Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc (ARE) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and welcome to the Alexandria Real Estate Equities first-quarter 2026 conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please note today’s event is being recorded.

各位好，歡迎參加 Alexandria Real Estate Equities 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 請注意，今天的活動將被錄音。

I’d now like to turn the conference over to Paula Schwartz with Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

現在我想把電話會議交給投資人關係部的 Paula Schwartz。請開始。

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone.

謝謝，各位下午好。

This conference call contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The company’s actual results might differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in the company’s periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

本次電話會議包含符合聯邦證券法意義之「前瞻性陳述」。公司實際結果可能與前瞻性陳述中所預測者有重大差異。有關可能導致實際結果與前瞻性陳述所述結果出現重大差異之因素的更多資訊，載於公司向美國證券交易委員會提交的定期報告中。

Now I’d like to turn the call over to Joel Marcus, Executive Chairman and Founder. Please go ahead, Joel.

現在我想把電話會議交給執行董事長兼創辦人 Joel Marcus。Joel，請開始。

Thank you, Paula, and welcome, everybody, to our first-quarter earnings call. With me today are Marc, Peter, and Jenna. First of all, as I always do, I want to say a thank you to our remarkable family team for their awesome efforts during a tough first quarter operating environment. And as they know well, we are motivated each and every day by our solemn mission to enable this precious life science industry, one of the most treasured and innovative industries on the face of the planet to discover and bring to patients life-saving and life-changing therapies.

謝謝你，Paula，也歡迎各位參加我們第一季財報電話會議。今天與我一同出席的有 Marc、Peter 和 Jenna。首先，一如既往，我要感謝我們卓越的團隊家族，在艱難的第一季營運環境中付出的傑出努力。而且他們也很清楚，我們每天都被一項莊嚴的使命所驅動：賦能這個珍貴的生命科學產業——地球上最受珍視且最具創新性的產業之一——去發現並為病患帶來救命、改變人生的療法。

And how many of us, friends, loved ones still suffer from the likes of Parkinson's, ALS, pancreatic, colon, breast, et cetera, cancers, dementia to name a few. 2026, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the DNA and biotech revolution, and we still have addressed less than 10% of human disease. The life science industry is a highly regulated industry, dependent upon proper functioning of the four key pillars. As we've said before, strong and basic translational research is critical. There remains strong bipartisan support in Washington to fully fund the NIH.

而我們之中有多少人，朋友或親人，仍在承受帕金森氏症、ALS（肌萎縮性側索硬化症）、胰臟癌、結腸癌、乳癌等各類癌症，以及失智症等疾病之苦。2026 年，我們將慶祝 DNA 與生技革命 50 週年，但我們至今仍只解決了不到 10% 的人類疾病。生命科學產業是高度受監管的產業，仰賴四大關鍵支柱的正常運作。如同我們先前所說，強而有力且扎實的轉譯研究至關重要。華盛頓兩黨仍對充分資助 NIH（美國國家衛生研究院）抱持強勁支持。

There was a great victory this quarter in the defeat of the 15% limitation on reimbursement of institutional and direct costs, which I think will be very, very well, both received and implemented over the coming quarters and years.

本季有一項重大勝利：成功擊敗對機構與直接成本報銷設定 15% 上限的限制；我認為這將在未來幾季與未來幾年獲得非常、非常好的接受度並落實執行。

Unfortunately, August 24, the entire NSF National Science Foundation Advisory Board was fired. Their role is science and engineering advice, kind of a shock. Leadership challenges remain at the NIH and HHS and FDA. Number two, strong innovation, coupled with open and vibrant capital markets. Obviously, we're in one of the -- maybe the greatest innovation time in the history of human kind.

不幸的是，8 月 24 日，NSF（美國國家科學基金會）整個諮詢委員會被解職。他們的角色是提供科學與工程方面的建議，這令人相當震驚。NIH、HHS（美國衛生與公共服務部）以及 FDA（美國食品藥物管理局）仍面臨領導層挑戰。第二，強勁的創新，搭配開放且充滿活力的資本市場。顯然，我們正處於——也許是人類史上最偉大的創新時代之一。

On the capital markets, they've been very selective. Private funding has been very solid, but deliberate and discriminating. On the public side, the markets have been open for good data and key milestones, but for most public biotechs in preclinical or in the clinic, which don't have data or milestones to finance off of, it's been a very tough slog. Number three, reliable and efficient regulatory framework, continuing effort to need to reduce time and cost into and through the clinic. The FDA progress has been sluggish. Leadership and staffing pressures have been abundant, and China continues to pressure the industry here at home.

就資本市場而言，資金配置非常挑剔。私募資金一直相當穩健，但也更審慎且更具選擇性。在公開市場方面，對於有良好數據與關鍵里程碑的公司，市場仍然開放；但對多數仍處於臨床前或臨床階段、缺乏可用來融資的數據或里程碑的上市生技公司而言，這是一段非常艱難的長途跋涉。第三，可靠且高效率的監管框架，並持續努力降低進入臨床及臨床過程中的時間與成本。FDA 的進展一直相對遲緩。領導與人力配置壓力相當普遍，而中國也持續在本土對產業施加壓力。

Number four, health payment and reimbursement environment for innovative medicines. CMS is actually operating quite well under the leadership of Dr. Oz, but both sides of the aisle are focused on drug pricing. And it's hard to imagine that they haven't figured out an approach to cut out the middleman, which takes 40% to 60% of medicine pricing, which would ease the burden, both on the recipients of care and on the innovative drug discovers. We get often asked about AI in all realms of all industries.

第四，創新藥物的醫療支付與報銷環境。在 Dr. Oz 的領導下，CMS（美國醫療保險與醫療補助服務中心）實際上運作得相當不錯，但兩黨都聚焦於藥價議題。很難想像他們還沒有想出一個方法來剔除「中間人」——中間人拿走藥價的 40% 到 60%——若能如此，將可減輕受照護者與創新藥物研發者雙方的負擔。我們經常被問到 AI 在各領域、各產業的影響。

And I think it's fair to say that most of you know by now, we've got 37 trillion cells in each of our bodies and AI can support but not replace physical experimentation. Biology is just way too complex at this stage.

我想可以公平地說，各位現在大多都知道，我們每個人體內約有 37 兆個細胞，而 AI 可以提供支援，但無法取代實體實驗。在現階段，生物學的複雜度實在太高。

R&D cannot go fully in silico given the massive complexity of biology, and give you an example, Novartis' CEO who just joined the Board of Anthropic's that we only understand less than 5% of the functioning of the human body today. And as you know, drug development is very complex from target discovery to hit generation, to lead identification, to optimization, to clinical trials and on the commercialization. And it's pretty clear that the authorities in this area believe AI cannot replace physical experimentation. Most current usage is still document-centric, not biology braking. Push button drug discovery is overhyped.

鑑於生物學的巨大複雜性，研發（R&D）不可能完全在 in silico（電腦模擬）中進行；舉例來說，剛加入 Anthropic 董事會的諾華（Novartis）執行長表示，我們目前對人體運作機制的理解仍不到 5%。而各位也知道，藥物開發從標的發現、命中物（hit）產生、先導化合物（lead）辨識、最佳化、臨床試驗到商業化，流程非常複雜。而且相當明顯的是，該領域的主管機關認為 AI 無法取代實體實驗。目前多數應用仍以文件為中心，尚未在生物學上帶來突破。所謂「按一下按鈕就能完成藥物發現」被過度炒作。

And even native AI companies in this sector haven't proven dominance whatsoever. It's pretty clear that AI is not fully autonomous discovery, but is aimed at compressing timelines and increasing throughput and recovering lost institutional knowledge, and that is all really good. I think most experts believe that AI will have a small impact on real estate requirements and could even see the need for additional dry and wet space as they run experiments designed by AI.

即便是本領域的原生 AI 公司，也尚未證明其具備任何主導地位。很明顯，AI 並非完全自主的發現工具，而是旨在壓縮時程、提升吞吐量並找回流失的機構知識，而這些都非常有價值。我認為多數專家相信，AI 對不動產需求的影響將很小，甚至可能因為要執行由 AI 設計的實驗，而需要更多乾式與濕式空間。

Moving to the first quarter. As all of you know, it was a very tough operating environment, but we made very solid progress on our path forward, laid out in detail at our Investor Day. Number one was to maintain a strong and flexible balance sheet, and Marc will talk more about that. Number two is to reduce capital spend and funding needs going forward.

接著談第一季。各位都知道，這是一個非常艱難的營運環境，但我們在投資人日（Investor Day）所詳細闡述的前進路徑上，仍取得了非常扎實的進展。第一是維持強健且具彈性的資產負債表，Marc 會進一步說明。第二是降低未來的資本支出與資金需求。

And I think we're well on our way to refining or reducing -- refining and reducing CapEx in our pipeline. And we've also been fortunate to sign quite a number of LOIs leading to leases, which will reduce the CapEx into the lease statistics as we go forward. Something that is a cornerstone to this year in this reset is to substantially complete a large-scale for noncore in sales of partial interest disposition plan.

我認為我們在精煉或降低——也就是精煉並降低——我們開發管線中的資本支出（CapEx）方面，已經走在正確道路上。我們也很幸運簽下相當多的 LOI（意向書），並逐步轉為租約，這將在未來降低租賃統計中所反映的 CapEx。而今年這次「重置」的一個基石，是大幅完成一項大規模、針對非核心資產的部分權益出售（disposition）計畫。

We are on track, even though the first quarter was relatively quiet, but we fully intend like last year to meet our goal. And I think it's fair to say, and Peter can expound on this during Q&A. The transaction market for life science assets is even better this year than it was last year, and we have a high level of confidence. Four, we want to steadily improve occupancy and increase NOI focused on leasing. The pinch point in leasing has been, this is one of our lower quarters, but we look to bounce back nicely next quarter.

我們進度如期，儘管第一季相對平靜，但我們完全打算像去年一樣達成目標。我想可以公平地說，Peter 也可以在問答環節進一步闡述。今年生命科學資產的交易市場甚至比去年更好，我們具備高度信心。第四，我們希望穩步改善入住率並提升 NOI（淨營運收入），重點放在租賃。租賃的瓶頸在於——這是我們較低的一季之一——但我們預期下季會有不錯的反彈。

This is maybe the first quarter in the history of the company that I can remember where we didn't sign a single public biotech lease. So that gives you a sense of what the environment is out there.

這可能是我記憶中公司史上第一個季度，我們沒有簽下任何一家上市生技公司的租約。這讓各位可以感受到外部環境的狀況。

I think it's fair to say in our pre-read. We highlighted the sale, which closed during the fourth quarter, but it's emblematic of the quality and value of the underlying life science assets that we continue to hold, especially on the Megacampus. Our disposition of 409/499 Illinois, Street in Mission Bay, received a record pricing of $1,645 per square foot, the highest ever achieved for a lab asset in San Francisco. And by the way, it was 40% occupied. Fair to say that this year, what is critical for us is to continue our path forward.

