | | $ | (5,211 | ) |
| Income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted | | $ | 0.02 |
| | $ | (0.13 | ) | | $ | (0.09 | ) | | $ | (0.03 | ) |
Distributions declared per common share (2) | | $ | 0.085 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | — |
|
____________________
(1) On November 6, 2013, the Company’s board of directors declared a one-time distribution in the amount of $0.3950 per share of common stock, or an aggregate amount of $75.0 million, to stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2013.
(2) Distributions declared per common share assumes the share was issued and outstanding each day during the period from January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2012. Each day during the period from January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2012 was a record date for distributions. Distributions were calculated at a rate of $0.00143836 per share per day from January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2012.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
| |
| 15. | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Lease Obligations
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company indirectly received leasehold interests in certain commercial properties, pursuant leases between the owner of the property, as landlord, and the Company, as tenant. The ground leases have expiration dates between 2014 and 2101 and the building leases have expiration dates between 2014 and 2085. These lease obligations generally contain rent increases and renewal options. In certain instances, the rent owed by the Company to the owner of the property under the lease is greater than the revenue received by the Company from the tenants occupying the property.
Future minimum lease payments owed by the Company under non-cancelable operating building and ground leases, excluding payments owed related to properties held for non-sale disposition, as of December 31, 2013 were as follows (in thousands):
|
| | | |
| 2014 | $ | 17,359 |
|
| 2015 | 16,979 |
|
| 2016 | 16,509 |
|
| 2017 | 12,637 |
|
| 2018 | 2,560 |
|
| Thereafter | 34,805 |
|
| | $ | 100,849 |
|
Economic Dependency
The Company is dependent on the Advisor for certain services that are essential to the Company, including the management of the Company’s real estate and real estate-related investment portfolio; the disposition of real estate and real estate-related investments; and other general and administrative responsibilities. In the event that the Advisor is unable to provide any of these services, the Company will be required to obtain such services from other sources. The Company is also dependent on the Property Manager for the Services under the Amended Services Agreement, including the operations, leasing and eventual dispositions of the GKK Properties.
Environmental
As an owner of real estate, the Company is subject to various environmental laws of federal, state and local governments. Although there can be no assurance, the Company is not aware of any environmental liability that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. However, changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations, the uses and conditions of properties in the vicinity of the Company’s properties, the activities of its tenants and other environmental conditions of which the Company is unaware with respect to the properties could result in future environmental liabilities.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company indirectly took title to or, with respect to a limited number of the GKK Properties, indirectly took a leasehold interest in, the GKK Properties on an “as is” basis. As such, the Company was not able to inspect the GKK Properties or conduct standard due diligence on certain of the GKK Properties before the transfers of the properties. Additionally, the Company did not receive representations, warranties and indemnities relating to the GKK Properties from Gramercy and/or its affiliates. Thus, the value of the GKK Properties may decline if the Company subsequently discovers environmental problems with the GKK Properties.
Legal Matters
From time to time, the Company is party to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Management is not aware of any legal proceedings the outcome of which is probable or reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition, which would require accrual or disclosure of the contingency and possible range of loss. Additionally, the Company has not recorded any loss contingencies related to legal proceedings in which the potential loss is deemed to be remote.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
The Company evaluates subsequent events up until the date the consolidated financial statements are issued.
Disposition of Properties Subsequent to December 31, 2013
Crescent Green Buildings
On January 31, 2007, the Company, through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary, acquired three office buildings comprising 248,832 rentable square feet located on a 24-acre parcel of land in Cary, North Carolina (the “Crescent Green Buildings”). The purchase price of the Crescent Green Buildings was $48.1 million plus closing costs. On February 19, 2014, the Company sold the Crescent Green Buildings, which had a net book value of $36.5 million for $37.3 million. The purchaser is not affiliated with the Company or the Advisor.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
(in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Description | | Balance at Beginning of Year | | Additions Charged Against Operations | | Uncollectible Accounts Written-off | | Balance at End of Year |
| Year Ended December 31, 2013 | | | | | | | | |
| Allowance for doubtful accounts | | $ | 5,297 |
| | $ | 2,490 |
| | $ | (1,402 | ) | | $ | 6,385 |
|
| Reserve for loan losses | | 2,222 |
| | — |
| | (132 | ) | | 2,090 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Year Ended December 31, 2012 | | | | | | | | |
| Allowance for doubtful accounts | | $ | 5,007 |
| | $ | 835 |
| | $ | (545 | ) | | $ | 5,297 |
|
| Reserve for loan losses | | 74,134 |
| | 142 |
| | (72,054 | ) | | 2,222 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| Year Ended December 31, 2011 | | | | | | | | |
| Allowance for doubtful accounts | | $ | 617 |
| | $ | 2,207 |
| | $ | 2,183 |
| | $ | 5,007 |
|
| Reserve for loan losses | | 97,800 |
| | 11,740 |
| | (35,406 | ) | | 74,134 |
|
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Properties Held for Investment | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Plaza in Clayton | | Saint Louis, MO | | 100 | % | | $ | 62,200 |
| | $ | 2,793 |
| | $ | 91,162 |
| | $ | 93,955 |
| | $ | (2,235 | ) | | $ | 2,793 |
| | $ | 88,927 |
| | $ | 91,720 |
| | $ | (17,576 | ) | | 2001 | | 09/27/2006 |
| 825 University Avenue Building | | Norwood, MA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 4,165 |
| | 27,087 |
| | 31,252 |
| | (8,683 | ) | | 3,676 |
| | 18,893 |
| | 22,569 |
| | (2,378 | ) | | 2004/2006 | | 12/05/2006 |
| Sabal VI Building | | Tampa, FL | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 2,600 |
| | 14,917 |
| | 17,517 |
| | (4,418 | ) | | 2,316 |
| | 10,783 |
| | 13,099 |
| | (725 | ) | | 1988 | | 03/05/2007 |
| Royal Ridge Building | | Alpharetta, GA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 3,500 |
| | 33,166 |
| | 36,666 |
| | (11,229 | ) | | 3,313 |
| | 22,124 |
| | 25,437 |
| | (794 | ) | | 2001 | | 06/21/2007 |
Bridgeway Technology Center (5) | | Newark, CA | | 100 | % | | 26,824 |
| | 11,299 |
| | 34,705 |
| | 46,004 |
| | (22,087 | ) | | 7,044 |
| | 16,873 |
| | 23,917 |
| | (266 | ) | | 1996 | | 06/27/2007 |
Opus National Industrial Portfolio (6) | | Various | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 4,260 |
| | 22,423 |
| | 26,683 |
| | (9,121 | ) | | 3,316 |
| | 14,246 |
| | 17,562 |
| | (124 | ) | | Various | | 07/25/2007 |
| ADP Plaza | | Portland, OR | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 5,100 |
| | 28,755 |
| | 33,855 |
| | 141 |
| | 5,100 |
| | 28,896 |
| | 33,996 |
| | (5,489 | ) | | 1981 | | 11/07/2007 |
| Woodfield Preserve Office Center | | Schaumburg, IL | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 7,001 |
| | 121,603 |
| | 128,604 |
| | (10,708 | ) | | 7,001 |
| | 110,895 |
| | 117,896 |
| | (23,409 | ) | | 2001 | | 11/13/2007 |
| Nashville Flex Portfolio | | Nashville, TN | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 8,350 |
| | 46,441 |
| | 54,791 |
| | (21,223 | ) | | 6,322 |
| | 27,246 |
| | 33,568 |
| | (3,114 | ) | | Various | | 11/15/2007 |
| Rivertech I and II | | Billerica, MA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 3,931 |
| | 42,111 |
| | 46,042 |
| | (443 | ) | | 3,931 |
| | 41,668 |
| | 45,599 |
| | (11,487 | ) | | 1983/2001,2007 | | 02/20/2008 |
| Tysons Dulles Plaza | | McLean, VA | | 100 | % | | 76,375 |
| | 38,839 |
| | 121,210 |
| | 160,049 |
| | (38,692 | ) | | 33,604 |
| | 87,753 |
| | 121,357 |
| | (1,979 | ) | | 1986-1990 | | 06/06/2008 |
| Great Oaks Center | | Alpharetta, GA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 7,743 |
| | 28,330 |
| | 36,073 |
| | (17,087 | ) | | 3,436 |
| | 15,550 |
| | 18,986 |
| | (719 | ) | | 1999 | | 07/18/2008 |
| University Park Buildings | | Sacramento, CA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 4,520 |
| | 22,029 |
| | 26,549 |
| | (7,413 | ) | | 3,739 |
| | 15,397 |
| | 19,136 |
| | — |
| | 1981 | | 07/31/2008 |
| Meridian Tower | | Tulsa, OK | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 2,050 |
| | 16,728 |
| | 18,778 |
| | 1,542 |
| | 2,050 |
| | 18,270 |
| | 20,320 |
| | (3,472 | ) | | 1982 | | 08/18/2008 |
| North Creek Parkway Center | | Bothell, WA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 11,200 |
| | 30,755 |
| | 41,955 |
| | (7,177 | ) | | 9,941 |
| | 24,837 |
| | 34,778 |
| | (1,281 | ) | | 1986-1987 | | 08/28/2008 |
| City Gate Plaza | | Sacramento, CA | | 100 | % | | (4) | | 2,880 |
| | 18,895 |
| | 21,775 |
| | (7,483 | ) | | 2,504 |
| | 11,788 |
| | 14,292 |
| | — |
| | 1988-1990 | | 11/25/2008 |
| Bentonville | | Benton, AR | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 167 |
| | 607 |
| | 774 |
| | (9 | ) | | 167 |
| | 598 |
| | 765 |
| | (109 | ) | | 1973 / 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Mountain Home - Main Building | | Mountain Home, AR | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 380 |
| | 438 |
| | 818 |
| | (54 | ) | | 380 |
| | 384 |
| | 764 |
| | (105 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| RH Johnson - Main Building | | Sun City, AZ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 949 |
| | 546 |
| | 1,495 |
| | — |
| | 949 |
| | 546 |
| | 1,495 |
| | (146 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Arnold | | Arnold, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 213 |
| | 684 |
| | 897 |
| | (65 | ) | | 213 |
| | 619 |
| | 832 |
| | (112 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bay - Fair | | San Leandro, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 913 |
| | 594 |
| | 1,507 |
| | 55 |
| | 913 |
| | 649 |
| | 1,562 |
| | (210 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Burlingame - Main Building | | Burlingame, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 671 |
| | 467 |
| | 1,138 |
| | — |
| | 671 |
| | 467 |
| | 1,138 |
| | (161 | ) | | 1961 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Canoga Park Branch | | Canoga Park, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 886 |
| | 467 |
| | 1,353 |
| | (45 | ) | | 886 |
| | 422 |
| | 1,308 |
| | (99 | ) | | 1957 | | 09/01/2011 |
| College Heights | | Bakersfield, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 582 |
| | 523 |
| | 1,105 |
| | — |
| | 582 |
| | 523 |
| | 1,105 |
| | (170 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Dinuba | | Dinuba, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 496 |
| | 357 |
| | 853 |
| | (21 | ) | | 496 |
| | 336 |
| | 832 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| East Fresno | | Fresno, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 373 |
| | 463 |
| | 836 |
| | — |
| | 373 |
| | 463 |
| | 836 |
| | (127 | ) | | 1959 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Eureka Main | | Eureka, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 427 |
| | 482 |
| | 909 |
| | — |
| | 427 |
| | 482 |
| | 909 |
| | (163 | ) | | 1900 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Folsum | | Folsum, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 506 |
| | 402 |
| | 908 |
| | (78 | ) | | 506 |
| | 324 |
| | 830 |
| | (79 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Fort Bragg | | Fort Bragg, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 332 |
| | 528 |
| | 860 |
| | (85 | ) | | 332 |
| | 443 |
| | 775 |
| | (96 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hanford - Main Building | | Hanford, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 466 |
| | 614 |
| | 1,080 |
| | (36 | ) | | 466 |
| | 578 |
| | 1,044 |
| | (126 | ) | | 1976 | | 09/01/2011 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Healdsburg | | Healdsburg, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | $ | 850 |
| | $ | 407 |
| | $ | 1,257 |
| | $ | (33 | ) | | $ | 850 |
| | $ | 374 |
| | $ | 1,224 |
| | $ | (82 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hemet Branch | | Hemet, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,200 |
| | 780 |
| | 1,980 |
| | — |
| | 1,200 |
| | 780 |
| | 1,980 |
| | (219 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hilltop | | Redding, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 773 |
| | 437 |
| | 1,210 |
| | (44 | ) | | 773 |
| | 393 |
| | 1,166 |
| | (92 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lemoore | | Lemoore, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 175 |
| | 407 |
| | 582 |
| | 108 |
| | 175 |
| | 515 |
| | 690 |
| | (109 | ) | | 1959 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lincoln Village | | Stockton, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 642 |
| | 484 |
| | 1,126 |
| | (36 | ) | | 642 |
| | 448 |
| | 1,090 |
| | (110 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Livermore | | Livermore, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 755 |
| | 655 |
| | 1,410 |
| | (35 | ) | | 755 |
| | 620 |
| | 1,375 |
| | (137 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Martin Luther King Jr. | | Los Angeles, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,278 |
| | 626 |
| | 1,904 |
| | (43 | ) | | 1,278 |
| | 583 |
| | 1,861 |
| | (138 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Mission-23rd | | San Francisco, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 618 |
| | 471 |
| | 1,089 |
| | — |
| | 618 |
| | 471 |
| | 1,089 |
| | (116 | ) | | 1925 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Montrose Branch | | Montrose, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 906 |
| | 402 |
| | 1,308 |
| | (18 | ) | | 906 |
| | 384 |
| | 1,290 |
| | (90 | ) | | 1952 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ontario Plaza Branch | | Ontario, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 370 |
| | 439 |
| | 809 |
| | 1 |
| | 370 |
| | 440 |
| | 810 |
| | (104 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Orangevale Branch | | Orangevale, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 469 |
| | 798 |
| | 1,267 |
| | (137 | ) | | 469 |
| | 661 |
| | 1,130 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Oroville | | Oroville, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 669 |
| | 381 |
| | 1,050 |
| | (69 | ) | | 669 |
| | 312 |
| | 981 |
| | (69 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Pleasanton | | Pleasanton, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 944 |
| | 448 |
| | 1,392 |
| | (24 | ) | | 944 |
| | 424 |
| | 1,368 |
| | (87 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Porterville - Main Building | | Porterville, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 729 |
| | 457 |
| | 1,186 |
| | (58 | ) | | 729 |
| | 399 |
| | 1,128 |
| | (96 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Reedley | | Reedley, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 450 |
| | 541 |
| | 991 |
| | (89 | ) | | 450 |
| | 452 |
| | 902 |
| | (99 | ) | | 1964 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Reseda Branch | | Reseda, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 449 |
| | 388 |
| | 837 |
| | (35 | ) | | 449 |
| | 353 |
| | 802 |
| | (90 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ridgecrest | | Ridgecrest, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 634 |
| | 478 |
| | 1,112 |
| | (53 | ) | | 634 |
| | 425 |
| | 1,059 |
| | (104 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sherman Oaks | | Sherman Oaks, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 957 |
| | 483 |
| | 1,440 |
| | — |
| | 957 |
| | 483 |
| | 1,440 |
| | (146 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Slauson - Vermont | | Los Angeles, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,159 |
| | 609 |
| | 1,768 |
| | (23 | ) | | 1,159 |
| | 586 |
| | 1,745 |
| | (138 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| St. Helena | | St. Helena, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 824 |
| | 763 |
| | 1,587 |
| | (26 | ) | | 824 |
| | 737 |
| | 1,561 |
| | (179 | ) | | 1976 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Stockton Agri-Center | | Stockton, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 591 |
| | 508 |
| | 1,099 |
| | (28 | ) | | 591 |
| | 480 |
| | 1,071 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Susanville | | Susanville, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 182 |
| | 317 |
| | 499 |
| | 6 |
| | 182 |
| | 323 |
| | 505 |
| | (77 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Toluca Lake | | Burbank, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 522 |
| | 869 |
| | 1,391 |
| | — |
| | 522 |
| | 869 |
| | 1,391 |
| | (169 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Turlock - Main Building | | Turlock, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 805 |
| | 556 |
| | 1,361 |
| | (45 | ) | | 805 |
| | 511 |
| | 1,316 |
| | (139 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Vacaville Financial Center | | Vacaville, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 577 |
| | 489 |
| | 1,066 |
| | (31 | ) | | 577 |
| | 458 |
| | 1,035 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Vernon Branch | | Vernon, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,102 |
| | 566 |
| | 1,668 |
| | — |
| | 1,102 |
| | 566 |
| | 1,668 |
| | (162 | ) | | 1960 | | 09/01/2011 |
| West Los Angeles Branch | | W. Los Angeles, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 991 |
| | 570 |
| | 1,561 |
| | — |
| | 991 |
| | 570 |
| | 1,561 |
| | (157 | ) | | 1957 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Williow Glenn | | San Jose, CA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 353 |
| | 295 |
| | 648 |
| | (44 | ) | | 353 |
| | 251 |
| | 604 |
| | (71 | ) | | 1955 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Batterson | | Farmington, CT | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 3,390 |
| | 7,113 |
| | 10,503 |
| | 238 |
| | 3,390 |
| | 7,351 |
| | 10,741 |
| | (2,244 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Greenwich | | Greenwich, CT | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,353 |
| | 5,675 |
| | 7,028 |
| | 72 |
| | 1,353 |
| | 5,747 |
| | 7,100 |
| | (994 | ) | | 1927 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Wakefield Drive | | Newark, DE | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,662 |
| | 10,166 |
| | 11,828 |
| | — |
| | 1,662 |
| | 10,166 |
| | 11,828 |
| | (1,668 | ) | | 1996 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Baypoint | | Miami, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 246 |
| | 619 |
| | 865 |
| | (52 | ) | | 246 |
| | 567 |
| | 813 |
| | (158 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bayshore - Main Building | | Bradentown, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 391 |
| | 445 |
| | 836 |
| | — |
| | 391 |
| | 445 |
| | 836 |
| | (109 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Blountstown - Main Building | | Blountstown, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 69 |
| | 365 |
| | 434 |
| | (11 | ) | | 69 |
| | 354 |
| | 423 |
| | (69 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Charlotte Harbor - Main Building | | Port Charlotte, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | $ | 272 |
| | $ | 500 |
| | $ | 772 |
| | $ | (297 | ) | | $ | 272 |
| | $ | 203 |
| | $ | 475 |
| | $ | (16 | ) | | 1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Coral Ridge - Main Building | | Ft. Lauderdale, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 835 |
| | 1,099 |
| | 1,934 |
| | (92 | ) | | 835 |
| | 1,007 |
| | 1,842 |
| | (390 | ) | | 1969 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Crystal River - Main Building | | Crystal River, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 119 |
| | 329 |
| | 448 |
| | (60 | ) | | 119 |
| | 269 |
| | 388 |
| | (64 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ft. Myers Beach - Main Building | | Ft. Myers Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 230 |
| | 407 |
| | 637 |
| | (183 | ) | | 230 |
| | 224 |
| | 454 |
| | (35 | ) | | 1968 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ft. Walton Beach - Main Building | | Ft. Walton Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 427 |
| | 478 |
| | 905 |
| | (153 | ) | | 427 |
| | 325 |
| | 752 |
| | (70 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Homestead - Main Building | | Homestead, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,113 |
| | 578 |
| | 1,691 |
| | (87 | ) | | 1,113 |
| | 491 |
| | 1,604 |
| | (116 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Live Oak - Main Building | | Live Oak, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 679 |
| | 942 |
| | 1,621 |
| | — |
| | 679 |
| | 942 |
| | 1,621 |
| | (388 | ) | | 1965 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Midway - Main Building | | Miami, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,401 |
| | 826 |
| | 2,227 |
| | 35 |
| | 1,401 |
| | 861 |
| | 2,262 |
| | (271 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Plantation - Main Building | | Plantation, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,189 |
| | 1,092 |
| | 2,281 |
| | 6 |
| | 1,189 |
| | 1,098 |
| | 2,287 |
| | (160 | ) | | 1976/2002 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Trouble Creek - Main Building | | New Port Richey, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 453 |
| | 478 |
| | 931 |
| | (134 | ) | | 453 |
| | 344 |
| | 797 |
| | (89 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| West Sunrise - Main Building | | Plantation, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,060 |
| | 1,146 |
| | 2,206 |
| | 123 |
| | 1,060 |
| | 1,269 |
| | 2,329 |
| | (394 | ) | | 1976 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Weeki Wachee - Main Building | | Brooksville, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 407 |
| | 813 |
| | 1,220 |
| | — |
| | 407 |
| | 813 |
| | 1,220 |
| | (250 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Westside - Main Building | | Bradenton, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 608 |
| | 388 |
| | 996 |
| | (43 | ) | | 608 |
| | 345 |
| | 953 |
| | (73 | ) | | 1964 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Aberdeen Village - Main Building | | Peachtree City, GA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 564 |
| | 1,830 |
| | 2,394 |
| | — |
| | 564 |
| | 1,830 |
| | 2,394 |
| | (316 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| East Point - Main Building | | East Point, GA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 319 |
| | 337 |
| | 656 |
| | (75 | ) | | 319 |
| | 262 |
| | 581 |
| | (59 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Exchange Street | | Malden, MA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 6,856 |
| | 10,795 |
| | 17,651 |
| | (2,192 | ) | | 6,856 |
| | 8,603 |
| | 15,459 |
| | (1,739 | ) | | 1984 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Waltham Main (I & II) | | Waltham, MA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 8,971 |
| | 13,064 |
| | 22,035 |
| | 477 |
| | 8,971 |
| | 13,541 |
| | 22,512 |
| | (3,333 | ) | | 1968/1976 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wheaton - Main Building | | Wheaton, MD | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,245 |
| | 939 |
| | 2,184 |
| | (92 | ) | | 1,245 |
| | 847 |
| | 2,092 |
| | (189 | ) | | 1960/2003 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Court Street | | Auburn, ME | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 149 |
| | 352 |
| | 501 |
| | (82 | ) | | 149 |
| | 270 |
| | 419 |
| | (70 | ) | | 1969 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Gannett Drive | | South Portland, ME | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 953 |
| | 1,905 |
| | 2,858 |
| | — |
| | 953 |
| | 1,905 |
| | 2,858 |
| | (391 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ballwin Facility - Main Building | | Ballwin, MO | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 114 |
| | 464 |
| | 578 |
| | (57 | ) | | 114 |
| | 407 |
| | 521 |
| | (93 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Belton Facility - Main Building | | Belton, MO | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 454 |
| | 574 |
| | 1,028 |
| | (82 | ) | | 454 |
| | 492 |
| | 946 |
| | (102 | ) | | 1976 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Forsyth Facility - Main Building | | Forsyth, MO | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 83 |
| | 239 |
| | 322 |
| | (12 | ) | | 83 |
| | 227 |
| | 310 |
| | (53 | ) | | 1960 | | 09/01/2011 |
| I-70 & Noland Facility - Main Bldg | | Independence, MO | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 598 |
| | 640 |
| | 1,238 |
| | (136 | ) | | 598 |
| | 504 |
| | 1,102 |
| | (96 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Metropolitan/Holmes - Main Bldg | | Kansas City, MO | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 339 |
| | 426 |
| | 765 |
| | (52 | ) | | 339 |
| | 374 |
| | 713 |
| | (76 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Gateway Center - Charlotte | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 6,334 |
| | 22,712 |
| | 29,046 |
| | 25 |
| | 6,334 |
| | 22,737 |
| | 29,071 |
| | (3,986 | ) | | 1987/1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Nashua Main | | Nashua, NH | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 334 |
| | 2,639 |
| | 2,973 |
| | 14 |
| | 334 |
| | 2,653 |
| | 2,987 |
| | (587 | ) | | 1800 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Portsmouth Pleasant | | Portsmouth, NH | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 317 |
| | 673 |
| | 990 |
| | (31 | ) | | 317 |
| | 642 |
| | 959 |
| | (134 | ) | | 1860s | | 09/01/2011 |
| Arthur Street | | East Brunswick, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,010 |
| | 941 |
| | 1,951 |
| | (94 | ) | | 1,010 |
| | 847 |
| | 1,857 |
| | (185 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Beechwood Road | | Summit, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 465 |
| | 651 |
| | 1,116 |
| | (353 | ) | | 465 |
| | 298 |
| | 763 |
| | (58 | ) | | 1957 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bellevue Avenue | | Hammonton, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 382 |
| | 2,200 |
| | 2,582 |
| | (447 | ) | | 382 |
| | 1,753 |
| | 2,135 |
| | (318 | ) | | 1964 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bergenline Avenue | | Union City, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 179 |
| | 370 |
| | 549 |
| | (2 | ) | | 179 |
| | 368 |
| | 547 |
| | (136 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bridgewater | | Bridgewater, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,493 |
| | 2,530 |
| | 4,023 |
| | (179 | ) | | 1,493 |
| | 2,351 |
| | 3,844 |
| | (858 | ) | | 1974/1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lakewood Route 70 | | Lakewood, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,328 |