我想可以公平地說，在我們的預先閱讀資料（pre-read）中，我們強調了那筆於第四季完成交割的出售案，但它象徵著我們仍持有的底層生命科學資產之品質與價值，特別是在 Megacampus 上。我們在 Mission Bay 出售 409/499 Illinois Street 的部分權益處分，創下每平方英尺 1,645 美元的紀錄價格，為舊金山實驗室資產史上最高成交價。順帶一提，該資產當時的入住率為 40%。可以說，今年對我們而言最關鍵的是持續沿著既定路徑前進。

The Megacampuses will continue to differentiate us. Our balance sheet will remain strong and flexible. We've worked on continuing to lower G&A. The quality of our assets continues to be outstanding as recognized by our tenants as well as our operational excellence and clearly a best-in-class team throughout.

Megacampus 將持續使我們脫穎而出。我們的資產負債表將維持強健且具彈性。我們一直致力於持續降低一般及行政費用（G&A）。我們資產的品質持續卓越，這點不僅獲租戶肯定，也體現在我們的營運卓越表現，以及全公司明顯的同級最佳團隊。

I think finally, fair to say that if you look at our top 20 tenants, 80% of the top 20 tenants are investment grade or large-cap companies, and very reassuring ,55% of our total ARR comes from that. And of the top 20, we have almost a 10-year Walt, which is really great. And we have won, I think, the longest Walt of not Walt, but duration of our debt, and Marc will talk about that. And then finally, 78% of our ARR comes from our Megacampus platform, which we've been working hard on.

我想最後可以公允地說，如果你看我們前 20 大租戶，其中 80% 為投資等級或大型市值公司，這非常令人安心；我們總 ARR 的 55% 來自於此。而在前 20 大租戶中，我們的加權平均剩餘租期（WALT）接近 10 年，這真的很棒。另外，我們也擁有我認為最長的——不是 WALT，而是我們債務的存續期間（duration），Marc 會談到這點。最後，我們 78% 的 ARR 來自我們的 Megacampus 平台，我們一直在這方面努力耕耘。

So with that kind of intro to the quarter, let me turn it over to Marc for his detailed comments.

以上是本季的簡要開場，接下來我把時間交給 Marc，請他做更詳細的說明。

Thank you, Joel. This is Marc Binda, Chief Financial Officer. Good afternoon, everybody. First, congratulations to the entire Alexandria team for the outstanding operational execution of the steps of our path forward, set forth at December Investor Day, despite a very challenging industry backdrop, including, first, outperformance on capturing leasing demand in our largest markets relative to our market share. I'll get to that later.

謝謝你，Joel。我是 Marc Binda，財務長（CFO）。各位下午好。首先，恭喜 Alexandria 全體團隊：儘管產業環境非常具挑戰性，我們仍就 12 月投資人日所提出的前進路徑各項步驟，展現了卓越的營運執行力，其中包括第一點：在我們最大市場中，捕捉租賃需求的表現相對於我們的市場占有率更為出色。我稍後會再談到。

Second, positive development and redevelopment leasing momentum with the execution of development and redevelopment leases and letters of intent, aggregating 394,000 square feet. Third, focus on improving occupancy with cumulative leasing of vacant space of 1.1 million square feet that we'll deliver in September on average. Fourth, continued general and administrative expense savings of $7.4 million compared to the 2024 quarterly average. Fifth, a $366 million gain associated with our unsecured bond tender which reduced our overall debt, and sixth, significant fundraising efforts with $2.2 billion of dispositions and sales of partial interest pending or identified it in process.

第二，開發與再開發的租賃動能呈現正向發展，已簽署開發與再開發租約及意向書（LOI），合計 394,000 平方英尺。第三，聚焦提升入住率，累計出租 110 萬平方英尺的空置空間，預計以加權平均在 9 月交付。第四，相較於 2024 年單季平均，一般及行政費用持續節省 740 萬美元。第五，與我們無擔保債券要約收購（tender）相關的 3.66 億美元收益，並降低了我們的整體負債；第六，積極募資作業，已有 22 億美元的資產處分與部分權益出售正在待完成、已辨識或進行中。

FFO per share diluted as adjusted was $1.73 for 1Q '26, and we reaffirm the midpoint of our guidance for FFO per share diluted as adjusted for 2026 at $6.40, while tightening the range. Leasing volume for the quarter was 647,000 square feet. The decline in total lease volume was driven by the following: First, as expected, lower renewals in re-leasing the space given the 657,000 square feet of key known lease expirations that we anticipated would become vacant during the quarter; and second, limited demand from public biotech with 0 leasing volume in the first quarter, a segment of our tenant base, which accounts for 24% of our annual rental revenue.

2026 年第一季（1Q '26）調整後稀釋每股 FFO 為 1.73 美元；我們重申 2026 年調整後稀釋每股 FFO 指引中點為 6.40 美元，同時收窄區間。本季租賃量為 647,000 平方英尺。總租賃量下滑主要由以下因素所致：第一，如預期所見，在重新出租空間方面的續租量較低，因為我們預期本季將有 657,000 平方英尺的關鍵已知租約到期並轉為空置；第二，來自上市生技公司的需求有限，第一季租賃量為 0；該族群為我們租戶基礎的一部分，約占我們年度租金收入的 24%。

A bright spot for the quarter includes the positive momentum on development leasing with 118,000 square feet executed and another 276,000 square feet of signed letters of intent for existing development and redevelopment space. Looking ahead to the second quarter, we do expect an uptick in total leasing volume of around 900,000 square feet given early activity to date. Free rent and rental rate changes on renewed and release space were under pressure in 1Q 26, which reflects the market realities, and includes a 48,000 square foot lease at 40 Arlon Watertown for a 12-year term, which was a significant contributor to the rental rate reduction of about 15% and 15.8% on a cash basis for the quarter. Alexandria continues to dominate in our largest markets. This is a really important takeaway.

本季的一大亮點是開發租賃的正向動能：已簽約 118,000 平方英尺，另有 276,000 平方英尺就既有開發與再開發空間簽署了意向書（LOI）。展望第二季，依目前的早期活動，我們預期總租賃量將回升至約 900,000 平方英尺。1Q '26 續租與重新出租空間的免租期與租金調整承受壓力，反映市場現實；其中包含 Watertown 的 40 Arlon 一筆 48,000 平方英尺、12 年期租約，對本季租金下調約 15%（現金基礎為 15.8%）有顯著影響。Alexandria 在我們最大的市場仍持續占據主導地位。這是一個非常重要的重點。

In our largest three markets during 1Q '26, we captured, on average, around twice the leasing volume compared with our market share of life science real estate.

在 1Q '26 期間，我們在最大的三個市場中，平均捕捉到的租賃量約為我們生命科學不動產市場占有率的兩倍。

For Greater Boston, we captured approximately 20% of the total leases in the market, which is 153% of our market share. For San Francisco Bay, we captured 30% of the total leases in the market, which is 253% of our market share. And for San Diego, we captured approximately 67% of the total leases in the market, which is 208% of our market share. These stats highlight Alexandria's dominant brand, sponsorship, Megacampus quality, location and the best team in the business. Occupancy at the end of 1Q '26 was 87.7%, down 320 basis points from the prior quarter, primarily driven by the 657,000 square feet of key known lease expirations, which went vacant during the quarter.

在大波士頓地區，我們約取得該市場總租約的 20%，相當於我們市場占有率的 153%。在舊金山灣區，我們取得該市場總租約的 30%，相當於我們市場占有率的 253%。在聖地牙哥，我們約取得該市場總租約的 67%，相當於我們市場占有率的 208%。這些數據凸顯 Alexandria 的主導品牌、贊助實力、Megacampus 品質、地點優勢，以及業界最佳團隊。1Q '26 期末入住率為 87.7%，較前一季下降 320 個基點，主要是因為 657,000 平方英尺的關鍵已知租約到期，於本季轉為空置。

We have an additional 747,000 square feet of key lease expirations expected to go vacant in 2026 with approximately 45% of that expected to expire in the second quarter. which should put pressure on occupancy for 2Q '26. For the second half of '26, we expect occupancy to benefit from the 1.1 million square feet of vacant space that has been leased and is expected to deliver in September on a weighted average basis. We updated the midpoint of our guidance range for year-end 2026 occupancy from 88.5% to 87% or a reduction of 1.5%, which was primarily due to a reduction in the anticipated benefit from a range of several potential disposition properties, which have vacant space. Our initial guidance assumed a 2% benefit, and we now assume around a 1% benefit as we no longer expect to sell as many assets with significant vacant space.

2026 年我們另有 747,000 平方英尺的關鍵租約到期預計將轉為空置，其中約 45% 預計在第二季到期，這將對 2Q '26 的入住率造成壓力。至於 2026 年下半年，我們預期入住率將受惠於已出租的 110 萬平方英尺空置空間，並預計以加權平均在 9 月交付。我們將 2026 年底入住率指引區間中點由 88.5% 下修至 87%，即下調 1.5%，主要原因是：對若干可能處分且含空置空間之資產所帶來的預期效益下調。我們原先的指引假設有 2% 的效益，目前改為約 1%，因為我們不再預期出售那麼多具有大量空置空間的資產。

It's important to highlight that we've had good leasing interest on some of these types of properties with vacant space. Tenants continue to prioritize asset quality, location, best-in-class operations, sponsorship and brand trust, which distinguishes Alexandria as well as our Megacampuses, which represents 78% of our total annual rental revenue at 1Q '26. Importantly, this has led to significant occupancy outperformance by Alexandria in the mid- to high 80% range across our largest three markets compared to market occupancy in the mid- to high 70% range for these same markets at the end of 1Q '26. Same property net operating income was down 11.9% and 11.7% on a cash basis for 1Q '26, which was primarily driven by a reduction in occupancy. Consistent with my commentary on our last earnings call, we expect stronger performance in the second half of 2026, primarily driven by improved occupancy compared with the corresponding prior year period.

值得強調的是，對於其中一些具有空置空間的資產類型，我們已看到不錯的租賃興趣。租戶仍持續優先考量資產品質、地點、同級最佳的營運、贊助實力與品牌信任；這些因素使 Alexandria 脫穎而出，也包括我們的 Megacampus——截至 1Q '26，其占我們年度總租金收入的 78%。重要的是，這使 Alexandria 在我們最大的三個市場中，入住率顯著優於市場：我們維持在 80% 中段至高段，而同一期間（1Q '26 期末）這些市場的市場入住率約在 70% 中段至高段。1Q '26 同店淨營運收入（NOI）下降 11.9%，以現金基礎計下降 11.7%，主要由入住率下降所致。與我在上次法說會的評論一致，我們預期 2026 年下半年表現將更強，主要由於入住率相較於去年同期改善所帶動。

It's important to also highlight that our anticipated same-property pool also had lower occupancy in the second half of 2025 compared with the first half of 2025, which all things being equal, should help same-property performance in the second half of 2026.

同時也要強調，我們預期的同店樣本池在 2025 年下半年的入住率也低於 2025 年上半年；在其他條件相同下，這應有助於 2026 年下半年的同店表現。

We updated the midpoint of our guidance range for same-property net operating income from down 8.5% to down 9.5% or 1% reduction due to a decrease in the anticipated benefit from a range of several disposition properties, which have vacant space similar to the dynamics I described for the change in occupancy guidance. Despite the current challenges in the life science real estate market, we continue to benefit from a very high-quality tenant base with 55% of our annual rental revenue coming from investment-grade or publicly-traded large cap tenants. Long remaining lease terms of 7.5 years, average rent debts approaching 3% on 97% of our leases and strong adjusted EBITDA margins of 66% for 1Q '26. We continue to focus on one of the pillars of our path forward, which includes the continuing successful reduction in management of general and administrative expenses. We remain on track with our guidance range of $134 million to $154 million for 2026, which represents around 14% savings at the midpoint compared to our 2024 benchmark or about $24 million in annual savings.