| | 953 |
| | 2,281 |
| | 34 |
| | 1,328 |
| | 987 |
| | 2,315 |
| | (269 | ) | | 1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (2) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Maplewood Avenue | | Maplewood, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | $ | 406 |
| | $ | 497 |
| | $ | 903 |
| | $ | (146 | ) | | $ | 406 |
| | $ | 351 |
| | $ | 757 |
| | $ | (102 | ) | | 1926/1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Pennsauken | | Pennsauken, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 750 |
| | 794 |
| | 1,544 |
| | — |
| | 750 |
| | 794 |
| | 1,544 |
| | (243 | ) | | 1966 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South Orange Avenue | | South Orange, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 110 |
| | 316 |
| | 426 |
| | 20 |
| | 110 |
| | 336 |
| | 446 |
| | (84 | ) | | 1944 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Springfield Avenue | | Summit, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 2,166 |
| | 769 |
| | 2,935 |
| | 51 |
| | 2,166 |
| | 820 |
| | 2,986 |
| | (181 | ) | | 1929 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wood Avenue | | Linden, NJ | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,657 |
| | 1,043 |
| | 2,700 |
| | — |
| | 1,657 |
| | 1,043 |
| | 2,700 |
| | (285 | ) | | 1955/1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Amador (Las Cruces) - Main Bldg | | Las Cruces, NM | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 120 |
| | 634 |
| | 754 |
| | (114 | ) | | 120 |
| | 520 |
| | 640 |
| | (105 | ) | | 1970/1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Santa Fe-Metro Bank - Main Bldg | | Santa Fe, NM | | 100 | % | | (7) | | — |
| | 1,646 |
| | 1,646 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1,646 |
| | 1,646 |
| | (340 | ) | | 1972 / 1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Genesee Street | | Auburn, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 284 |
| | 1,241 |
| | 1,525 |
| | 18 |
| | 284 |
| | 1,259 |
| | 1,543 |
| | (254 | ) | | 1928 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hempstead Tpke | | East Meadow, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 169 |
| | 464 |
| | 633 |
| | (20 | ) | | 169 |
| | 444 |
| | 613 |
| | (35 | ) | | 1955/1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Jamaica | | Jamaica, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 185 |
| | 953 |
| | 1,138 |
| | — |
| | 185 |
| | 953 |
| | 1,138 |
| | (119 | ) | | 1960/2001 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Levittown | | Levittown, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 543 |
| | 389 |
| | 932 |
| | 10 |
| | 543 |
| | 399 |
| | 942 |
| | (91 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Merrick Avenue | | Merrick, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 259 |
| | 1,846 |
| | 2,105 |
| | (157 | ) | | 259 |
| | 1,689 |
| | 1,948 |
| | (336 | ) | | 1952 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Middle Neck Road | | Great Neck, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 349 |
| | 281 |
| | 630 |
| | 9 |
| | 349 |
| | 290 |
| | 639 |
| | (54 | ) | | 1956 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Park Avenue | | Wantagh, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 213 |
| | 360 |
| | 573 |
| | (47 | ) | | 213 |
| | 313 |
| | 526 |
| | (91 | ) | | 1953 | | 09/01/2011 |
| State Street | | Allbany, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 865 |
| | 7,631 |
| | 8,496 |
| | 599 |
| | 865 |
| | 8,230 |
| | 9,095 |
| | (1,536 | ) | | 1927/1980s | | 09/01/2011 |
| Transit Road | | West Seneca, NY | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 665 |
| | 6,065 |
| | 6,730 |
| | 177 |
| | 665 |
| | 6,242 |
| | 6,907 |
| | (1,569 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wantagh | | West Hempstead, NY | | 100 | % | | (7.) | | 928 |
| | 1,787 |
| | 2,715 |
| | (58 | ) | | 928 |
| | 1,729 |
| | 2,657 |
| | (259 | ) | | 1940/2002 | | 09/01/2011 |
| 31st Street - Main Building | | Tulsa, OK | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 400 |
| | 591 |
| | 991 |
| | (53 | ) | | 400 |
| | 538 |
| | 938 |
| | (98 | ) | | 1972/1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Broken Arrow - Main Building | | Broken Arrow, OK | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 357 |
| | 463 |
| | 820 |
| | (67 | ) | | 357 |
| | 396 |
| | 753 |
| | (71 | ) | | 1972/1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Catoosa - Main Building | | Catoosa, OK | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 174 |
| | 354 |
| | 528 |
| | (83 | ) | | 174 |
| | 271 |
| | 445 |
| | (60 | ) | | 1964/1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Gresham - Main Building | | Gresham, OR | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 374 |
| | 668 |
| | 1,042 |
| | (67 | ) | | 374 |
| | 601 |
| | 975 |
| | (104 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Parkrose - Main Building | | Portland, OR | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 216 |
| | 326 |
| | 542 |
| | 2 |
| | 216 |
| | 328 |
| | 544 |
| | (74 | ) | | 1967 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Blair Mill Road | | Horsham, PA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,171 |
| | 1,794 |
| | 2,965 |
| | 1,705 |
| | 1,171 |
| | 3,499 |
| | 4,670 |
| | (421 | ) | | 1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bustleton Avenue | | Philadelphia, PA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 188 |
| | 788 |
| | 976 |
| | — |
| | 188 |
| | 788 |
| | 976 |
| | (164 | ) | | 1953 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Dupont Drive | | Providence, RI | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,330 |
| | 8,737 |
| | 10,067 |
| | 396 |
| | 1,330 |
| | 9,133 |
| | 10,463 |
| | (2,321 | ) | | 1963 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Post Road | | North Kingstown, RI | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 825 |
| | 1,527 |
| | 2,352 |
| | — |
| | 825 |
| | 1,527 |
| | 2,352 |
| | (406 | ) | | 1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hilton Head-Pope Ave - Main Bldg | | Hilton Head, SC | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 527 |
| | 646 |
| | 1,173 |
| | 21 |
| | 527 |
| | 667 |
| | 1,194 |
| | (260 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Rock Hill MO - Main Building | | Rock Hill, SC | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 553 |
| | 538 |
| | 1,091 |
| | (299 | ) | | 553 |
| | 239 |
| | 792 |
| | (60 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lebanon Main - Main Building | | Lebanon, TN | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 125 |
| | 237 |
| | 362 |
| | (23 | ) | | 125 |
| | 214 |
| | 339 |
| | (56 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Beaumont - Main Building | | Beaumont, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 181 |
| | 369 |
| | 550 |
| | — |
| | 181 |
| | 369 |
| | 550 |
| | (125 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Harlandale - Main Building | | San Antonio, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 282 |
| | 418 |
| | 700 |
| | (45 | ) | | 282 |
| | 373 |
| | 655 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Nederland - Main Building | | Nederland, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 49 |
| | 510 |
| | 559 |
| | (68 | ) | | 49 |
| | 442 |
| | 491 |
| | (110 | ) | | 1946 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Northern Hills - Main Building | | San Antonio, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 342 |
| | 449 |
| | 791 |
| | — |
| | 342 |
| | 449 |
| | 791 |
| | (158 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Steeplechase - Main Building | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | $ | 286 |
| | $ | 637 |
| | $ | 923 |
| | $ | (301 | ) | | $ | 286 |
| | $ | 336 |
| | $ | 622 |
| | $ | (78 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Witchita Falls - Main Building | | Wichita Falls, TX | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 566 |
| | 780 |
| | 1,346 |
| | (111 | ) | | 566 |
| | 669 |
| | 1,235 |
| | (231 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Abingdon - Main Building | | Abingdon, VA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 375 |
| | 295 |
| | 670 |
| | (22 | ) | | 375 |
| | 273 |
| | 648 |
| | (65 | ) | | 1964/1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Coliseum-Riverdale - Main Bldg | | Hampton, VA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 352 |
| | 403 |
| | 755 |
| | 43 |
| | 352 |
| | 446 |
| | 798 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1974/1998 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Fairfax Courthouse | | Fairfax, VA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 590 |
| | 968 |
| | 1,558 |
| | (31 | ) | | 590 |
| | 937 |
| | 1,527 |
| | (137 | ) | | 1932/2000 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Orange - Main Building | | Orange, VA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 48 |
| | 266 |
| | 314 |
| | (15 | ) | | 48 |
| | 251 |
| | 299 |
| | (94 | ) | | 1925 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Robinson & Broad - Main Building | | Richmond, VA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 291 |
| | 573 |
| | 864 |
| | (27 | ) | | 291 |
| | 546 |
| | 837 |
| | (136 | ) | | 1947/1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Camas - Main Building | | Camas, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 386 |
| | 243 |
| | 629 |
| | (20 | ) | | 386 |
| | 223 |
| | 609 |
| | (62 | ) | | 1951 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Clarkston - Main Building | | Clarkston, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 205 |
| | 610 |
| | 815 |
| | (25 | ) | | 205 |
| | 585 |
| | 790 |
| | (116 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Edmonds - Main Building | | Edmonds, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 367 |
| | 348 |
| | 715 |
| | 27 |
| | 367 |
| | 375 |
| | 742 |
| | (97 | ) | | 1956 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Greenwood - Main Building | | Seattle, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 104 |
| | 221 |
| | 325 |
| | 12 |
| | 104 |
| | 233 |
| | 337 |
| | (58 | ) | | 1948 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Kennewick - Main Building | | Kennewick, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 243 |
| | 673 |
| | 916 |
| | (37 | ) | | 243 |
| | 636 |
| | 879 |
| | (90 | ) | | 1977/1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lynden - Main Building | | Lynden, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | — |
| | 186 |
| | 186 |
| | (23 | ) | | — |
| | 163 |
| | 163 |
| | (39 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Port Townsend | | Port Townsend, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 73 |
| | 235 |
| | 308 |
| | (17 | ) | | 73 |
| | 218 |
| | 291 |
| | (50 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Quincy - Main Building | | Quincy, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 138 |
| | 275 |
| | 413 |
| | (15 | ) | | 138 |
| | 260 |
| | 398 |
| | (39 | ) | | 1977/1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sequim - Main Building | | Sequim, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 377 |
| | 370 |
| | 747 |
| | (32 | ) | | 377 |
| | 338 |
| | 715 |
| | (71 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wenatchee Valley - Main Building | | Wenatchee, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 19 |
| | 456 |
| | 475 |
| | 162 |
| | 19 |
| | 618 |
| | 637 |
| | (92 | ) | | 1965/1992 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ballard - Main Building | | Seattle, WA | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 270 |
| | 326 |
| | 596 |
| | 95 |
| | 270 |
| | 421 |
| | 691 |
| | (99 | ) | | 1951 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Daytona Beach Spdwy - Main Bldg | | Daytona Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 1,060 |
| | 638 |
| | 1,698 |
| | 65 |
| | 1,060 |
| | 703 |
| | 1,763 |
| | (186 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Palm Beach Vault | | West Palm Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 854 |
| | 533 |
| | 1,387 |
| | (78 | ) | | 854 |
| | 455 |
| | 1,309 |
| | (104 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Redmond - Main Building | | Redmond, OR | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 50 |
| | 206 |
| | 256 |
| | (8 | ) | | 50 |
| | 198 |
| | 248 |
| | (40 | ) | | 1925/1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Las Vegas Ops Center | | Las Vegas, NV | | 100 | % | | (7) | | 5,313 |
| | 4,474 |
| | 9,787 |
| | — |
| | 5,313 |
| | 4,474 |
| | 9,787 |
| | (1,126 | ) | | 1972/1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South First Street | | Lufkin, TX | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 191 |
| | 572 |
| | 763 |
| | — |
| | 191 |
| | 572 |
| | 763 |
| | (182 | ) | | 1957 | | 09/01/2011 |
| NBOC Operations Center | | North Brunswick, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 30 |
| | 40 |
| | 70 |
| | 56 |
| | 30 |
| | 96 |
| | 126 |
| | (16 | ) | | 1950 | | 09/01/2011 |
| NBOC Operations Center | | North Brunswick, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 1,701 |
| | 3,999 |
| | 5,700 |
| | (950 | ) | | 1,701 |
| | 3,049 |
| | 4,750 |
| | (567 | ) | | 1950/1959 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Barbee Chapel Road | | Chapel Hill, NC | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 117 |
| | 610 |
| | 727 |
| | — |
| | 117 |
| | 610 |
| | 727 |
| | (65 | ) | | 2005 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bernwood Park | | Bonita Springs, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 1,106 |
| | 1,891 |
| | 2,997 |
| | — |
| | 1,106 |
| | 1,891 |
| | 2,997 |
| | (195 | ) | | 2003 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Charlotte Harbor Office | | Port Charlotte, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 191 |
| | 633 |
| | 824 |
| | — |
| | 191 |
| | 633 |
| | 824 |
| | (123 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cypress Point | | Palm Coast, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 984 |