我們將同物業淨營運收入（same-property NOI）指引區間的中點，從下滑8.5%更新為下滑9.5%，亦即下修1%，原因是對若干處分資產組合的預期效益降低；這些資產的空置情況與我在說明入住率指引變動時所描述的動態相似。儘管生命科學不動產市場目前面臨挑戰，我們仍持續受惠於高品質的租戶基礎，年度租金收入中有55%來自投資級或公開交易的大型市值租戶。剩餘租期長達7.5年、97%租約的平均租金遞增（rent bumps）接近3%，以及在26年第一季（1Q '26）強勁的調整後EBITDA利潤率66%。我們持續聚焦於前進路徑的支柱之一，其中包括持續且成功地降低一般及行政費用（G&A）的管理。我們仍按計畫達成2026年1.34億至1.54億美元的指引區間；以中點計，較2024年基準約節省14%，亦即每年約節省2,400萬美元。

On a combined basis for 2025 and 2026, we expect G&A expense savings of around $76 million in aggregate relative to 2024. And our trailing 12-month G&A as a percentage of net operating income through 1Q '26, up 6% is less than half the average of all S&P 500 REITs over the last three years at around 14.3%. For 1Q '26, realized gains included in FFO per share diluted as adjusted from our venture investments were $18 million, and we reiterated our guidance range for realized investment gains of $60 million to $90 million for 2026. Capitalized interest for 1Q '26 was $70 million, which was down around $12 million from the prior quarter. The decline is primarily driven by a pause on construction and preconstruction activities on assets that were sold or designated for sale in 4Q '25.

合併2025年與2026年來看，我們預期相較於2024年，G&A費用節省合計約7,600萬美元。而截至26年第一季（1Q '26）的過去12個月（trailing 12-month）G&A占淨營運收入的比例為6%以上，仍不到過去三年所有S&P 500 REITs平均約14.3%的一半。在26年第一季（1Q '26），我們來自創投投資的已實現收益，計入經調整後稀釋每股FFO（FFO per share diluted as adjusted）為1,800萬美元；同時我們重申2026年已實現投資收益指引區間為6,000萬至9,000萬美元。26年第一季（1Q '26）的資本化利息為7,000萬美元，較前一季下降約1,200萬美元。此下降主要是因為對於在25年第四季（4Q '25）已出售或被指定出售的資產，其施工與施工前（preconstruction）活動暫停。

We expect capitalized interest to decline in the second half of 2026 due to a combination of factors, including: first, the completion and delivery of some of our current development and redevelopment projects under construction. And second, the potential for positives or ultimate dispositions related to land, including some portion of the land with real estate basis averaging $1.2 billion with preconstruction milestones in August of 2026 on a weighted average basis. We've reduced our guidance for capitalized interest by $5 million at the midpoint of our range with a corresponding increase to interest expense due to anticipated earlier completion of certain construction and preconstruction milestones and pauses related to several projects in the second half of 2026.

我們預期2026年下半年資本化利息將下降，原因是多項因素的綜合作用，包括：第一，部分目前在建的開發與再開發專案完工並交付。第二，土地相關的正面進展或最終處分的可能性，包括部分土地；該等土地的房地產帳面基礎（real estate basis）平均約12億美元，按加權平均計，其施工前里程碑落在2026年8月。我們將資本化利息指引區間的中點下調500萬美元，並相應上調利息費用，原因是預期部分施工與施工前里程碑將較早完成，以及2026年下半年若干專案相關的暫停。

We enhanced our disclosures for capitalized interest to highlight construction and preconstruction milestones broken down by year, including the following: first, land with $567 million of real estate basis, with preconstruction milestones in April 2027 on a weighted average basis. and second, development and redevelopment projects under evaluation for business and financial strategy of $1.3 billion spread across by projects with construction milestones in March of 2027 on a weighted average basis. We continue to evaluate each product individually. If in the future, we decided not to move forward with these projects beyond these construction milestones capitalization of interest for these projects would cease along with other related project costs, including payroll, which are highlighted on page 42 of our supplemental package.

我們強化了資本化利息的揭露，以突顯按年度拆分的施工與施工前里程碑，包括：第一，房地產帳面基礎為5.67億美元的土地，按加權平均計其施工前里程碑在2027年4月；第二，正在評估商業與財務策略的開發與再開發專案合計13億美元，分布於各專案，按加權平均計其施工里程碑在2027年3月。我們持續逐一評估每個專案。若未來我們決定在達到這些施工里程碑後不再推進這些專案，則這些專案的利息資本化將停止，其他相關專案成本（包括薪資）亦將停止；相關內容已於我們補充資料（supplemental package）第42頁標示。

We have 1.9 million square feet of projects under construction and expect it to stabilize through 2028, which are 77% leased, including around $600,000, which is expected to stabilize in 2026, which is 93% leased. We also have 1.6 million square feet spread across five different projects for which we are evaluating the business and financial strategy. I'll walk through the four largest. First, 421 Park Drive is located in our Fenway Megacampus. This is a ground-up development intended for laboratory use.

我們有190萬平方英尺的在建專案，並預期將於2028年前後達到穩定（stabilize）；其中已出租77%，包括約60萬平方英尺預期於2026年達到穩定，且該部分已出租93%。我們另有160萬平方英尺、分布於五個不同專案，正就其商業與財務策略進行評估。我將說明其中最大的四個。第一，421 Park Drive位於我們的Fenway Megacampus。這是一個從零開始（ground-up）的開發案，預計用於實驗室用途。

We expect this project to be attractive to the many nearby institutions the outcome for this project will depend on tenant interest, and we expect to have critical construction milestones in early 2027, which we are evaluating.

我們預期該專案對附近眾多機構具有吸引力；該專案的結果將取決於租戶興趣。我們預期在2027年初將有關鍵施工里程碑，並正就此進行評估。

Second, 40 Silvan Road is located in our Waltham Megacampus. We believe this project could be attractive to advanced technology tenants that may find certain elements of the building attractive and may not require a full conversion to lab. This project has critical construction milestones in the second half of 2026, which we are also carefully evaluating. Third, 311 Arsenal Street is located on and is highly integrated into our Arsenal on the Charles Megacampus located in Watertown in Greater Boston. We are seeing good activity for this project from advanced technology users, and we recently executed approximately 82,000 square feet of letters of intent with four tenants for this kind of use which increased the lease negotiating percentage for this project up to 28%.

第二，40 Silvan Road位於我們的Waltham Megacampus。我們認為該專案可能對先進科技租戶具有吸引力，因為建物的某些元素可能具吸引力，且可能不需要完全改造為實驗室。該專案在2026年下半年有關鍵施工里程碑，我們也正審慎評估。第三，311 Arsenal Street位於大波士頓Watertown的Arsenal on the Charles Megacampus內，並與園區高度整合。我們看到先進科技使用者對此專案有良好動能；近期我們與四位租戶就此類用途簽署約82,000平方英尺的意向書（letters of intent），使該專案的租賃談判比例提升至28%。

And fourth, 3000 Minaman Road is located in our Megacampus along Route 495 North of Boston. We believe this site will be attractive to advanced technology tenants as evidenced by the 160,000 square foot letter of intent we recently signed for a portion of the project. For both 311 Arsenal Street and 3000 minute Ann Road. If we complete these advanced technology leases, we may place all or some portion of these spaces into the operating pool, which may reduce operating occupancy in the near term, but more importantly, we'll reduce our capital needs and generate near-term revenue upon delivery.

第四，3000 Minaman Road位於我們沿著495號公路、波士頓以北的Megacampus。我們認為該基地將對先進科技租戶具吸引力，近期我們已就專案部分空間簽署16萬平方英尺的意向書，亦可佐證。針對311 Arsenal Street與3000 minute Ann Road兩案。若我們完成這些先進科技租約，我們可能將全部或部分空間納入營運資產池（operating pool）；這可能在短期內降低營運入住率，但更重要的是，將降低我們的資本需求，並在交付時帶來近期收入。

We continue to focus on our disciplined strategy to recycle capital from dispositions and partial interest sales to support our funding needs with a focus on the substantial completion of our large-scale noncore asset program in 2026 and we expect land to comprise 10% to 25% of the $2.9 billion midpoint of our guidance for 2026 dispositions and sales of partial interest with core, noncore and sales of partial interest to comprise the balance of 75% to 90%. Our guidance assumes a weighted average completion date of August 2026, which is about a month later than our initial guidance provided at our Investor Day. We believe there is strong institutional interest for our core assets at a reasonable cost of capital. And accordingly, we believe that joint ventures for some of our core assets could be a significant component of our capital plan, and we expect to have more details over the next quarter on the mix of dispositions as well as the timing as this continues to evolve.

我們持續聚焦於嚴謹的資本循環策略，透過資產處分與部分權益出售回收資本以支應資金需求；並以於2026年基本完成我們大型非核心資產計畫為重點。我們預期土地將占2026年處分與部分權益出售指引中點29億美元的10%至25%，其餘75%至90%將由核心、非核心資產及部分權益出售構成。我們的指引假設加權平均完成日期為2026年8月，較我們在投資人日（Investor Day）提供的初始指引晚約一個月。我們認為機構投資人對我們的核心資產有強勁興趣，且資本成本合理。因此，我們認為部分核心資產的合資（joint ventures）可能成為我們資本計畫的重要組成；並預期在下一季就處分組合與時程（隨情勢演進）提供更多細節。

Our team is making good progress with about 80% of the $2.9 billion midpoint for dispositions and sales of partial interest pending or identified in process. We expect to make decisions on the remaining 20% over the next several months. In early December, our Board authorized a reload and extension of the common stock repurchase program of up to $500 million. Our guidance does not assume any common stock repurchases in 2026 based upon current market conditions. And we're currently prioritizing our fundraising efforts to go towards our existing capital needs before we consider future common stock repurchases.

我們團隊進展良好，約有以29億美元中點計的80%處分與部分權益出售已在洽談中或已識別並進入流程。我們預期在未來數月內就剩餘20%作出決策。在12月初，我們的董事會核准將普通股回購計畫重新啟動並延長，額度最高5億美元。基於目前市場狀況，我們的指引未假設2026年進行任何普通股回購。我們目前優先將募資工作用於既有資本需求，之後才會考慮未來的普通股回購。

We continue to have a strong and flexible balance sheet. Our corporate credit ratings will continue to rank in the top 15% of all publicly-traded US REITs. We have tremendous liquidity of $4.2 billion and the longest average remaining debt maturity among all S&P 500 REITs of 10 years. We've reiterated our guidance range for 4Q 26 net debt to annualized adjusted EBITDA of 5.6 to 6.2 times.

我們持續維持強健且具彈性的資產負債表。我們的公司信用評等將持續位居所有在美國公開交易的 REIT 前 15%。我們擁有 42 億美元的充沛流動性，且在所有 S&P 500 REIT 中具備最長的平均剩餘債務到期年限，為 10 年。我們重申 2026 年第四季淨負債對年化調整後 EBITDA 的指引區間為 5.6 至 6.2 倍。

As expected, our first quarter 2026 leverage increased to 6.8 times on a quarterly annualized basis, and we expect leverage to come down in the second half of as we make progress on our dispositions and sales of partial interest. We tightened the range of our guidance for 2026 FFO per share diluted as adjusted with no change to the midpoint of $6.40. We made a number of changes to the underlying assumptions for guidance, which were primarily driven by two items. First, we reduced rental rate changes and rental rate changes on a cash basis by 7% and 3%, respectively, primarily for two transactions, which include a 48,000 square foot long-term lease completed during 1Q '26 in Watertown to an entertainment studio user and an 81,000 square foot lease completed in April with an exciting growth stage life science company to backfill a struggling tenant located in Torrey Pines. And we continue to focus on capturing demand and meeting the market for the right tenants.

如預期，我們 2026 年第一季的槓桿倍數在以季度年化基礎計算下上升至 6.8 倍；隨著我們在資產處分與部分權益出售方面取得進展，我們預期槓桿將在下半年下降。我們在不改變 6.40 美元中點的情況下，收窄了 2026 年經調整稀釋後每股 FFO 的指引區間。我們對指引的基礎假設做了多項調整，主要由兩項因素所驅動。第一，我們分別將租金變動與以現金基礎計算的租金變動下修 7% 與 3%，主要反映兩筆交易：其一為 2026 年第一季在 Watertown 完成的一筆 48,000 平方英尺長期租約，承租方為娛樂工作室使用者；其二為 4 月完成的一筆 81,000 平方英尺租約，承租方為一家令人振奮的成長期生命科學公司，用以回填位於 Torrey Pines 的一名經營不佳租戶所留下的空間。我們也持續專注於掌握需求，並為合適的租戶在市場上達成匹配。

Second, our initial guidance assumptions for occupancy and same-property performance included a 2% and a 3% benefit, respectively, for a range of assets that could be considered for sale during 2026. Due to changes in the mix of assets considered for sale this year since our initial guidance, we now have a smaller assumption for sales of assets with significant vacancy. Accordingly, we reduced our outlook for occupancy and same-property performance by 1.5% and 1%, respectively, to reflect an updated assumption that we hold on to more assets with vacancy in part due to good tenant interest on these types of assets.

第二，我們最初的指引假設中，對於 2026 年可能納入出售考量的一系列資產，入住率與同物業表現分別包含 2% 與 3% 的正面效益。由於自最初指引以來，今年納入出售考量的資產組合有所變化，我們目前對於出售高空置率資產的假設較小。因此，我們分別將入住率與同物業表現的展望下修 1.5% 與 1%，以反映更新後的假設：我們將保留更多具有空置的資產，部分原因是此類資產獲得租戶良好承租興趣。

At our Investor Day in December, we provided a guidance range for 4Q '26 FFO per share diluted as adjusted of $1.40 to $1.60 with a midpoint of $1.50. We refine this range to $1.40 to $1.50, which implies a $0.05 decline at the midpoint of the range of $1.45, which is primarily related to a reduction in capitalized interest as I discussed earlier. It's important to note that while our guidance for the fourth quarter of 2026 applies a $0.05 reduction in the midpoint to $1.45. The midpoint for the full-year 2026 FFO per share diluted as adjusted was unchanged at $6.40 and benefited from later timing on the projected timing of dispositions and sales of partial interest, which was moved back by about a month. In addition, we also provided several key current considerations on page 6 of our supplemental package that highlights several factors that could have an impact on our results in and beyond 2026, including 1.5 million square feet of lease expirations for 2027 with approximately $97 million of annual rental revenue that are expected to have downtime in which we are closely monitoring.

在 12 月的投資人日，我們提供 2026 年第四季經調整稀釋後每股 FFO 的指引區間為 1.40 至 1.60 美元，中點為 1.50 美元。我們將該區間精煉為 1.40 至 1.50 美元，意味著區間中點降至 1.45 美元、下滑 0.05 美元，主要與我先前提到的資本化利息減少有關。需要強調的是，雖然我們對 2026 年第四季的指引將中點下調 0.05 美元至 1.45 美元，但 2026 年全年經調整稀釋後每股 FFO 的中點仍維持在 6.40 美元不變；其受惠於預估資產處分與部分權益出售時點延後，約往後移了一個月。此外，我們也在補充資料第 6 頁提供了數項目前的關鍵考量，強調可能影響 2026 年及其後業績的因素，包括 2027 年將到期的 150 萬平方英尺租約、約 9,700 萬美元的年度租金收入，預期將出現空置期，我們正密切監控。

We remain keenly focused on executing steps for our path forward that we established at our Investor Day including maintaining a strong and flexible balance sheet, reducing funding needs, substantially completing our large-scale noncore disposition plan, focusing on improving occupancy and NOI and successfully managing G&A among others.

我們仍高度專注於執行在投資人日所建立的前進路徑之各項步驟，包括維持強健且具彈性的資產負債表、降低資金需求、實質完成大型非核心資產處分計畫、聚焦提升入住率與 NOI，以及成功管理 G&A 等。

With 10,000 known diseases and limited cures in treatments, the industry has a lot to accomplish, and we continue to believe that life science companies will continue to recognize Alexandria as the market leader with the best assets in the best locations and the best on-the-ground teams to operate these mission critical research facilities.

面對 10,000 種已知疾病以及有限的治癒與治療方式，產業仍有許多工作要完成；我們也持續相信，生命科學公司將持續認可 Alexandria 為市場領導者，擁有最佳資產、最佳地點，以及最優秀的在地團隊來營運這些關鍵任務研究設施。

Now I'll turn it back to Joel.

現在我把時間交回給 Joel。

Operator, let's go to questions, please?

接線員，請進入提問環節？

(Operator Instructions) Farrell Granath, BofA.

（接線員指示）Farrell Granath，BofA。

I first wanted to address the change in occupancy guidance that you made a commentary about the consideration of those assets no longer being considered for disposition but the disposition guidance did maintain at the $2.9 billion. So I was just wondering if you could bridge that change what other assets were maybe being considered? Is it more assets that don't have as much vacancy? Or is it land? And just trying to understand that mix.

我首先想談談你們對入住率指引所做的變更；你們提到部分資產不再被納入處分考量，但處分指引仍維持在 29 億美元。所以我想請問你們能否銜接說明這個變動：還有哪些資產可能被納入考量？是更多空置率沒那麼高的資產嗎？還是土地？我想更了解這個組合。

Yes, Marc?

是的，Marc？

Yes. So it was a change in the mix. As you said, the midpoint was unchanged. There were a handful of assets that we had been considering for sale that had vacancy that we've seen, in some cases, some good leasing interest from tenants. And so we ended up changing some of the assumptions to other assets that have more kind of stabilized occupancy.

是的。這是資產組合的變化。如你所說，中點沒有改變。我們原本考慮出售的少數幾項資產存在空置，但我們看到在某些情況下租戶有不錯的承租興趣。因此我們調整了一些假設，改以其他入住率較為穩定的資產為主。

The ultimate mix we gave a broader range this time around of 75% to 90% for both core, noncore as well as joint venture. So that's really where the change in the mix will come in that component, and we should be able to have more color on what that looks like over the, I would say, hopefully, over the next quarter or two.

這次我們給出的最終組合範圍更廣，核心、非核心以及合資項目三者合計的占比區間為 75% 至 90%。因此，組合的變化主要會出現在這個部分；我想我們應該能在接下來一到兩季提供更具體的說明。

And my second question is about the leasing into the entertainment studio for the Arsenal lease. Just curious about that type of exit opportunity of reaching the demand that's in the market and maybe being an alternative use. How much of the near-term or line of sight leasing is potentially for this alternate use versus life science?

我的第二個問題是關於 Arsenal 租約中出租給娛樂工作室的那筆租賃。我想了解這類退出機會：觸及市場上的需求、並可能作為替代用途。在近期或可見度較高的租賃中，有多少可能是這種替代用途，而非生命科學用途？

Well, yes, Farrell, this is Joel. The entertainment tenant was an existing tenant, and it was a renewal given the fact that rental rates for that type of space have come down in the area. So it seemed prudent to renew a tenant in hand rather than empty out the space and reposition it or whatever. So it wasn't a new use that was already there, and that's an asset that we've owned for probably 20 years. But I think you see through a number 311 Arsenal, we've had very good activity with a range of advanced technology companies where we can utilize the space at a less CapEx investment.

好的，Farrell，我是 Joel。這位娛樂類租戶原本就是既有租戶，這次是續約，因為該區域此類空間的租金水準已下滑。因此，相較於把空間清空再重新定位或進行其他處理，續租手上既有租戶看起來更為審慎。所以這不是新的用途，原本就已存在；而且這項資產我們大概持有了 20 年。不過我認為你也看到，透過 311 Arsenal，我們在多家先進科技公司方面有非常好的活動量，我們可以用較低的資本支出（CapEx）投入來利用該空間。

Rental rates are not as buoyant as lab, but those represent good opportunities. So it really depends on the location, the type of space. It's hard to generalize.

租金水準不如實驗室空間那麼強勁，但這些仍代表不錯的機會。所以這真的取決於地點與空間類型。很難一概而論。

Seth Bergey, Citi.

Seth Bergey，Citi。

It's Nick on for Seth. Just given the FDA leadership uncertainty in NIH budget pressures, have you seen any behavioral changes on the private biotech tenant side around expansion decisions or sublease activity or requests for lease modifications?

我是代 Seth 提問的 Nick。鑑於 FDA 領導層的不確定性以及 NIH 預算壓力，你們是否在民營生技租戶端看到任何行為改變，例如擴張決策、轉租活動，或提出租約修改的要求？

Well, on the private side, I think we've said that venture has continued to raise money and deploy that money. They've done it in a much more judicious fashion than during, obviously, the bull market run of the last decade and then kind of the rocket ship of COVID just given market conditions and the fact that you can't -- some companies can execute an IPO, but it's pretty difficult. But overall, I think that the FDA impact of the private side is really more impactful on the public markets, but they do obviously impact the private markets in the sense of confidence in raising the money.

嗯，在民營端，我想我們之前提過，創投仍持續募資並投入資金。相較於過去十年明顯的多頭行情、以及在 COVID 期間那種「火箭式」的成長，他們在目前市場環境下的資金部署更為審慎；此外，因為市場狀況使然，你不可能——有些公司可以完成 IPO，但這相當困難。但整體而言，FDA 的影響在民營端其實對公開市場更為顯著；不過它們確實也會影響民營市場，因為會影響募資信心。

But I don't know, Jenna, any comments you want to make?

不過我不確定，Jenna，你有什麼想補充的評論嗎？

I think that's right. I think overall FDA uncertainty as far as policy is concerned, changes, I mean, obviously, there are something that the FDA has tried to do an announcement in trying to expedite regulatory review processes and the like, which is hopefully net positive for the industry, but that's not really playing out, as Joel mentioned, on the private side as yet public for kind of contending with that a bit more.