| | 2,456 |
| | 3,440 |
| | — |
| | 984 |
| | 2,456 |
| | 3,440 |
| | (271 | ) | | 1995 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hudson Office | | Hudson, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 1,000 |
| | 2,478 |
| | 3,478 |
| | — |
| | 1,000 |
| | 2,478 |
| | 3,478 |
| | (343 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Marco Island Office | | Marco Island, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 768 |
| | 2,021 |
| | 2,789 |
| | — |
| | 768 |
| | 2,021 |
| | 2,789 |
| | (367 | ) | | 1967 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Lockwood Ridge | | Sarasota, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 468 |
| | 1,231 |
| | 1,699 |
| | (419 | ) | | 345 |
| | 935 |
| | 1,280 |
| | (116 | ) | | 2000 | | 09/01/2011 |
| West Bradenton | | Bradenton, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 382 |
| | 1,368 |
| | 1,750 |
| | — |
| | 382 |
| | 1,368 |
| | 1,750 |
| | (182 | ) | | 1989 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Cheshire Sheridan | | Atlanta, GA | | 100 | % | | (8) | | $ | 861 |
| | $ | 2,261 |
| | $ | 3,122 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 861 |
| | $ | 2,261 |
| | $ | 3,122 |
| | $ | (415 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Edgewood | | Columbus, GA | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 146 |
| | 387 |
| | 533 |
| | — |
| | 146 |
| | 387 |
| | 533 |
| | (117 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| University Place Office | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 862 |
| | 1,990 |
| | 2,852 |
| | — |
| | 862 |
| | 1,990 |
| | 2,852 |
| | (251 | ) | | 1993 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Forest Drive Office | | Columbia, SC | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 363 |
| | 1,035 |
| | 1,398 |
| | — |
| | 363 |
| | 1,035 |
| | 1,398 |
| | (143 | ) | | 1996 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Land O’Lakes Office | | Lutz, FL | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 431 |
| | 1,764 |
| | 2,195 |
| | — |
| | 431 |
| | 1,764 |
| | 2,195 |
| | (231 | ) | | 1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
| West Placerville Branch | | Placerville, CA | | 100 | % | | (8) | | 388 |
| | 873 |
| | 1,261 |
| | — |
| | 388 |
| | 873 |
| | 1,261 |
| | (211 | ) | | 1984 | | 09/01/2011 |
| New Smyrna Beach East | | New Smyrna Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 472 |
| | 861 |
| | 1,333 |
| | — |
| | 472 |
| | 861 |
| | 1,333 |
| | (135 | ) | | 1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hamilton Square | | Hamilton Square, NJ | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 361 |
| | 1,251 |
| | 1,612 |
| | — |
| | 361 |
| | 1,251 |
| | 1,612 |
| | (357 | ) | | 1940 | | 09/01/2011 |
| East Commercial Blvd (Relo) | | Fort Lauderdale, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 523 |
| | 1,857 |
| | 2,380 |
| | — |
| | 523 |
| | 1,857 |
| | 2,380 |
| | (336 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Largo Office | | Largo, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 757 |
| | 1,577 |
| | 2,334 |
| | — |
| | 757 |
| | 1,577 |
| | 2,334 |
| | (264 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| New Citrus Park | | Tampa, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 853 |
| | 2,069 |
| | 2,922 |
| | — |
| | 853 |
| | 2,069 |
| | 2,922 |
| | (195 | ) | | 2001 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Providence Square | | Marietta, GA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 536 |
| | 1,573 |
| | 2,109 |
| | — |
| | 536 |
| | 1,573 |
| | 2,109 |
| | (225 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ashley Village | | Cary, NC | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 428 |
| | 1,373 |
| | 1,801 |
| | — |
| | 428 |
| | 1,373 |
| | 1,801 |
| | (158 | ) | | 1996 | | 09/01/2011 |
| West Market Street | | Greensboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 304 |
| | 1,034 |
| | 1,338 |
| | — |
| | 304 |
| | 1,034 |
| | 1,338 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1996 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Harbison Office | | Irmo, SC | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 369 |
| | 1,338 |
| | 1,707 |
| | — |
| | 369 |
| | 1,338 |
| | 1,707 |
| | (164 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Virginia Beach Shore Drive | | Virginia Beach, VA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 276 |
| | 1,593 |
| | 1,869 |
| | — |
| | 276 |
| | 1,593 |
| | 1,869 |
| | (216 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cypress Lake Drive | | Fort Myers, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 795 |
| | 1,829 |
| | 2,624 |
| | (8 | ) | | 787 |
| | 1,829 |
| | 2,616 |
| | (190 | ) | | 1998 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Woodstock Crossing | | Woodstock, GA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 606 |
| | 1,376 |
| | 1,982 |
| | — |
| | 606 |
| | 1,376 |
| | 1,982 |
| | (193 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| The Avenues | | Jacksonville, FL | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 438 |
| | 1,163 |
| | 1,601 |
| | — |
| | 438 |
| | 1,163 |
| | 1,601 |
| | (126 | ) | | 1999 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Roseville Branch | | Roseville, CA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 655 |
| | 1,870 |
| | 2,525 |
| | — |
| | 655 |
| | 1,870 |
| | 2,525 |
| | (324 | ) | | 1987 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Valley Springs | | Valley Springs, CA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 123 |
| | 886 |
| | 1,009 |
| | — |
| | 123 |
| | 886 |
| | 1,009 |
| | (137 | ) | | 1992 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lake Community Bank | | Lakeport, CA | | 100 | % | | (9) | | 564 |
| | 2,211 |
| | 2,775 |
| | — |
| | 564 |
| | 2,211 |
| | 2,775 |
| | (375 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Park Hill | | N. Little Rock, AR | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 175 |
| | 691 |
| | 866 |
| | — |
| | 175 |
| | 691 |
| | 866 |
| | (189 | ) | | 1965 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Holiday | | Holiday, FL | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 734 |
| | 1,324 |
| | 2,058 |
| | — |
| | 734 |
| | 1,324 |
| | 2,058 |
| | (324 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Village Circle | | Chapel Hill, NC | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 367 |
| | 2,312 |
| | 2,679 |
| | — |
| | 367 |
| | 2,312 |
| | 2,679 |
| | (368 | ) | | 2005 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bloomingdale | | Brandon, FL | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 379 |
| | 787 |
| | 1,166 |
| | — |
| | 379 |
| | 787 |
| | 1,166 |
| | (148 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cedar Shores Office | | Ocala, FL | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 749 |
| | 943 |
| | 1,692 |
| | — |
| | 749 |
| | 943 |
| | 1,692 |
| | (127 | ) | | 1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Grove City Office | | Grove City, FL | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 536 |
| | 1,217 |
| | 1,753 |
| | — |
| | 536 |
| | 1,217 |
| | 1,753 |
| | (169 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bluegrass Office | | Alpharetta, GA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 595 |
| | 1,521 |
| | 2,116 |
| | — |
| | 595 |
| | 1,521 |
| | 2,116 |
| | (167 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| LaVista Road | | Tucker, GA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 659 |
| | 1,225 |
| | 1,884 |
| | — |
| | 659 |
| | 1,225 |
| | 1,884 |
| | (165 | ) | | 2002 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Garner Office | | Garner, NC | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 526 |
| | 1,372 |
| | 1,898 |
| | — |
| | 526 |
| | 1,372 |
| | 1,898 |
| | (145 | ) | | 1998 | | 09/01/2011 |
| James Island | | Charleston, SC | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 665 |
| | 1,258 |
| | 1,923 |
| | — |
| | 665 |
| | 1,258 |
| | 1,923 |
| | (138 | ) | | 1999 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Chester | | Chester, VA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 187 |
| | 368 |
| | 555 |
| | — |
| | 187 |
| | 368 |
| | 555 |
| | (87 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Haddonfield - Kings | | Haddonfield, NJ | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 196 |
| | 914 |
| | 1,110 |
| | — |
| | 196 |
| | 914 |
| | 1,110 |
| | (98 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Staples Mill | | Richmond, VA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | $ | 368 |
| | $ | 737 |
| | $ | 1,105 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 368 |
| | $ | 737 |
| | $ | 1,105 |
| | $ | (160 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cameron Park | | Cameron Park, CA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 454 |
| | 1,566 |
| | 2,020 |
| | — |
| | 454 |
| | 1,566 |
| | 2,020 |
| | (256 | ) | | 1993 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sonora - Branch | | Sonora, CA | | 100 | % | | (10) | | 27 |
| | 1,284 |
| | 1,311 |
| | — |
| | 27 |
| | 1,284 |
| | 1,311 |
| | (232 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Simpsonville Main Office | | Simpsonville, SC | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 292 |
| | 677 |
| | 969 |
| | — |
| | 292 |
| | 677 |
| | 969 |
| | (139 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Banner Elk | | Banner Elk, NC | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 221 |
| | 492 |
| | 713 |
| | — |
| | 221 |
| | 492 |
| | 713 |
| | (136 | ) | | 1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
| 47th Terrace Office | | Cape Coral, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 567 |
| | 1,509 |
| | 2,076 |
| | — |
| | 567 |
| | 1,509 |
| | 2,076 |
| | (158 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Altamonte Crossing Office | | Altamonte Springs, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 799 |
| | 1,254 |
| | 2,053 |
| | — |
| | 799 |
| | 1,254 |
| | 2,053 |
| | (173 | ) | | 1992 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bradenton City | | Bradenton, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 674 |
| | 1,097 |
| | 1,771 |
| | (712 | ) | | 387 |
| | 672 |
| | 1,059 |
| | (102 | ) | | 1999 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Brandon | | Brandon, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 373 |
| | 1,022 |
| | 1,395 |
| | — |
| | 373 |
| | 1,022 |
| | 1,395 |
| | (161 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cordova Office - Pensacola | | Pensacola, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 270 |
| | 759 |
| | 1,029 |
| | — |
| | 270 |
| | 759 |
| | 1,029 |
| | (95 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Deerfield Beach (H.S.) | | Deerfield Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 1,239 |
| | 2,278 |
| | 3,517 |
| | — |
| | 1,239 |
| | 2,278 |
| | 3,517 |
| | (247 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Holly Hill Office | | Holly Hill, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 301 |
| | 756 |
| | 1,057 |
| | — |
| | 301 |
| | 756 |
| | 1,057 |
| | (163 | ) | | 1961 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sawgrass | | Plantation, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 1,094 |
| | 1,345 |
| | 2,439 |
| | — |
| | 1,094 |
| | 1,345 |
| | 2,439 |
| | (173 | ) | | 1995 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Vero-West (1st Am.) | | Vero Beach, FL | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 344 |
| | 1,011 |
| | 1,355 |
| | — |
| | 344 |
| | 1,011 |
| | 1,355 |
| | (225 | ) | | 1984 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lilburn Office | | Lilburn, GA | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 493 |
| | 870 |
| | 1,363 |
| | — |
| | 493 |
| | 870 |
| | 1,363 |
| | (147 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Stonehenge Office | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 766 |
| | 1,485 |
| | 2,251 |
| | — |
| | 766 |
| | 1,485 |
| | 2,251 |
| | (159 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Centerville | | Manakin-Sabot, VA | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 797 |
| | 832 |
| | 1,629 |
| | — |
| | 797 |
| | 832 |
| | 1,629 |
| | (155 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| El Dorado Hills Branch | | El Dorado Hills, CA | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 618 |
| | 1,548 |
| | 2,166 |
| | — |
| | 618 |
| | 1,548 |
| | 2,166 |
| | (264 | ) | | 2000 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sutter Creek | | Sutter Creek, CA | | 100 | % | | (11) | | 215 |
| | 522 |
| | 737 |
| | — |
| | 215 |
| | 522 |
| | 737 |
| | (114 | ) | | 1984 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Albemarle Road | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 240 |
| | 563 |
| | 803 |
| | — |
| | 240 |
| | 563 |
| | 803 |
| | (110 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Beatties Ford Road | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 184 |
| | 490 |
| | 674 |
| | — |
| | 184 |
| | 490 |
| | 674 |
| | (99 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Belhaven Boulevard | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 240 |
| | 501 |
| | 741 |
| | — |
| | 240 |
| | 501 |
| | 741 |
| | (118 | ) | | 1966 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Boger City | | Lincolnton, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 182 |
| | 588 |
| | 770 |
| | — |
| | 182 |
| | 588 |
| | 770 |
| | (125 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Boone Main Office | | Boone, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 128 |
| | 753 |
| | 881 |
| | — |
| | 128 |
| | 753 |
| | 881 |
| | (152 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Burgaw Main Office | | Burgaw, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 106 |
| | 382 |
| | 488 |
| | — |
| | 106 |
| | 382 |
| | 488 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1963 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Burlington Main Office | | Burlington, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 213 |
| | 1,220 |
| | 1,433 |
| | — |
| | 213 |
| | 1,220 |
| | 1,433 |
| | (201 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cameron Village | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 300 |
| | 822 |
| | 1,122 |
| | — |
| | 300 |
| | 822 |
| | 1,122 |
| | (155 | ) | | 1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Candler | | Candler, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 157 |
| | 431 |
| | 588 |
| | — |
| | 157 |
| | 431 |
| | 588 |
| | (88 | ) | | 1977 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Carmel Commons | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 502 |
| | 898 |
| | 1,400 |
| | — |
| | 502 |
| | 898 |
| | 1,400 |
| | (163 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Carolina Beach | | Carolina Beach, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 194 |
| | 1,045 |
| | 1,239 |
| | — |
| | 194 |
| | 1,045 |
| | 1,239 |
| | (184 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cary Village | | Cary, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 132 |
| | 540 |
| | 672 |
| | — |
| | 132 |
| | 540 |
| | 672 |
| | (79 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cherryville | | Cherryville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 96 |
| | 468 |
| | 564 |
| | — |
| | 96 |
| | 468 |
| | 564 |
| | (90 | ) | | 1965 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Columbus | | Columbus, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 58 |
| | 307 |
| | 365 |
| | — |
| | 58 |
| | 307 |
| | 365 |
| | (65 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cornelius | | Cornelius, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 983 |
| | 989 |
| | 1,972 |
| | — |
| | 983 |
| | 989 |
| | 1,972 |
| | (145 | ) | | 1989 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Cumberland | | Fayetteville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | $ | 186 |
| | $ | 551 |
| | $ | 737 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 186 |
| | $ | 551 |
| | $ | 737 |
| | $ | (103 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Dallas | | Dallas, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 110 |
| | 379 |
| | 489 |
| | — |
| | 110 |
| | 379 |
| | 489 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Denver | | Denver, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 75 |
| | 333 |
| | 408 |
| | — |
| | 75 |
| | 333 |
| | 408 |
| | (73 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Dixie Village | | Gastonia, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 137 |
| | 513 |
| | 650 |
| | — |
| | 137 |
| | 513 |
| | 650 |
| | (103 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Eden Main Office | | Eden, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 219 |
| | 662 |
| | 881 |
| | — |
| | 219 |
| | 662 |
| | 881 |
| | (147 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Elizabethtown Main | | Elizabethtown, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 71 |
| | 592 |
| | 663 |
| | — |
| | 71 |
| | 592 |
| | 663 |
| | (108 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Farmville | | Farmville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 112 |
| | 892 |
| | 1,004 |
| | — |
| | 112 |
| | 892 |
| | 1,004 |
| | (166 | ) | | 1965 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Fayetteville Dwntown | | Fayetteville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 216 |
| | 452 |
| | 668 |
| | — |
| | 216 |
| | 452 |
| | 668 |
| | (112 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Garner | | Garner, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 126 |
| | 704 |
| | 830 |
| | — |
| | 126 |
| | 704 |
| | 830 |
| | (134 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Gastonia Main Office | | Gastonia, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 313 |
| | 1,277 |
| | 1,590 |
| | — |
| | 313 |
| | 1,277 |
| | 1,590 |
| | (230 | ) | | 1977 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Guilford College | | Greensboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 235 |
| | 803 |
| | 1,038 |
| | — |
| | 235 |
| | 803 |
| | 1,038 |
| | (134 | ) | | 1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Henderson Mo Relc | | Henderson, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 116 |
| | 1,145 |
| | 1,261 |
| | — |
| | 116 |
| | 1,145 |
| | 1,261 |
| | (154 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hillsborough | | Hillsborough, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 55 |
| | 383 |
| | 438 |
| | — |
| | 55 |
| | 383 |
| | 438 |
| | (78 | ) | | 1920 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hilltop Plaza | | Monroe, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 352 |
| | 935 |
| | 1,287 |
| | — |
| | 352 |
| | 935 |
| | 1,287 |
| | (132 | ) | | 1993 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hospital - Greenville | | Greenville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 407 |
| | 737 |
| | 1,144 |
| | — |
| | 407 |
| | 737 |
| | 1,144 |
| | (109 | ) | | 1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Kenansville | | Kenansville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 90 |
| | 463 |
| | 553 |
| | — |
| | 90 |
| | 463 |
| | 553 |
| | (92 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Kinston Main Office | | Kinston, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 136 |
| | 1,121 |
| | 1,257 |
| | — |
| | 136 |
| | 1,121 |
| | 1,257 |
| | (173 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Landfall | | Wilmington, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 353 |
| | 1,116 |
| | 1,469 |
| | — |
| | 353 |
| | 1,116 |
| | 1,469 |
| | (160 | ) | | 1989 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Marion Main Office | | Marion, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 232 |
| | 1,341 |
| | 1,573 |
| | — |
| | 232 |
| | 1,341 |
| | 1,573 |
| | (191 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Mooresville Main | | Mooresville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 195 |
| | 756 |
| | 951 |
| | — |
| | 195 |
| | 756 |
| | 951 |
| | (154 | ) | | 1957 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Mt Olive Main Office | | Mount Olive, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 119 |
| | 404 |
| | 523 |
| | — |
| | 119 |
| | 404 |
| | 523 |
| | (94 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Myers Park | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 340 |
| | 1,477 |
| | 1,817 |
| | — |
| | 340 |
| | 1,477 |
| | 1,817 |
| | (267 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Asheville | | Asheville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 73 |
| | 430 |
| | 503 |
| | — |
| | 73 |
| | 430 |
| | 503 |
| | (79 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Boulevard - Raleigh | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 266 |
| | 689 |
| | 955 |
| | — |
| | 266 |
| | 689 |
| | 955 |
| | (106 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Durham | | Durham, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 202 |
| | 429 |
| | 631 |
| | — |
| | 202 |
| | 429 |
| | 631 |
| | (91 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Henderson | | Henderson, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 92 |
| | 247 |
| | 339 |
| | — |
| | 92 |
| | 247 |
| | 339 |
| | (69 | ) | | 1969 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Raleigh | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 188 |
| | 472 |
| | 660 |
| | — |
| | 188 |
| | 472 |
| | 660 |
| | (88 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Northeast | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 538 |
| | 766 |
| | 1,304 |
| | — |
| | 538 |
| | 766 |
| | 1,304 |
| | (161 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Northwood | | High Point, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 184 |
| | 396 |
| | 580 |
| | — |
| | 184 |
| | 396 |
| | 580 |
| | (89 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Park Road | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 376 |
| | 766 |
| | 1,142 |
| | — |
| | 376 |
| | 766 |
| | 1,142 |
| | (148 | ) | | 1971 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Pavilions | | Winston-Salem, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 574 |
| | 1,284 |
| | 1,858 |
| | — |
| | 574 |
| | 1,284 |
| | 1,858 |
| | (168 | ) | | 1989 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Pinehurst | | Pinehurst, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 214 |
| | 602 |
| | 816 |
| | — |
| | 214 |
| | 602 |
| | 816 |
| | (141 | ) | | 1904 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Pleasant Garden | | Pleasant Garden, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 97 |
| | 235 |
| | 332 |
| | — |
| | 97 |
| | 235 |
| | 332 |
| | (60 | ) | | 1935 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Reidsville Main Office | | Reidsville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 160 |
| | 349 |
| | 509 |
| | — |
| | 160 |
| | 349 |
| | 509 |
| | (99 | ) | | 1900 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Reynolda | | Winston-Salem, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | $ | 236 |
| | $ | 518 |
| | $ | 754 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 236 |
| | $ | 518 |
| | $ | 754 |
| | $ | (114 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Salisbury Main Office | | Salisbury, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 413 |
| | 987 |
| | 1,400 |
| | — |
| | 413 |
| | 987 |
| | 1,400 |
| | (163 | ) | | 1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Salisbury West | | Salisbury, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 351 |
| | 189 |
| | 540 |
| | — |
| | 351 |
| | 189 |
| | 540 |
| | (53 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sardis Village | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 624 |
| | 747 |
| | 1,371 |
| | — |
| | 624 |
| | 747 |
| | 1,371 |
| | (153 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Signal Hill | | Statesville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 407 |
| | 657 |
| | 1,064 |
| | — |
| | 407 |
| | 657 |
| | 1,064 |
| | (142 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Six Forks | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 338 |
| | 1,053 |
| | 1,391 |
| | — |
| | 338 |
| | 1,053 |
| | 1,391 |
| | (152 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South Elm | | Greensboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 220 |
| | 575 |
| | 795 |
| | — |
| | 220 |
| | 575 |
| | 795 |
| | (133 | ) | | 1969 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South Park Greenville | | Greenville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 237 |
| | 478 |
| | 715 |
| | — |
| | 237 |
| | 478 |
| | 715 |
| | (98 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South Square | | Durham, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 288 |
| | 482 |
| | 770 |
| | — |
| | 288 |
| | 482 |
| | 770 |
| | (96 | ) | | 1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| South Pines Main Office | | Southern Pines, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 399 |
| | 742 |
| | 1,141 |
| | — |
| | 399 |
| | 742 |
| | 1,141 |
| | (174 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Southwinds | | Spring Lake, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 395 |
| | 886 |
| | 1,281 |
| | — |
| | 395 |
| | 886 |
| | 1,281 |
| | (131 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Southwood Square | | High Point, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 348 |
| | 716 |
| | 1,064 |
| | — |
| | 348 |
| | 716 |
| | 1,064 |
| | (158 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Spruce Pine Main | | Spruce Pine, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 172 |
| | 953 |
| | 1,125 |
| | — |
| | 172 |
| | 953 |
| | 1,125 |
| | (184 | ) | | 1930 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Statesville Main Office | | Statesville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 130 |
| | 1,852 |
| | 1,982 |
| | — |
| | 130 |
| | 1,852 |
| | 1,982 |
| | (318 | ) | | 1910 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Swansboro | | Swansboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 92 |
| | 272 |
| | 364 |
| | — |
| | 92 |
| | 272 |
| | 364 |
| | (57 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Troutman | | Troutman, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 319 |
| | 400 |
| | 719 |
| | (133 | ) | | 319 |
| | 267 |
| | 586 |
| | (46 | ) | | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Tryon Main Office | | Tryon, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 87 |
| | 1,067 |
| | 1,154 |
| | — |
| | 87 |
| | 1,067 |
| | 1,154 |
| | (178 | ) | | 1966 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Twin Rivers | | New Bern, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 255 |
| | 414 |
| | 669 |
| | — |
| | 255 |
| | 414 |
| | 669 |
| | (97 | ) | | 1979 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Union Road | | Gastonia, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 203 |
| | 750 |
| | 953 |
| | — |
| | 203 |
| | 750 |
| | 953 |
| | (146 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| University | | Wilmington, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 397 |
| | 852 |
| | 1,249 |
| | (31 | ) | | 367 |
| | 851 |
| | 1,218 |
| | (178 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Village Drive | | Fayetteville, NC | | 100 | % | | (12) | | 293 |
| | 406 |
| | 699 |
| | — |
| | 293 |
| | 406 |
| | 699 |
| | (90 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Combee | | Lakeland, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 198 |
| | 501 |
| | 699 |
| | — |
| | 198 |
| | 501 |
| | 699 |
| | (111 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Lantana | | Lantana, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 604 |
| | 781 |
| | 1,385 |
| | — |
| | 604 |
| | 781 |
| | 1,385 |
| | (220 | ) | | 1963 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Monument Road | | Jacksonville, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 947 |