我認為是這樣。我認為整體而言，就政策面來說，FDA 的不確定性、變動——我的意思是，顯然 FDA 有嘗試發布公告，想要加速法規審查流程等等，這希望對產業而言是淨正面，但目前在民間端還沒有真正反映出來；正如 Joel 提到的，公開市場那邊則在某種程度上更需要去因應這些情況。

That's helpful. And then just curious any changes to the current tenant watch list relative to kind of the past few quarters?

這很有幫助。另外也想請教，相較於過去幾季，目前的租戶觀察名單（tenant watch list）有任何變化嗎？

Yes. Marc, you could comment on that.

有。Marc，你可以回應一下。

Yes. Look, we continue to evaluate tenants really on a kind of one by one, tenant-by-tenant basis. I will say at the beginning of the year or really at our Investor Day, I think we had identified something around $23 million. That number has crept up in terms of a reserve for wind downs or tenant failure that number today is somewhere in that $25 million to $30 million range. And it's through a variety of tenants, both private and public biotech as well as the kind of the ancillary type tenants, the revenue kind of producing tenants that also service those types of tenants as well.

好的。你看，我們仍然是以逐一檢視、逐租戶評估的方式來評估租戶。我會說在年初、或者說在我們的投資人日（Investor Day），我記得我們辨識出大約 2,300 萬美元。那個數字在作為停業（wind downs）或租戶倒閉的準備金（reserve）方面已經略為上升，目前大約落在 2,500 萬到 3,000 萬美元之間。而這涵蓋各式各樣的租戶，包括民營與上市的生技公司，以及一些周邊類型的租戶——也就是那些能帶來收入、同時也服務這類租戶的租戶。

Yes. I think, Seth, if you look at the -- just one comment on that. If you look at the current environment over the last, say, year or as distinguished from historical biotech. This is the first time that companies have really more owners have more aggressively, not at the public level, but at the private level, try to combine companies or wind down companies that they feel that the opportunities for the marketplace just aren't there. And so that's just part of capital discipline and the judiciousness with which people are watching dollars, again, given tight public capital markets.

是的。Seth，我想如果你看——就這點補充一句。如果你看過去大概一年左右的現況，並與歷史上的生技產業相比。這是第一次，公司背後的所有人（owners）在民營端（不是公開市場層級）更積極地嘗試合併公司或讓公司停業，因為他們認為市場上的機會已經不存在。因此這只是資本紀律的一部分，以及在公開資本市場緊縮的情況下，人們更審慎地看待資金使用的方式。

So that's the big change, I think, that we've seen compared to historical.

所以我認為，這就是我們相較於過去所看到的最大變化。

Ronald Kamdem, Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley 的 Ronald Kamdem。

I was looking through some of the disclosure on the expirations, which were really helpful in terms of -- I think there were some added expirations coming in 2027 versus prior I guess my question is, as we're sort of putting it all in the blender, and you're thinking on a same-store basis, it seems likely that 2027 could be down similar magnitude as 2026, given it's a pretty similar setup with the exploration level. Is that a fair way to think about it? Or just what breadcrumbs would you provide for that?

我在看你們對到期（expirations）的部分揭露，這在——我覺得很有幫助；我想相較於之前，你們在 2027 年新增了一些到期項目。我的問題是，當我們把這些因素都放進同一個攪拌機裡思考，並以同店（same-store）基礎來看，考量到到期水位（expiration level）的配置相當類似，2027 年看起來可能會像 2026 年一樣下滑、幅度也差不多。這樣理解合理嗎？或者你們會提供哪些線索（breadcrumbs）讓我們判斷？

Yes. So I'll ask Marc to come in, but maybe just from a topside view, I think we're not -- it's so early in the year, and so much can change. Just look at what changed last year from inauguration through the year was kind I couldn't believe the impact of the industry. It's pretty clear that yes, number one, we can't give '27 guidance at the moment. And number two, I think we're hopeful, as you see from some of the, if you call them breadcrumbs, but the movement in leasing, whether it be for life science or alternative advanced technology to be gaining some good foothold there, and I think that gives us hope that we can address some of these. As I said, one of our key elements to the path forward is increase occupancy and hence NOI.

是的。我會請 Marc 補充，不過先從較高層次的角度來看，我認為我們——現在才年初，變數還很多。看看去年從就任（inauguration）到年底的變化，我簡直不敢相信對產業的影響。很清楚的是，第一，我們目前無法提供 2027 年的指引（guidance）。第二，我們也抱持希望；你從一些——如果你稱之為線索（breadcrumbs）——但從租賃（leasing）的動向來看，不論是生命科學或替代性的先進技術（alternative advanced technology），都開始取得一些不錯的立足點，我認為這讓我們有信心可以處理其中一些問題。如我所說，我們前進路徑中的關鍵要素之一，就是提高入住率（occupancy），進而提升 NOI。

But Marc, any comments you want to make?

不過 Marc，你有什麼想補充的嗎？

Yes. Just as Joel said, we're not ready to give guidance for '27, but certainly, you're right that there's some expirations that we expect to have downtime. But a lot of the ultimate answer to the question is how quickly can we lease up vacant space, lease up the developments, et cetera to blend into an occupancy number that makes sense. And a lot will really just depend on where the industry goes and a lot of these kind of macro factors. But we'll continue to lease, and I hope, continue to outperform in terms of capturing the amount of demand.

有。就像 Joel 說的，我們還沒準備好提供 2027 年的指引，但你說得沒錯，確實有一些到期我們預期會出現空置期（downtime）。但這個問題的最終答案，很大一部分取決於我們能多快把空置空間租出去、把開發案租出去等等，並把這些因素融合成一個合理的入住率數字。而很多也真的取決於產業走向，以及這些宏觀因素。但我們會持續推進租賃，也希望在掌握需求量方面能持續跑贏。

Yes. A couple of examples that Mark mentioned 311 Arsenal and 3000 Minuteman are really good examples of that where we were having chronic vacancy and figuring out the strategy that we wanted to go forward whether it is hold in lease, whether it's reposition, whether it's disposition, et cetera. And I think just those incremental achievements this quarter have been positive. So that just gives you a little bit of the change we're seeing.

是的。Mark 提到的幾個例子，311 Arsenal 和 3000 Minuteman，就是很好的例子；那裡我們一直有長期空置的問題，並在思考接下來要採取的策略——不論是持有並出租（hold and lease）、重新定位（reposition）、出售（disposition）等等。我認為本季這些逐步的進展都是正面的。所以這也讓你稍微看到我們正在看到的一些變化。

My second question was just on the dispositions. It sounds like there's a little bit of a pivot away from some of the more vacant assets I think you said you're considering JVs now. I guess my question is, is there also a change in sort of pricing expectations? And is there any sort of market concentrations where you're seeing more or less traction?

我的第二個問題是關於處分（dispositions）。聽起來你們有點從一些空置較多的資產轉向——我想你提到你們現在在考慮合資（JVs）。我的問題是，你們對價格的預期是否也有所改變？另外，在市場集中度方面，有沒有哪一些市場你們看到較多或較少的進展（traction）？

Yes. So I'll ask Peter to comment, but let me say, in general, I think any mix, and Marc has kind of given you the mixing bowl and there's a slide in the pre-supp read it's very dependent upon traction of leasing and where we see leasing progress, especially if we can lease for lower CapEx and get quicker NOI realization, we're going to pivot on that particular asset in a positive way. That doesn't mean that someday we would hold the asset indefinitely, we might choose to sell it. But I think that's been the key driver.

有。我會請 Peter 回應，不過我先說，整體而言，任何組合——Marc 也跟你提過這個「混合碗」的概念，而且在事前簡報（pre-supp read）裡有一張投影片——都非常取決於租賃的進展，以及我們在哪些資產上看到租賃進度；特別是如果我們能以較低的資本支出（CapEx）完成出租，並更快實現 NOI，我們就會在該資產上做出正向的策略轉向。這不代表我們會永遠持有該資產；未來某個時點我們也可能選擇出售。但我認為這一直是關鍵驅動因素。

But Peter, just a comment or two on the transaction market.

不過 Peter，請就交易市場補充一兩點。

Yes. We have just found that there's a good amount of core type capital in the market that's looking for high-quality assets. So we wanted to leverage that. We have found a way to do it through JVs. But I wanted to say that it doesn't mean that our noncore asset sales would suffer through because of that.

好的。我們發現市場上有相當多核心型（core type）的資金在尋找高品質資產。所以我們想要善用這一點。我們也找到透過合資（JVs）來做到的方法。但我也想說，這並不代表我們的非核心資產出售（noncore asset sales）會因此受到影響。

There's still a lot of people out there looking at those types of acquisitions as well. And everything that we have been marketing has been well received. And does have multiple people looking at it. So we've got a lot of confidence that we're going to hit our numbers despite the fact that we didn't do much this quarter, although we let people know that early. Anyway, yes, the amount of money from the core side that's coming into the market has really just allowed us to lower our cost of capital overall by doing some of these JVs.

市場上仍然有很多人在看這類型的收購。而我們正在推售（marketing）的所有資產都獲得良好回應。也確實有多方買家在評估。因此我們很有信心，即使本季我們沒有做太多交易——雖然我們也很早就讓大家知道——我們仍然會達成我們的目標數字。總之，是的，核心端資金進入市場的規模，確實讓我們能透過做一些合資（JVs）來降低整體資本成本（cost of capital）。

Anthony Paolone, JPMorgan.

JPMorgan 的 Anthony Paolone。

Joel, you mentioned the FDA and judicious capital markets as being some factors out there in the environment. But just what do you -- are there any other items that you think right now are impacting the demand for space? Has there been any change in sort of like the type of space folks want? Or this is just going to take a while to play out?

Joel，你提到 FDA 以及審慎的資本市場是目前環境中的一些因素。但你認為，現在還有其他哪些因素正在影響空間需求嗎？在大家想要的空間類型上，有沒有任何改變？還是說這只是需要一段時間才會逐步反映出來？

Well, I think the pinch points are a couple of pinch points. One is the turmoil at NIH, which caused a lot of -- certainly impacted us directly in a number of markets, and now that's easing up with the limitation on the indirect cost reimbursement that the NIH was doing and then kind of the NIH going to the Hill wanting a reduction in their budget, which I've never actually heard of anybody who would want to do that when the Senator or when Congress on both sides of the aisle are in favor of more or less fully funding the NIH.

嗯，我認為瓶頸點有幾個。其中一個是 NIH 的動盪，這在多個市場對我們造成了很大影響——當然也直接影響到我們；而現在隨著 NIH 對間接成本補助（reimbursement）的限制，以及 NIH 去國會山莊希望削減其預算——老實說我從沒聽過有人會想在參議員或國會兩黨都傾向於或多或少全額資助 NIH 的情況下，還想這麼做——這些情況正在緩和。

So that's early stage stuff. And hopefully, that gets worked out over time. I think there's some good positive there. But leadership is a problem. I think the FDA is a huge problem.