| | 2,475 |
| | 3,422 |
| | — |
| | 947 |
| | 2,475 |
| | 3,422 |
| | (330 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| North Boca Raton | | Boca Raton, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 276 |
| | 806 |
| | 1,082 |
| | — |
| | 276 |
| | 806 |
| | 1,082 |
| | (152 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ridge Road | | New Port Richey, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 152 |
| | 554 |
| | 706 |
| | — |
| | 152 |
| | 554 |
| | 706 |
| | (108 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Rockledge | | Rockledge, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 230 |
| | 627 |
| | 857 |
| | — |
| | 230 |
| | 627 |
| | 857 |
| | (147 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| S. Mandarin | | Jacksonville, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 241 |
| | 613 |
| | 854 |
| | — |
| | 241 |
| | 613 |
| | 854 |
| | (101 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Westside | | Jacksonville, FL | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 495 |
| | 2,057 |
| | 2,552 |
| | — |
| | 495 |
| | 2,057 |
| | 2,552 |
| | (367 | ) | | 1962 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hapeville | | Hapeville, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 648 |
| | 1,859 |
| | 2,507 |
| | — |
| | 648 |
| | 1,859 |
| | 2,507 |
| | (330 | ) | | 1958 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Perimeter Center | | Atlanta, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 756 |
| | 2,523 |
| | 3,279 |
| | — |
| | 756 |
| | 2,523 |
| | 3,279 |
| | (325 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Stephenson | | Savannah, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 305 |
| | 621 |
| | 926 |
| | — |
| | 305 |
| | 621 |
| | 926 |
| | (144 | ) | | 1967 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Toco Hills | | Atlanta, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 230 |
| | 692 |
| | 922 |
| | — |
| | 230 |
| | 692 |
| | 922 |
| | (123 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Walton Way | | Augusta, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 431 |
| | 1,144 |
| | 1,575 |
| | — |
| | 431 |
| | 1,144 |
| | 1,575 |
| | (199 | ) | | 1985 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Washington Road | | Augusta, GA | | 100 | % | | (13) | | $ | 395 |
| | $ | 1,421 |
| | $ | 1,816 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 395 |
| | $ | 1,421 |
| | $ | 1,816 |
| | $ | (237 | ) | | 1984 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Clemmons | | Clemmons, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 179 |
| | 506 |
| | 685 |
| | — |
| | 179 |
| | 506 |
| | 685 |
| | (119 | ) | | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| King Main | | King, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 133 |
| | 600 |
| | 733 |
| | — |
| | 133 |
| | 600 |
| | 733 |
| | (107 | ) | | 1978 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Marion Main | | Marion, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 230 |
| | 897 |
| | 1,127 |
| | — |
| | 230 |
| | 897 |
| | 1,127 |
| | (173 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Roxboro Main | | Roxboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 424 |
| | 1,307 |
| | 1,731 |
| | — |
| | 424 |
| | 1,307 |
| | 1,731 |
| | (273 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Russ Avenue | | Waynesville, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 296 |
| | 897 |
| | 1,193 |
| | — |
| | 296 |
| | 897 |
| | 1,193 |
| | (240 | ) | | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sardis Road | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 149 |
| | 480 |
| | 629 |
| | — |
| | 149 |
| | 480 |
| | 629 |
| | (83 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Valdese Main | | Valdese, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 198 |
| | 1,218 |
| | 1,416 |
| | — |
| | 198 |
| | 1,218 |
| | 1,416 |
| | (213 | ) | | 1952 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Viewmont | | Hickory, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 147 |
| | 735 |
| | 882 |
| | — |
| | 147 |
| | 735 |
| | 882 |
| | (139 | ) | | 1974 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wilkesboro Main | | Wilkesboro, NC | | 100 | % | | (13) | | 130 |
| | 645 |
| | 775 |
| | — |
| | 130 |
| | 645 |
| | 775 |
| | (103 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Champions | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 390 |
| | 1,935 |
| | 2,325 |
| | — |
| | 390 |
| | 1,935 |
| | 2,325 |
| | (193 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Clear Lake | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 434 |
| | 1,772 |
| | 2,206 |
| | — |
| | 434 |
| | 1,772 |
| | 2,206 |
| | (204 | ) | | 1981/2005 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cypress Station | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 203 |
| | 982 |
| | 1,185 |
| | (22 | ) | | 203 |
| | 960 |
| | 1,163 |
| | (87 | ) | | 1996 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Deer Park | | Deer Park, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 191 |
| | 646 |
| | 837 |
| | — |
| | 191 |
| | 646 |
| | 837 |
| | (93 | ) | | 1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Duncanville | | Duncanville, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 65 |
| | 322 |
| | 387 |
| | (33 | ) | | 65 |
| | 289 |
| | 354 |
| | (74 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Galleria | | Dallas, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 480 |
| | 1,593 |
| | 2,073 |
| | — |
| | 480 |
| | 1,593 |
| | 2,073 |
| | (232 | ) | | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Heights | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 298 |
| | 1,590 |
| | 1,888 |
| | — |
| | 298 |
| | 1,590 |
| | 1,888 |
| | (155 | ) | | 1992 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Helotes | | San Antonio, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 201 |
| | 522 |
| | 723 |
| | — |
| | 201 |
| | 522 |
| | 723 |
| | (94 | ) | | 1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Highway 290 | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 1,822 |
| | 3,466 |
| | 5,288 |
| | (3,424 | ) | | 556 |
| | 1,308 |
| | 1,864 |
| | (433 | ) | | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Highway 6 | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 970 |
| | 2,151 |
| | 3,121 |
| | — |
| | 970 |
| | 2,151 |
| | 3,121 |
| | (211 | ) | | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Humble | | Humble, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 446 |
| | 1,811 |
| | 2,257 |
| | — |
| | 446 |
| | 1,811 |
| | 2,257 |
| | (199 | ) | | 1998 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Mangum | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 271 |
| | 1,383 |
| | 1,654 |
| | — |
| | 271 |
| | 1,383 |
| | 1,654 |
| | (181 | ) | | 1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Northshore | | Houston, TX | | 100 | % | | (14) | | 149 |
| | 676 |
| | 825 |
| | — |
| | 149 |
| | 676 |
| | 825 |
| | (80 | ) | | 1995 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Independence - Main Building - 0104 | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | 67,558 |
| | 6,112 |
| | 66,908 |
| | 73,020 |
| | 6,277 |
| | 6,112 |
| | 73,185 |
| | 79,297 |
| | (8,307 | ) | | 1983 | | 09/01/2011 |
| FS Wilmington, LP | | Wilmington, DE | | 100 | % | | 35,978 |
| | 9,200 |
| | 41,046 |
| | 50,246 |
| | — |
| | 9,200 |
| | 41,046 |
| | 50,246 |
| | (8,923 | ) | | 1995 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Brainard | | Chattanooga, TN | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
| East Colonial Drive Thr | | Orlando, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Inverness | | Inverness, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Paoli | | Paoli, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1989 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Forest Hill Banking Center | | Germantown, TN | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Upper Montclair Drive Up | | Upper Montclair, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1941 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Ardmore | | Ardmore, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Milltown | | Milltown, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Fairgrounds | | Allentown, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| West Goshen | | West Chester, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Reading Airport | | Reading Airport, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| East Brunswick | | East Brunswick, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1972 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Concordia | | Cranbury, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Thorndale | | Thorndale, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Devon | | Devon, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wind Gap | | Wind Gap, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Harborside | | Jersey City, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 2002 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Hickory Parking Lot | | Hickory, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 59 |
| | 50 |
| | 109 |
| | — |
| | 59 |
| | 50 |
| | 109 |
| | (4 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Torrance | | Torrance, CA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1975 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Chapel Hill | | Chapel Hill, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1942/1993 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Greenville Main | | Greenville, SC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1997 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Del Prado | | Cape Coral, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Parkside Marketplace | | Glen Allen, VA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | 61 |
| | 61 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 61 |
| | 61 |
| | (19 | ) | | 1988 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Livingston | | Livingston, NJ | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Downtown St. Petersburg | | St. Petersburg, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1912/1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Bank of America Finc - Sub-Lease | | Spokane, WA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1981 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Gulfgate - Main Building | | Sarasota, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | — |
| | 1,165 |
| | 1,165 |
| | (1,127 | ) | | — |
| | 38 |
| | 38 |
| | (185 | ) | | 1963 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cocoa Village Dt | | Cocoa, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 483 |
| | 2,167 |
| | 2,650 |
| | (1,802 | ) | | 483 |
| | 365 |
| | 848 |
| | (234 | ) | | 1957/1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Citizens - Clinton East Main | | Clinton, CT | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 172 |
| | 641 |
| | 813 |
| | — |
| | 172 |
| | 641 |
| | 813 |
| | (113 | ) | | 1972 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Railroad Avenue | | Plainfield, CT | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 232 |
| | 426 |
| | 658 |
| | — |
| | 232 |
| | 426 |
| | 658 |
| | (95 | ) | | 1980 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Shunpike Road | | Cromwell, CT | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 281 |
| | 484 |
| | 765 |
| | — |
| | 281 |
| | 484 |
| | 765 |
| | (101 | ) | | 1976 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Whalley Avenue | | New Haven, CT | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 186 |
| | 416 |
| | 602 |
| | — |
| | 186 |
| | 416 |
| | 602 |
| | (94 | ) | | 1943 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Lockport | | Lockport, IL | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 287 |
| | 1,129 |
| | 1,416 |
| | — |
| | 287 |
| | 1,129 |
| | 1,416 |
| | (177 | ) | | 1981/1996 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Columbia Road | | Dorchester, MA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 370 |
| | 1,433 |
| | 1,803 |
| | — |
| | 370 |
| | 1,433 |
| | 1,803 |
| | (279 | ) | | 1930 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - East Boston Square | | East Boston, MA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 192 |
| | 785 |
| | 977 |
| | — |
| | 192 |
| | 785 |
| | 977 |
| | (140 | ) | | 1928 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Massachusetts Avenue | | Arllington Heights, MA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 401 |
| | 395 |
| | 796 |
| | — |
| | 401 |
| | 395 |
| | 796 |
| | (83 | ) | | 1979 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Rogers Road | | Gloucester, MA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 251 |
| | 1,174 |
| | 1,425 |
| | — |
| | 251 |
| | 1,174 |
| | 1,425 |
| | (214 | ) | | 1950 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Union Sq - Somerville | | Somerville, MA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 647 |
| | 952 |
| | 1,599 |
| | — |
| | 647 |
| | 952 |
| | 1,599 |
| | (171 | ) | | 1970 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - 18 Mile Road | | Sterling Height, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 207 |
| | 835 |
| | 1,042 |
| | — |
| | 207 |
| | 835 |
| | 1,042 |
| | (138 | ) | | 1977 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Allen Road - Southgate | | Southgate, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 422 |
| | 2,949 |
| | 3,371 |
| | — |
| | 422 |
| | 2,949 |
| | 3,371 |
| | (457 | ) | | 1973 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Ford Road Heights | | Dearborn Heights, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 494 |
| | 1,130 |
| | 1,624 |
| | — |
| | 494 |
| | 1,130 |
| | 1,624 |
| | (169 | ) | | 1981 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Grand River | | Detroit, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 52 |
| | 611 |
| | 663 |
| | — |
| | 52 |
| | 611 |
| | 663 |
| | (132 | ) | | 1920 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Greater Mack | | St. Clair Shores, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 626 |
| | 1,150 |
| | 1,776 |
| | — |
| | 626 |
| | 1,150 |
| | 1,776 |
| | (218 | ) | | 1980 | | 10/24/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Citizens - Grosse Pointe Woods | | Grosse Pointe Woods, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 249 |
| | 572 |
| | 821 |
| | — |
| | 249 |
| | 572 |
| | 821 |
| | (110 | ) | | 1955 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Hoover Road | | Warren, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 133 |
| | 741 |
| | 874 |
| | — |
| | 133 |
| | 741 |
| | 874 |
| | (126 | ) | | 1997 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Joy Road | | Detroit, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 66 |
| | 591 |
| | 657 |
| | — |
| | 66 |
| | 591 |
| | 657 |
| | (126 | ) | | 1957 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Main Street - Belleville | | Belleville, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 181 |
| | 1,228 |
| | 1,409 |
| | — |
| | 181 |
| | 1,228 |
| | 1,409 |
| | (132 | ) | | 1998 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - North Adams | | Rochester, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 227 |
| | 1,417 |
| | 1,644 |
| | — |
| | 227 |
| | 1,417 |
| | 1,644 |
| | (211 | ) | | 1976 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Plymouth Road - Detroit | | Detroit, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 66 |
| | 539 |
| | 605 |
| | — |
| | 66 |
| | 539 |
| | 605 |
| | (120 | ) | | Early 1960’s | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Roseville | | Roseville, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 347 |
| | 906 |
| | 1,253 |
| | — |
| | 347 |
| | 906 |
| | 1,253 |
| | (155 | ) | | 1981 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Schoenherr | | Warren, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 145 |
| | 1,088 |
| | 1,233 |
| | — |
| | 145 |
| | 1,088 |
| | 1,233 |
| | (179 | ) | | 1979 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - West Fort Street | | Southgate, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 122 |
| | 1,315 |
| | 1,437 |
| | — |
| | 122 |
| | 1,315 |
| | 1,437 |
| | (152 | ) | | 1984 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - West Maple | | Bloomfield Hills, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 317 |
| | 1,675 |
| | 1,992 |
| | — |
| | 317 |
| | 1,675 |
| | 1,992 |
| | (305 | ) | | 1962 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Woodward - Ferndale | | Ferndale, MI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 313 |
| | 798 |
| | 1,111 |
| | — |
| | 313 |
| | 798 |
| | 1,111 |
| | (156 | ) | | 1960 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Barrington | | Barrington, NH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 176 |
| | 335 |
| | 511 |
| | — |
| | 176 |
| | 335 |
| | 511 |
| | (110 | ) | | 1985 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Coliseum Avenue | | Nashua, NH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 206 |
| | 655 |
| | 861 |
| | — |
| | 206 |
| | 655 |
| | 861 |
| | (119 | ) | | 1981 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - One Constitution Way | | Somersworth, NH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 135 |
| | 1,013 |
| | 1,148 |
| | — |
| | 135 |
| | 1,013 |
| | 1,148 |
| | (129 | ) | | 1985 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Endicott | | Endicott, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 117 |
| | 2,001 |
| | 2,118 |
| | — |
| | 117 |
| | 2,001 |
| | 2,118 |
| | (374 | ) | | 1927 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Genesee - Utica | | Utica, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 91 |
| | 2,001 |
| | 2,092 |
| | — |
| | 91 |
| | 2,001 |
| | 2,092 |
| | (383 | ) | | 1956/1968 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Glens Falls | | Glens Falls, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 167 |
| | 1,234 |
| | 1,401 |
| | — |
| | 167 |
| | 1,234 |
| | 1,401 |
| | (227 | ) | | 1956 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Main Street - Beacon | | Beacon, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 440 |
| | 1,247 |
| | 1,687 |
| | — |
| | 440 |
| | 1,247 |
| | 1,687 |
| | (238 | ) | | 1955 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Meadow Avenue | | Newburgh, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 364 |
| | 1,232 |
| | 1,596 |
| | — |
| | 364 |
| | 1,232 |
| | 1,596 |
| | (229 | ) | | 1972 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Montcalm Street | | Ticonderoga, NY | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 16 |
| | 607 |
| | 623 |
| | — |
| | 16 |
| | 607 |
| | 623 |
| | (118 | ) | | 1920 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Chagrin Falls | | Chagrin Falls, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 188 |
| | 596 |
| | 784 |
| | — |
| | 188 |
| | 596 |
| | 784 |
| | (112 | ) | | Pre 1884 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Dover Center Road | | Bay Village, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 196 |
| | 484 |
| | 680 |
| | — |
| | 196 |
| | 484 |
| | 680 |
| | (100 | ) | | 1967 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - East Street - Euclid | | Euclid, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 86 |
| | 708 |
| | 794 |
| | — |
| | 86 |
| | 708 |
| | 794 |
| | (108 | ) | | 1975 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Fairview Park | | Fairview Park, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 289 |
| | 374 |
| | 663 |
| | — |
| | 289 |
| | 374 |
| | 663 |
| | (96 | ) | | 1966 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Girard | | Girard, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 88 |
| | 1,091 |
| | 1,179 |
| | — |
| | 88 |
| | 1,091 |
| | 1,179 |
| | (159 | ) | | 1977/1983 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Lake Shore Boulevard | | Euclid, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 234 |
| | 622 |
| | 856 |
| | — |
| | 234 |
| | 622 |
| | 856 |
| | (142 | ) | | 1971 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Lorain Road | | North Olmsted, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 254 |
| | 599 |
| | 853 |
| | — |
| | 254 |
| | 599 |
| | 853 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1981 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Mentor Avenue | | Mentor, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 690 |
| | 1,283 |
| | 1,973 |
| | — |
| | 690 |
| | 1,283 |
| | 1,973 |
| | (306 | ) | | 1958 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Navarre Avenue | | Oregon, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 107 |
| | 1,015 |
| | 1,122 |
| | — |
| | 107 |
| | 1,015 |
| | 1,122 |
| | (167 | ) | | 1980 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Richmond Heights | | Richmond Heights, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 353 |
| | 683 |
| | 1,036 |
| | — |
| | 353 |
| | 683 |
| | 1,036 |
| | (147 | ) | | 2002 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Toledo Main | | Toledo, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 83 |
| | 664 |
| | 747 |
| | — |
| | 83 |
| | 664 |
| | 747 |
| | (136 | ) | | 1952 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - University Heights | | University Heights, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 426 |
| | 505 |
| | 931 |
| | — |
| | 426 |
| | 505 |
| | 931 |
| | (87 | ) | | 1989/2002 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Westlake | | Westlake, OH | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 283 |
| | 596 |
| | 879 |
| | — |
| | 283 |
| | 596 |
| | 879 |
| | (100 | ) | | 1981 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Burgettstown | | Burgettstown, PA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 68 |
| | 1,165 |
| | 1,233 |
| | — |
| | 68 |
| | 1,165 |
| | 1,233 |
| | (203 | ) | | 1921 | | 10/24/2011 |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Citizens - Zelienople | | Zelienople, PA | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 26 |
| | 1,054 |
| | 1,080 |
| | — |
| | 26 |
| | 1,054 |
| | 1,080 |
| | (181 | ) | | 1920/1971 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Portsmouth East Main | | Portsmouth, RI | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 446 |
| | 518 |
| | 964 |
| | — |
| | 446 |
| | 518 |
| | 964 |
| | (126 | ) | | 1979 | | 10/24/2011 |
| Citizens - Pearl St - Essex Junction | | Essex Junction, VT | | 100 | % | | (15) | | 170 |
| | 415 |
| | 585 |
| | — |
| | 170 |
| | 415 |
| | 585 |
| | (61 | ) | | 1986 | | 10/24/2011 |
801 Market Associates (5) | | Philadelphia, PA | | 100 | % | | 37,565 |
| | 6,325 |
| | 32,306 |
| | 38,631 |
| | (13,633 | ) | | 4,357 |
| | 20,641 |
| | 24,998 |
| | (2,779 | ) | | 1928/2002 | | 09/01/2011 |
Arlington (5) | | Arlington, TX | | 100 | % | | (16) | | 604 |
| | 1,261 |
| | 1,865 |
| | (262 | ) | | 537 |
| | 1,066 |
| | 1,603 |
| | (204 | ) | | 2003 | | 09/01/2011 |
Ennis - Main Building (5) | | Ennis, TX | | 100 | % | | (16) | | 174 |
| | 1,550 |
| | 1,724 |
| | (371 | ) | | 132 |
| | 1,221 |
| | 1,353 |
| | (366 | ) | | 1965/1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
Hillsboro-Main Building (5) | | Hillsboro, TX | | 100 | % | | (16) | | 13 |
| | 150 |
| | 163 |
| | (76 | ) | | 9 |
| | 78 |
| | 87 |
| | (13 | ) | | 1885/1982 | | 09/01/2011 |
Paris - Main Building (5) | | Paris, TX | | 100 | % | | (16) | | 382 |
| | 761 |
| | 1,143 |
| | (699 | ) | | 232 |
| | 212 |
| | 444 |
| | (41 | ) | | 1965/1973 | | 09/01/2011 |
Stephenville - Main Building (5) | | Stephenville, TX | | 100 | % | | (16) | | 257 |
| | 1,197 |
| | 1,454 |
| | (332 | ) | | 192 |
| | 930 |
| | 1,122 |
| | (274 | ) | | 1906/1980 | | 09/01/2011 |
Jenkins Court - Tower (5) | | Jenkintown, PA | | 100 | % | | 14,379 |
| | 1,683 |
| | 7,362 |
| | 9,045 |
| | (377 | ) | | 1,683 |
| | 6,985 |
| | 8,668 |
| | (1,638 | ) | | 1931/1990 | | 09/01/2011 |
| | | Total Properties Held for Investment | | | | | $ | 327,185 |
| | $ | 1,259,662 |
| | $ | 1,586,847 |
| | $ | (188,059 | ) | | $ | 303,030 |
| | $ | 1,095,758 |
| | $ | 1,398,788 |
| | $ | (171,759 | ) | | | | |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Initial Cost to Company | | | | Gross Amount at which Carried at Close of Period | | | | | | |
| Description | | Location | | Ownership Percent | | Encumbrances | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total | | Cost Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition(2) | | Land | | Building and Improvements (1) | | Total (3) | | Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization | | Original Date of Construction | | Date Acquired |
| Properties Held for Sale | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Crescent Green Buildings | | Cary, NC | | 100 | % | | $ | 25,400 |
| | $ | 6,200 |
| | $ | 42,508 |
| | $ | 48,708 |
| | $ | (6,861 | ) | | $ | 6,200 |
| | $ | 35,647 |
| | $ | 41,847 |
| | $ | (7,031 | ) | | 1996/1997/1998 | | 01/31/2007 |
| Deland Main | | Deland, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 473 |
| | 669 |
| | 1,142 |
| | (171 | ) | | 437 |
| | 534 |
| | 971 |
| | (26 | ) | | 1964 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Central Avenue | | Hot Springs, AR | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 240 |
| | 2,161 |
| | 2,401 |
| | (1,731 | ) | | 72 |
| | 598 |
| | 670 |
| | (79 | ) | | 1940 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Belleville | | Belleville, IL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 250 |
| | 636 |
| | 886 |
| | (463 | ) | | 250 |
| | 173 |
| | 423 |
| | (7 | ) | | 1968 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cookeville | | Cookeville, TN | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 339 |
| | 4,220 |
| | 4,559 |
| | (2,074 | ) | | 211 |
| | 2,274 |
| | 2,485 |
| | (82 | ) | | 1979/2003 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Winterpark Temple | | Winter Park, FL | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 323 |
| | 891 |
| | 1,214 |
| | (504 | ) | | 323 |
| | 387 |
| | 710 |
| | (80 | ) | | 1994 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Cary Preston | | Cary, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 645 |
| | 1,862 |
| | 2,507 |
| | — |
| | 645 |
| | 1,862 |
| | 2,507 |
| | (416 | ) | | 1993 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Clemmons | | Clemmons, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 557 |
| | 1,723 |
| | 2,280 |
| | — |
| | 557 |
| | 1,723 |
| | 2,280 |
| | (431 | ) | | 1970 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Wakefield Fc | | Raleigh, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 672 |
| | 1,978 |
| | 2,650 |
| | — |
| | 672 |
| | 1,978 |
| | 2,650 |
| | (395 | ) | | 2000 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Westinghouse | | Charlotte, NC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 614 |
| | 1,514 |
| | 2,128 |
| | (1,260 | ) | | 614 |
| | 254 |
| | 868 |
| | (383 | ) | | 1986 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Sea Pines Main | | Hilton Head, SC | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 1,128 |
| | 4,753 |
| | 5,881 |
| | (1,625 | ) | | 1,128 |
| | 3,128 |
| | 4,256 |
| | (877 | ) | | 1991 | | 09/01/2011 |
| Feasterville | | Feasterville, PA | | 100 | % | | — |
| | 319 |
| | 2,064 |
| | 2,383 |
| | — |
| | 319 |
| | 2,064 |
| | 2,383 |
| | (473 | ) | | 1964 | | 09/01/2011 |
| | | Total Properties Held for Sale | | | | | $ | 11,760 |
| | $ | 64,979 |
| | $ | 76,739 |
| | $ | (14,689 | ) | | $ | 11,428 |
| | $ | 50,622 |
| | $ | 62,050 |
| | $ | (10,280 | ) | | | | |
| | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | $ | 338,945 |
| | $ | 1,324,641 |
| | $ | 1,663,586 |
| | $ | (202,748 | ) | | $ | 314,458 |
| | $ | 1,146,380 |
| | $ | 1,460,838 |
| | $ | (182,039 | ) | | | | |
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
____________________
(1) Building and improvements include tenant origination and absorption costs.