所以那是早期階段的事情。也希望隨著時間推移能夠解決。我認為那裡有一些正面的跡象。但領導層是一個問題。我認為 FDA 是一個巨大的問題。

Almost every day. There was just a release today that it looks like they may try to pull an approved drug off the market because the FDA claims that maybe there was some manipulation in data. So almost every day, you're getting a shock effect from the FDA, both at the leadership and at the core level. And I think that's very real because as people think about funding, whether it's preclinical or into the clinic, you've got to be mindful of time, cost and approvability. I think that another pinch point clearly is the capital markets.

幾乎每天都是如此。今天剛有一則公告，看起來他們可能會試圖把一款已獲核准的藥物撤出市場，因為 FDA 聲稱資料可能存在某種操弄。所以幾乎每天，你都會從 FDA 那裡受到衝擊效應，無論是在領導層面還是基層層面。我認為這非常真實，因為當人們考慮資金投入——不論是臨床前或進入臨床——你必須留意時間、成本與可核准性。我認為另一個明顯的瓶頸就是資本市場。

As I said, public biotech, whether they're preclinical or clinical, can't really finance, unless they've got data or a milestone, and that's kind of a killer situation, 0 public biotech leases this quarter to the leading franchise is unheard of.

如我所說，上市生技公司，不管是臨床前或臨床階段，除非已經有數據或里程碑，否則基本上無法融資；這種情況相當致命。本季領先品牌的上市生技租賃為 0，這是前所未聞的。

And then I think finally, there is the China effect, which a lot of capital is flowing to China for perceived ease of timeframes and cost. I think that ultimately is going to backfire like a lot of offshoring that has taken place because Chinese data is not going to be allowed without going through a pretty rigorous FDA approvability and oversight, but I think there -- a lot of people are trying to get drugs into the clinic in China and then bring them over.

最後，我認為還有「中國效應」：大量資金流向中國，因為大家認為那裡的時程與成本更有利。我認為最終這會像過去許多離岸外包一樣反噬，因為中國的數據若不經過相當嚴格的 FDA 核准性審查與監督，是不會被允許採用的；但我認為——很多人正試著先在中國把藥物推進臨床，然後再把它們帶回來。

And so that certainly impacted, I think, space. So I think all those factors together have made it a much more challenging operating environment. But Todd Young, who's Senator from Indiana has got a bill and an effort to try to curtail some of this craziness with China, it's a little bit about how we offshored autos and steel over the last many decades and then realized that, boy, you can't do that or rare earth minerals. You can't leave them in the hands of a potential adversary. So I think there will be congressional action it probably will come after the midterms, unfortunately, just because there's so much controversy, but I think it will happen because this is a critical industry, and we continue to lead the world.

因此我認為這確實影響了（產業）空間。所以我認為這些因素加總起來，使得營運環境變得更具挑戰。不過，印第安納州參議員 Todd Young 提出了一項法案並推動相關努力，試圖遏止與中國相關的某些亂象；這有點像我們在過去幾十年把汽車與鋼鐵外移，後來才發現，天啊，你不能這麼做——或像稀土礦物一樣。你不能把它們留在潛在對手手中。所以我認為國會會採取行動；不幸的是，可能要等到期中選舉之後才會發生，因為爭議太多，但我認為它會發生，因為這是一個關鍵產業，而我們仍持續領先全球。

But the fact is China is a powerhouse and their government has poured immeasurable resources into this while we're kind of in disarray at the moment, which is unfortunate. But I think we'll get our act together here.

但事實是，中國是一個強權，他們的政府已投入難以估量的資源，而我們目前有點混亂，這很不幸。但我認為我們會把事情理順。

Okay. That's real helpful. And then just second one on 421 Park Drive. I just -- I didn't quite what the considerations or what the options were as you evaluate that? Because I think there's a little bit of leasing there, but it could tell if it was a change in use or I just want to understand it a bit better.

好的。這非常有幫助。接著第二個問題是關於 421 Park Drive。我只是——我不太清楚你們在評估那個案子時的考量或選項是什麼？因為我想那裡有一些出租，但我不確定是否涉及用途變更；我只是想更了解一些。

Yes. So 421 is state-of-the-art lab. It is sold several floors of that on a condo basis to a major institution in Boston and the rest remains for lease or for sale in the sense of a condominium kind of situation. But the NIH 15% kind of brought a halt to almost all demand, certainly in the Boston area and to some extent across the country. Now that, that has been overturned in the circuit courts and the administration has not chosen to fight it.

是的。所以 421 是最先進的實驗室。我們已以共管（condo）方式把其中幾個樓層出售給波士頓的一家大型機構，其餘部分仍可出租或出售——也就是以類似共管權益的方式。但 NIH 的 15%（政策）幾乎讓所有需求都停擺，尤其是在波士頓地區，在全國某種程度上也是如此。現在該政策已在巡迴上訴法院被推翻，而政府也選擇不再抗辯。

I think the path forward there likely will be institutional leasing or sale of condominium interest. So we're waiting for that to kind of evolve. I don't think we would pivot to another use there, likely, I mean it could be office from one with Medical Center or the Fenway, there is a huge amount of medical-related office demand there. And so that's a possibility, but we feel pretty good about the future there now that the 15% issue has kind of gone by the wayside. It will just take a little bit of time.

我認為那裡未來的路徑很可能是機構型租賃或出售共管權益。所以我們正在等待它逐步發展。我認為我們不太可能把那裡轉作其他用途；我的意思是，它也可能變成辦公室——從 Longwood Medical Center 或 Fenway 的角度來看，那裡對醫療相關辦公室的需求非常大。因此這是一種可能性，但現在 15% 的問題已經逐漸淡出，我們對那裡的前景感覺相當不錯。只是需要一點時間。

Jim Kammert, Evercore.

Jim Kammert，Evercore。

Joel and team, pardon my ignorance, what do you define as advanced technology tenants? And I'm just trying to get a sense of maybe not your tenants, but what were those industries or tenants representatively be. And what would sort of be the tenants of that sort in the market across your three primary Boston, San Diego, San Francisco markets?

Joel 和團隊，恕我無知，你們如何定義「先進科技」租戶？我想了解的也許不是你們現有租戶，而是代表性來說，那些產業或租戶會是哪些。以及在你們三個主要市場——波士頓、聖地牙哥、舊金山——市場上，這類租戶大概會是哪些？

Well, a lot of that is secret sauce. But let me say, I think an example and you guys were just there at Campus Point when you did the tour with us, that campus holds -- primarily we're delivering the Bristol-Myers West Coast research headquarters hub. We're working -- we just broke ground on Novartis, and there's a lot of early-stage biotech there. But the campus, in addition to being heavily big pharma, is heavily advanced technology. Two tenants really make up maybe 25% of the rent roll there.

嗯，其中很多算是商業機密。但我可以說，舉個例子——你們剛在 Campus Point 跟我們一起參觀過——那個園區主要承載的是我們正在交付的百時美施貴寶（Bristol-Myers）西岸研發總部樞紐。我們也正在推進——剛為諾華（Novartis）動工，另外那裡也有很多早期生技公司。但該園區除了大型藥廠比重很高之外，先進科技的比重也很高。其中兩個租戶合計可能占那裡租金收入的約 25%。

One is Amazon, this is not a fulfillment or a distribution. This is part of -- I really can't say what part of Amazon, but it is a a very sophisticated and research-oriented part of Amazon, and they've been there for quite a long time. And then we did a build-to-suit on that on that property. I think we showed you the buildings or the building several storeys of brand-new office for Leidos who does -- they manufacture the advanced screening technology at airports, et cetera. And then we built several floors of SCIF space below that.

其中一個是 Amazon；這不是履約或配送中心。這是 Amazon 的——我真的不能說是哪一個部門——但它是一個非常精密、以研究為導向的部門，而且他們在那裡已經很久了。而且我們在那個物業上為其做了量身打造（build-to-suit）。我想我們也帶你們看過那棟或那些建築：為 Leidos 打造的、好幾層全新的辦公空間；Leidos 主要做——他們製造機場等場所使用的先進安檢篩查技術等。此外我們在其下方又建了好幾層的 SCIF 空間。

So we consider both the Amazon use and the Leidos use as advanced technology uses. So advanced technology is pretty broad. We've been involved in it since. I mean, we did Google, although Google is not necessarily an office or a lab type tenant, although we've released to some of their subsidiaries, laboratory would be advanced technology is a pretty broad definition. But I don't necessarily on a public call get into how we view this and how we're trying to position some of our spaces because obviously it's a highly competitive marketplace. But the demand there is large, and the funding there is large.

所以我們把 Amazon 的用途與 Leidos 的用途都視為先進科技用途。因此「先進科技」的範圍其實很廣。我們從很早以前就參與其中。我的意思是，我們也做過 Google，雖然 Google 不一定是典型的辦公或實驗室型租戶——不過我們也把一些空間租給他們的子公司；實驗室也會屬於先進科技，所以這個定義很廣。但在公開電話會議上，我不一定會深入談我們如何看待這一塊、以及我們如何嘗試為部分空間做定位，因為顯然這是一個高度競爭的市場。但那裡的需求很大，資金也很充足。

Very helpful. And then for a second question. As regards to the 4Q $140 million to $150 million run rate, does that contemplate at the lower end $3.7 billion potentially of capital recycling or more closer to the midpoint of $2.9 billion? Just trying to square some of our modeling assumptions.

非常有幫助。第二個問題。關於第四季 1.40 億到 1.50 億美元的 run rate，這個區間的低端是否已經納入可能達 37 億美元的資本回收（capital recycling），還是更接近中位數的 29 億美元？我只是想把我們的一些模型假設對齊。

Yes. Yes, sure. Yes. No, we did bring down that range, Jim, I think, at Investor Day that we gave a range of $4 billion to $5.5 billion, so $4.75 billion as the average amount of basis being capitalized for 4Q '26, we brought that range down by about $200 million. That's kind of where we expect things -- expecting to fall out. Obviously, things can change, but that's our best guess for now.

是的。是的，當然。是的。不，我們確實把那個區間下調了，Jim，我想在投資人日我們給的是 40 億美元到 55 億美元的區間，所以以 47.5 億美元作為 2026 年第四季資本化基礎的平均金額，我們把那個區間下調了大約 2 億美元。大概就是我們預期會落在的水準——預期會是這樣的結果。當然，事情可能會改變，但這是我們目前最好的猜測。

Yes, let me just say one other thing. So Jim, One thing that we've mentioned over and over is for a variety of technologies, we call them advance, but it's a broad range of technologies. There are needs for highly secure spaces, heavy floor loading capacity, very enhanced HVAC systems except that there's a bunch of, I think, even Hallie a quarter or two kind of highlighted some of that. So we're particularly interested in that kind of an advanced technology tenant, not just a same office AI kind of tenant, we wouldn't really consider that in the same category. So if that's helpful, sorry.

是的，我再補充一點。所以 Jim，我們一再提到的一點是，針對各式各樣的技術，我們稱之為先進技術，但其實涵蓋的技術範圍很廣。這些技術需要高度安全的空間、很高的樓板承重能力、非常強化的 HVAC 系統等等，我想甚至 Hallie 在一兩季前也有稍微強調過其中一些。所以我們特別感興趣的是這類先進技術的租戶，而不只是一般辦公室裡做 AI 的那種租戶，我們不會把那類租戶視為同一個類別。如果這樣有幫助的話，抱歉。

Vikram Malhotra, Mizuho.