(2) Costs capitalized subsequent to acquisition is net of write-offs of fully depreciated/amortized assets.
(3) The aggregate cost of real estate for federal income tax purposes was approximately $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2013.
(4) These properties are security for the Portfolio Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $185.0 million as of December 31, 2013.
(5) These properties were held for non-sale disposition as of December 31, 2013.
(6) As of December 31, 2013, the Company had sold seven industrial properties within the Opus Industrial Portfolio.
(7) These properties are security for the BBD2 Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $194.2 million as of December 31, 2013.
(8) These properties are security for the FSI 6000A Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $24.8 million as of December 31, 2013.
(9) These properties are security for the FSI 6000B Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $28.7 million as of December 31, 2013.
(10) These properties are security for the FSI 6000C Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $22.5 million as of December 31, 2013.
(11) These properties are security for the FSI 6000D Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $29.9 million as of December 31, 2013.
(12) These properties are security for the Pitney Bowes - Bank of America Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $40.3 million as of December 31, 2013.
(13) These properties are security for the Pitney Bowes - Wachovia A Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $16.4 million as of December 31, 2013.
(14) These properties are security for the Sterling Bank Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $19.6 million as of December 31, 2013.
(15) These properties are security for the CRE Mortgage Loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of $62.7 million as of December 31, 2013.
(16) These properties are security for the BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio, which had an outstanding principal balance of $6.1 million as of December 31, 2013.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Real Estate (1) | | | | | | |
| Balance at the beginning of the year | | $ | 1,953,615 |
| | $ | 3,129,561 |
| | $ | 1,768,632 |
|
| Transfer of the GKK Properties | | — |
| | — |
| | 1,971,943 |
|
| Improvements | | 21,678 |
| | 20,786 |
| | 34,876 |
|
| Transfer of real estate in connection with the extinguishment of debt | | — |
| | (209,200 | ) | | (329,367 | ) |
| Write-off of fully depreciated and fully amortized assets | | (29,166 | ) | | (27,116 | ) | | (30,346 | ) |
| Impairments | | (80,609 | ) | | (82,167 | ) | | (102,003 | ) |
| Sales | | (404,680 | ) | | (878,249 | ) | | (184,174 | ) |
| Balance at the end of the year | | $ | 1,460,838 |
| | $ | 1,953,615 |
| | $ | 3,129,561 |
|
| | | | | | | |
Accumulated depreciation and amortization (1) | | | | | | |
| Balance at the beginning of the year | | $ | 204,781 |
| | $ | 165,328 |
| | $ | 178,055 |
|
| Depreciation and amortization expense | | 78,461 |
| | 136,710 |
| | 106,134 |
|
| Write-off of fully depreciated and fully amortized assets | | (29,166 | ) | | (27,116 | ) | | (30,346 | ) |
| Impairment | | (32,595 | ) | �� | (14,436 | ) | | (50,278 | ) |
| Sales | | (39,442 | ) | | (37,269 | ) | | (18,811 | ) |
| Transfer of real estate in connection with the extinguishment of debt | | — |
| | (18,436 | ) | | (19,426 | ) |
| Balance at the end of the year | | $ | 182,039 |
| | $ | 204,781 |
| | $ | 165,328 |
|
____________________
(1) Amounts include properties held for sale and properties held for non-sale disposition.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE IV
MORTGAGE LOANS ON REAL ESTATE
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Interest Rate (1) | | Interest Rate as of December 31, 2013 (1) | | Final Maturity Date (2) | | Periodic Payment Terms | | Prior Liens | | Face Amount of Mortgages | | Carrying Amount of Mortgages |
| Notes Payable | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Plaza in Clayton Mortgage Loan | 5.90% | | 5.90% | | 10/06/2016 | | Interest Only | | $ | — |
| | $ | 62,200 |
| | $ | 62,200 |
|
| Tysons Dulles Plaza Mortgage Loan | 5.90% | | 5.90% | | 03/10/2014 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 76,375 |
| | 76,375 |
|
| Bridgeway Technology Center Mortgage Loan | 8.25% | | 8.25% | | 08/01/2013 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 26,824 |
| | 26,824 |
|
| Crescent Green Mortgage Loan | One-month LIBOR +2.25% | | 2.42% | | 07/31/2015 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 25,400 |
| | 25,400 |
|
| Portfolio Loan | One-month LIBOR +1.80% | | 1.97% | | 01/01/2016 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 185,000 |
| | 185,000 |
|
| Total Notes Payable | | | | | | | | | — |
| | 375,799 |
| | 375,799 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| GKK Properties Notes Payable | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Bank of America - BBD2 Mortgage Loan | 5.96% | | 5.96% | | 09/08/2019 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 194,221 |
| | 190,393 |
|
| 101 Independence Mortgage Loan | 5.53% | | 5.53% | | 11/01/2016 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 67,558 |
| | 64,004 |
|
| CRE Mortgage Loan | 8.24% | | 8.24% | | 07/01/2036 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 62,729 |
| | 61,878 |
|
| Pitney Bowes - Bank of America Mortgage Loan | 5.33% | | 5.33% | | 10/10/2022 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 40,253 |
| | 39,511 |
|
| 801 Market Street Mortgage Loan | 11.17% | | 11.17% | | 02/01/2013 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 37,565 |
| | 37,565 |
|
| Beaver Valley Mortgage Loan | 5.06% | | 5.06% | | 01/01/2015 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 35,978 |
| | 35,701 |
|
| FSI 6000D Mortgage Loan | 5.80% | | 5.80% | | 06/05/2017 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 29,877 |
| | 28,658 |
|
| FSI 6000B Mortgage Loan | 5.80% | | 5.80% | | 06/05/2017 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 28,667 |
| | 28,055 |
|
| FSI 6000A Mortgage Loan | 6.80% | | 6.80% | | 10/05/2017 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 24,811 |
| | 25,450 |
|
| FSI 6000C Mortgage Loan | 6.80% | | 6.80% | | 10/05/2017 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 22,455 |
| | 23,340 |
|
| Sterling Bank Mortgage Loan | 5.57% | | 5.57% | | 01/11/2017 | | Interest Only | | — |
| | 19,629 |
| | 19,355 |
|
| Pitney Bowes - Wachovia A Mortgage Loan | 5.50% | | 5.50% | | 06/10/2023 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 16,438 |
| | 16,493 |
|
| Jenkins Court Mortgage Loan | 15.29% | | 15.29% | | 08/11/2030 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 14,379 |
| | 9,946 |
|
| BOA Windsor Mortgage Portfolio | 10.73% | | 10.73% | | 10/31/2012 | | Principal and interest | | — |
| | 6,134 |
| | 6,134 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | — |
| | 600,694 |
| | 586,483 |
|
| Total Notes Payable, Net | | | | | | | | | $ | — |
| | $ | 976,493 |
| | $ | 962,282 |
|
(1) Interest rate represents the interest rate in effect under the loan as of December 31, 2013 and is calculated as the actual interest rate in effect as of December 31, 2013 (consisting of the contractual interest rate), using interest rate indices at December 31, 2013, where applicable.
(2) Represents the initial maturity date or the maturity date as extended as of December 31, 2013; subject to certain conditions, the maturity dates of certain loans may be extended beyond the date shown.
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
SCHEDULE IV
MORTGAGE LOANS ON REAL ESTATE (CONTINUED)
December 31, 2013
(dollar amounts in thousands)
|
| | | | |
| Reconciliation of Mortgage Loans on Real Estate | | |
| Balance as of December 31, 2012 | | $ | 1,320,533 |
|
| Additions during period: | | |
| New mortgage loans | | 185,634 |
|
| Deferred interest payable | | 4,592 |
|
| Deductions during period: | | |
| Principal repayments | | (343,498 | ) |
| Mortgage debt transferred to buyer in connection with sale of the underlying real estate, net | | (209,177 | ) |
| Amortization of discount/premium on notes payable | | 4,198 |
|
| Balance as of December 31, 2013 | | $ | 962,282 |
|
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on March 7, 2014.
|
| | | |
| | | KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. |
| | | | |
| | | By: | /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. |
| | | Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. |
| | | Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
| | | | (principal executive officer) |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:
|
| | | | |
| Name | | Title | | Date |
| | | | | |
| /s/ CHARLES J. SCHREIBER, JR. | | Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director (principal executive officer) | | March 7, 2014 |
| Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. | | | | |
| /s/ DAVID E. SNYDER | | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) | | March 7, 2014 |
| David E. Snyder | | | | |
| /s/ PETER MCMILLAN III | | Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Director | | March 7, 2014 |
| Peter McMillan III | | | | |
| /s/ STACIE K. YAMANE | | Chief Accounting Officer (principal accounting officer) | | March 7, 2014 |
| Stacie K. Yamane | | | | |
| /s/ HANK ADLER | | Director | | March 7, 2014 |
| Hank Adler | | | | |
| /s/ BARBARA R. CAMBON | | Director | | March 7, 2014 |
| Barbara R. Cambon | | | | |
| /s/ STUART A. GABRIEL, PH.D. | | Director | | March 7, 2014 |
| Stuart A. Gabriel, Ph.D. | | | | |