Vikram Malhotra，Mizuho。

I guess just I wanted to go back to that $140 million to $150 million run rate. I know you said that was sort of our best guess. But you revised the guide now a couple of times. And I guess I'm trying to figure out like at this point, is that truly the $140 million bottom. What's maybe the biggest variable in your mind that could push that $140 million lower, and just to clarify, is that $140 million sort of the initial run rate going into '27?

我想我只是想回到那個 1.4 億到 1.5 億美元的運行率。我知道你說那算是我們目前最好的猜測。但你們現在已經把指引修正了幾次。我想我試著理解的是，到這個時間點，那 1.4 億美元是否真的是底部。你心目中最大的變數是什麼，可能會把那個 1.4 億美元再往下推？另外想確認一下，那 1.4 億美元是否是進入 2027 年的初始運行率？

Yes. So I'll let Mark answer that, but I think you have to remember, we give you our best judgment based on facts and circumstances as we know it at the quarter end point in time. And obviously, things change a lot. I mean imagine what happened first quarter of '26 when the leadership and nature of health and human services changed dramatically with the appointment there last year. So -- and then tariffs came shortly thereafter.

是的。我先讓 Mark 回答，不過我想你得記得，我們是基於在季度結束時點我們所掌握的事實與情況，提供我們最好的判斷。而且很明顯，事情變化很大。想像一下 2026 年第一季發生的事，隨著去年那項任命，衛生與公共服務部門的領導與性質出現了劇烈變化。所以——然後不久之後又出現了關稅。

So you can only make a best judgment based on this time and space. So we'll update quarterly. But Marc, you can answer the question.

所以你只能在當下的時間與情境下做出最佳判斷。我們會按季更新。不過 Marc，你可以回答這個問題。

Vikram. So yes, cap interest is one of those drivers. That's the one that drove the number down by around $0.05 from kind of the last time we updated that number at Investor Day. I mean in terms of areas that we're focused on or risk factors, I mean, the couple that come to mind is we've got to execute on the disposition plan. As Peter said, we're very focused on that.

Vikram。所以是的，資本化利息是其中一個驅動因素。這就是相較於我們上次在投資人日更新該數字時，讓數字下調大約 0.05 美元的原因。至於我們關注的領域或風險因素，我想到的幾個是：我們必須執行資產處分計畫。如 Peter 所說，我們非常專注在這件事上。

And and I think are feeling incrementally more confident on our ability to execute there. And then tenant wind downs can sometimes be unpredictable that number -- as I think I mentioned earlier on the call, had grown from kind of a reserve number of $23 million to something closer to $25 million to $30 million, but we've continued to work through that. So those are a couple of the things that we're watching closely, but the $1.45 midpoint is our best estimate at this point from what we know.

而且我想我們對於在那方面的執行能力，正逐步更有信心。另外，租戶退租／結束營運有時候難以預測——那個數字，如我在電話會議前面提到的，已從大約 2,300 萬美元的準備金數字，增加到更接近 2,500 萬到 3,000 萬美元，但我們仍在持續處理。所以這是我們密切觀察的幾件事，不過 1.45 的中點是基於目前所知、我們此刻的最佳估計。

Okay. Great. And I just wanted to touch on -- get your thoughts on two topics. One, more specific to G&A, sort of given the dispositions that you've embarked on for a while and now perhaps next two years. Is there simultaneously maybe a relook at G&A to cut that further over the next two years, both sort of core G&A, but also performance based?

好的。很好。我還想就兩個主題請教你們的看法。第一個比較針對 G&A，鑑於你們已經進行一段時間、而且接下來兩年可能還會持續的資產處分。是否也會同步重新檢視 G&A，在未來兩年進一步削減，包括核心 G&A 以及績效型的部分？

And then second, do you mind just touching on the topic of AI and square footage needs. There's a lot of debate on is the lab to office ratio changing? Is the total square footage potentially changing. But any anecdotes from your tenant base on their use of AI and what that means for future space would be helpful.

第二個，能否談談 AI 與面積需求的議題。市場上有很多討論：實驗室與辦公室的比例是否在改變？總面積是否可能改變。但如果你們能分享一些來自租戶的案例，談他們如何使用 AI，以及這對未來空間意味著什麼，會很有幫助。

So maybe, Marc, do you want to take number one, and then maybe Jenna and I will address two.

那也許 Marc 你先回答第一題，然後第二題可能由 Jenna 和我來回應。

Sure. Yes. We've been -- in terms of G&A, we've obviously been focused on really managing G&A very carefully for many years. We had a big reduction last year that had $50-plus million of savings and we've been highlighting for a while that some of that wouldn't necessarily continue into '26, but still a meaningful improvement. Part of that has been some restructure of the comp plans there was certainly some forfeited comp for some of the executives last year.

好的。是的。就 G&A 而言，我們顯然多年來一直非常專注於謹慎管理 G&A。去年我們大幅削減，節省了超過 5,000 萬美元；我們也已經強調一段時間，其中一部分不一定會延續到 2026 年，但仍會有顯著改善。其中一部分來自薪酬方案的重整；去年部分高階主管也確實有放棄部分薪酬。

And so we -- look, we continue to do what's right for the organization and put people in the right positions to succeed. And so we continue to make sure we got the right people on the bus, and I think we have an outstanding team. I don't know if you want to add anything else there, Joel.

所以我們——你看，我們會持續做對組織最正確的事，並把人放在能成功的正確位置上。因此我們會持續確保找對人上車，我認為我們有一支非常出色的團隊。Joel，你還想補充什麼嗎？

No, I think it was good. So on AI and were footage, I think it's fair to say that I made remarks in my commentary, and I would add to that. We haven't seen any tenant -- not to my knowledge, and I've got pretty good insight into tenants across the portfolio who've come to us and said, gee, we want to reduce because of AI. We just haven't seen that, and we don't have back office space that would be highly susceptible to that. On the other hand, we haven't seen people come to us and say, gee, we're expanding because of AI, and we're ready to do that generally.

沒有，我覺得說得很好。至於 AI 與面積，我想可以說我在我的評論裡已經提過一些，我再補充一下。我們沒有看到任何租戶——至少據我所知，而我對整個投資組合的租戶情況掌握得相當清楚——來跟我們說，因為 AI 所以想縮減面積。我們確實沒有看到這種情況，而且我們也沒有那種很容易受影響的後勤辦公空間。另一方面，我們也沒有看到有人來跟我們說，因為 AI 所以要擴張，而且一般來說已準備好這麼做。

I mean those it's just too early, and I kind of laid out the experts in view of this area, not Joel or Alexandria, but I think what I said in my earlier commentary rings true. But Jenna from the ground -- on the ground, bots comments of what you're seeing there.

我的意思是，現在還太早了；我也在先前的評論中提到這個領域的專家觀點——不是 Joel 或 Alexandria，而是我認為我先前說的仍然成立。不過 Jenna 從第一線——在現場——你可以談談你看到的情況。

Happy to. Hello, everyone. So as Joel mentioned, we're really not seeing material changes from AI on the ground in terms of tenant demand and the specificity of which they need in terms of lab office ratios shifting at this point we're just not seeing. And part of the reason why, because as Joel mentioned, we are still inter early innings of the impact on drug discovery and development. Joel mentioned 37 trillion human body, biology is so massively complex.

很樂意。各位好。如 Joel 所提到的，就第一線觀察而言，我們確實沒有看到 AI 對租戶需求帶來重大的變化，也沒有看到他們在實驗室與辦公室比例需求上出現明確的轉移，目前就是沒有看到。部分原因是，如 Joel 所說，我們仍處於 AI 對藥物發現與開發影響的非常早期階段。Joel 提到人體有 37 兆個細胞，生物學極其複雜。

And certainly, disease pathophysiology, we just don't understand it enough to apply an AI layer to make it completely off on a test. We're very far from that.

而且確實，就疾病的病理生理機制而言，我們還不夠理解到能套用一層 AI 就讓它在測試中完全奏效。我們離那一步還非常遠。

So AI certainly cannot replace physical experimentation or validation in a lab. So what we are seeing, and we hope because the opportunity set is so large with 10,000 diseases and only 10% addressed, many of them with not even adequate treatment is that we hope that AI will have value in compressing time lines, increasing efficiencies and reducing costs and really recovering lost institutional knowledge. So that is kind of where we're starting to see take place and some of our companies are fully starting to incorporate AI into lab workflows in this lab in a loop type fashion, where they'll generate in silico knowledge, and then they will test it in biological systems within the lab.

因此，AI 當然無法取代在實驗室中的實體實驗或驗證。我們所看到的是——也希望如此，因為機會集合非常龐大：有 10,000 種疾病，但只有 10% 被涵蓋；其中許多甚至連足夠的治療都沒有——我們希望 AI 能在壓縮時程、提升效率、降低成本，以及真正找回流失的機構知識方面創造價值。這大概就是我們開始看到正在發生的事情；我們的一些公司也已經開始把 AI 全面納入實驗室工作流程，以一種「實驗室迴圈（lab-in-the-loop）」的方式運作：先產生 in silico（電腦模擬）知識，然後在實驗室內的生物系統中進行測試。

So again, as far as AI's impact and we should not reiterate this enough in terms of AI's impact on real estate demand and also kind of in the types of space right now, it really remains neutral. Certainly, if AI really does bear the promise of allowing one company to increase the number of targeted experiments that can run at one time, a lot requirements may increase. you may have some issues where you have more distributed AI going on. We just don't know yet. But certainly, we're really not seeing a shift.

所以再說一次，就 AI 的影響而言——尤其是 AI 對不動產需求的影響，以及目前對空間類型的影響——它基本上仍然是中性的。當然，如果 AI 真的能兌現承諾，讓一家公司在同一時間能增加可執行的目標實驗數量，那麼空間需求可能會增加；也可能會出現更多分散式 AI 的情況。我們現在還不知道。但可以確定的是，我們確實沒有看到任何轉變。

So we really want to get that message across today.

所以我們今天非常希望把這個訊息傳達清楚。

Rich Anderson, Cantor Fitzgerald.

Rich Anderson，Cantor Fitzgerald。

I'll keep it to one question as we're getting long here. A while back, someone asked I think as Ronald asked about lease exploration activity in 2027, you rightfully said, I have given guidance at this point, but there is, call it, $0.55 of annual revenue related to that 1.5 million square feet. Is it prudent in your mind to -- for us to be assuming the entirety of that $97 million gets put into a delayed bucket of some sort as you look to re-lease that space? Or is there progress going to be made now in front of next year such that it may not be that draconian of event?

我就問一個問題，因為時間有點長了。前一陣子，有人問——我想是 Ronald 問的——關於 2027 年的租約到期活動；你當時很正確地說，你目前已經給了指引，但與那 150 萬平方英尺相關的年度營收大約是 0.55 美元。就你的看法，我們是否應該假設那 9,700 萬美元會全部被放進某種「延後認列」的桶子裡，因為你們要重新出租那些空間？還是說，在明年之前就會有進展，使得這件事不至於那麼嚴苛？

Yes. Marc, I'll ask you to respond.

是的。Marc，我請你回應。

Yes. Rich. So yes, if you're just talking about those expirations in a vacuum, Rich, we do expect there to be downtime on those particular spaces. -- we're making good progress, and I think we identified something like 35% or 36% of that, that we've got kind of early negotiations on. So obviously, we're going to try our best to beat the amount of downtime that we guided to there.

好的。Rich。是的，如果你只是把那些到期租約單獨拿出來看，Rich，我們確實預期那些特定空間會有空置期（downtime）。——不過我們進展不錯，我想我們已經在大約 35% 或 36% 的部分上，進入了某種早期談判階段。所以很明顯，我們會盡最大努力，讓實際空置期優於我們先前給出的指引。

to try to get revenue as soon as possible.

以便盡快取得營收。

But also, as I said, that's -- that also doesn't consider all the other things that we're focused on Obviously, we're focused on fill and vacant space today, in particular, kind of some of these developments with the alternative uses Joel mentioned in trying to convert things to revenue as soon as possible elsewhere in the portfolio to make up for that, but TBD.

但同時，如我所說，那——也沒有把我們正在聚焦的其他所有事情納入考量。很明顯，我們正專注於填補目前的空置空間；特別是 Joel 提到的一些替代用途開發，嘗試把某些項目轉換為營收，並在投資組合的其他地方盡快創造收入來彌補那部分，但仍有待觀察（TBD）。

Okay. Yes. And just real quick for you, Marc. The the assets that you are no longer selling that are -- that have some vacancy to them. you're holding on them because you're seeing some leasing success.

好的。是的。Marc，再很快問一下。你們不再出售的那些資產——那些仍有一些空置——你們選擇持有，是因為你們看到一些出租上的成功。

Is that a result of just the market coming towards you? Or is it a change of strategy for these assets, maybe bringing in tech type tenants? What has changed the narrative on those assets, whereby you're thinking about holding on to them now, where before you were considering selling them?

這是因為市場剛好朝你們的方向走嗎？還是這些資產的策略有所改變，例如引進科技類型的租戶？這些資產的敘事（narrative）發生了什麼變化，使得你們現在考慮持有，而之前你們在考慮出售？

Yes. Look, I can give you one example of a property that we had considered as a potential to be sold in San Diego, and Joel kind of alluded to this earlier, if there was ability to get near-term revenue and put in a reasonable amount of capital, we would certainly consider that. And the asset I'm thinking about was a big asset. It was 160,000 feet, and we've got somebody looking at that very closely right now. and it's a nice asset.

是的。你看，我可以舉一個例子：我們曾經考慮在聖地牙哥出售的一處物業；Joel 先前也提到，如果能在短期內取得營收、且投入合理的資本金額，我們當然會考慮那樣做。我想到的那個資產是一個大型資產。它有 16 萬平方英尺，而我們現在有一位潛在方正在非常仔細地評估它；而且那是一個很不錯的資產。

So I mean, it's really a consideration on an asset-by-asset basis. We didn't -- it wasn't like we just kind of said, okay, well, let's just sell less noncore assets. That wasn't the case. It was really asset by asset. Those assets that needed a lot of capital or where our mine is noncore kind of not really associated with the Megacampuses we're definitely assets.

所以我的意思是，這真的要逐一資產來評估。我們並不是——不是那種我們突然說「好吧，那我們就少賣一些非核心資產」。不是那樣。而是真的逐一資產來看。那些需要大量資本、或在我們看來屬於非核心、與大型園區（Megacampuses）關聯不大的資產，我們肯定仍會處置。

We're continuing to look to sell if it makes sense. And in some cases, when we saw good activity, we decided to pivot on those enough.

如果合理，我們會持續尋求出售。而在某些情況下，當我們看到良好的出租活動，我們就決定在那些資產上做出轉向。

Other yes, Rich, and that a good example would be, and it's in the list or has been in the list over time of under business and financial review, the Minuteman assets north of Boston, we signed a pretty big LOI there. And so that inherently changes less CapEx and quicker time to delivery, that then changes your calculus on what you want to do with such an asset. So it's very driven by, and in one case, there's life science use. In another case, it's advanced technology use, so it's not one use per se. It's -- it really depends on the market.

另外，是的，Rich，一個很好的例子是——而且它在名單上，或隨時間一直在名單上——也就是列為「營運與財務審查中」的波士頓北邊 Minuteman 資產；我們在那裡簽了一份相當大的 LOI（意向書）。因此，這在本質上意味著更少的資本支出（CapEx）與更快的交付時程，進而改變你對這類資產要怎麼做的計算方式。所以這非常取決於——在一個案例中是生命科學用途。在另一個案例中是先進科技用途，所以並不是某一種用途。而是——真的取決於市場。

Wes Golladay, Baird.

Wes Golladay，Baird。

We're now about five years past the COVID boom where tenants were funded on weaker science, and you did call out aggressive wind down. So just curious where are we at as far as winding down these COVID era tenants. Are we in the late innings?

我們現在距離 COVID 榮景已經大約五年了，當時有些租戶是在科學基礎較弱的情況下獲得資金，而你也提到「積極的收尾／結束營運（wind down）」。所以我想問的是：就這些 COVID 時期的租戶而言，我們在收尾進度上到哪裡了？我們是否已經進入比賽後段（late innings）？

That's a hard question to answer the way you framed it. I wouldn't call it COVID era tenants per se. I mean, I think maybe you're just referring to companies that got formed on the prospects of a really super buoyant market or something. But so many of these are really probably too much money flow to too many deals and both on the public and private side. So some of those naturally get wound down along the lines that you talked about.

用你這樣的表述，這個問題很難回答。我不會把它稱為「COVID 時期的租戶」本身。我的意思是，我想你可能是在指那些因為市場非常火熱、前景極度樂觀而成立的公司之類的。但其中很多其實更像是：不管在公開市場或私募市場，都有太多資金流向太多交易。所以其中一些就會如你所說，自然地沿著那條路徑被收尾。

But in today's market, the wind downs come from other things to the recognition that, okay, we're going after a particular disease, and it turns out somebody just hit a huge milestone. We feel we can't be first-in-class.

但在今天的市場，收尾也可能來自其他因素：例如意識到「好，我們在攻某個特定疾病，但結果有人剛達成一個重大里程碑」。我們覺得自己不可能成為同類首創（first-in-class）。

We're going to be a follower. And do we really want to put, if I'm a venture person, put our money into that. not a frontline therapy. So that's a calculus that comes into a lot of this as well or particular issues with you're seeing side effects or you're seeing this or that. So it's complicated.

我們只能成為跟隨者。那如果我是創投人士，我們真的還要把錢投進去嗎？畢竟不是第一線療法。所以這種盤算也會在很多情況中出現；或者你看到某些特定問題，例如副作用、或看到這個或那個。所以情況很複雜。

There are a lot of different reasons, not just Gee, we went after we just took advantage of kind of silly money during COVID times, and now we're just unwinding it. So it's more complicated than that.

原因很多，不只是「哎呀，我們在 COVID 時期趁著那種有點不理性的資金（silly money）撈了一把，現在就把它拆掉／收掉」。所以比那更複雜。

So I would add one thing to that. I think Joel exactly right, it's not that there's a flushing out of COVID companies per se. It's just in a capital constrained, a continuous capital constrained environment where the cost of capital is high, Boards and investors on both the public and private side are being that much more judicious about where they're spending their capital. And if companies don't have a strong line of sight on milestones or certainly they miss those milestones investors have to make decisions about where to allocate their capital. And so in this , that is really what is creating the decision making we may wind down a company or we may contract in terms of capital allocation, if not necessarily all these companies are built over COVID and now they're being flushed out.

所以我會再補充一點。我認為 Joel 說得完全正確，並不是說所謂的 COVID 公司本身正在被「沖刷出清」。而是在一個資本受限、且持續資本受限的環境中，資金成本很高，無論是上市或私募市場，董事會與投資人都會更審慎地決定把資本花在哪裡。如果公司對里程碑沒有很清楚的可見度，或更明顯地是未能達成那些里程碑，投資人就必須決定資本要如何配置。因此在這種情況下，真正促成決策的是：我們可能會讓一家公司收攤，或在資本配置上縮手；並不一定是因為這些公司都是在 COVID 期間建立、現在才被出清。

And then you did make the comment about no leases with public biotechs, but maybe you can talk about the pipeline of people touring that are public biotechs and are they just a little hesitant due to the macro environment?

另外你確實提到上市生技公司沒有租賃，但也許你可以談談目前來看、正在參觀的上市生技公司的管線情況？他們是否因為總體環境而有點猶豫？

Yes. I think that's probably a one quarter blip because I suspect we'll be back there during the second quarter with positive leasing, but it just goes to show that we've never seen that before. And as I say, that's a combination of a lot of factors that I've mentioned. But I think it's a one quarter blip. But still, the -- if you look at overall ARR from public biotech compared to the demand, that sector, and we said this continually over the last couple of year, quarters and years, that's the one sector that's most obviously lacking in demand.

是的。我認為那大概只是單一季度的短暫波動，因為我猜我們在第二季會回到正向租賃，但這也顯示我們以前從未見過這種情況。而且如我所說，這是我提到的許多因素綜合作用的結果。但我認為這只是單季的波動。不過，如果你看上市生技的整體 ARR 相對於需求，那個產業——而我們在過去幾年、幾個季度與年度都持續這麼說——是最明顯需求不足的那個產業。

And the primary reason is they can't -- unless you have good data or a critical milestone, you can't just go to the market and do a secondary offering just to extend your cash runway, really hard to do, both private and public.

主要原因是他們做不到——除非你有很好的數據或關鍵里程碑，否則你不可能只是為了延長現金跑道就到市場上做一次增發，這真的很難，不管是私募或上市公司都是如此。

John Kim, BMO Capital Markets.

John Kim，BMO Capital Markets。

On your second quarter leasing guidance of 900,000 to 950,000 square feet I was wondering how much visibility you have on that? And if you could provide some commentary on how much of that is new versus renewal versus new developments? And lastly, how big your leasing pipeline is overall beyond the second quarter?

關於你們第二季租賃的指標為 90 萬到 95 萬平方英尺，我想知道你們對此有多少能見度？以及你能否評論一下，其中有多少是新租、多少是續租、以及多少來自新開發案？最後，第二季之後你們整體的租賃管線規模有多大？

Yes. Number one, it's not guidance. It's just an indication based on activity and transaction work. And I don't think we will give any other comments on that at the moment. And we wouldn't give an indication of general direction unless we felt pretty comfortable, I'll say that.

是的。第一，這不是指引。這只是基於活動與交易推進工作所做的指示性說明。而我想我們目前不會再對此提供其他評論。而且除非我們覺得相當有把握，否則我們也不會給出任何一般方向性的暗示——我只能這麼說。

But until things are done, they're never done, as you know.

但在事情真正完成之前，它永遠都不算完成，你也知道。

Right. Capitalized interest your guidance implies $58 million run rate going forward. It looks like you are going to be capitalizing about 1/3 less assets by the fourth quarter. So simple math kind of suggests it would be about a $46 million by the fourth quarter. Is that math right?

了解。你們資本化利息的指引意味著未來的年化水準是 5,800 萬美元。看起來到第四季你們資本化的資產會少大約三分之一。所以簡單算一下，到了第四季大概會是 4,600 萬美元。這樣的算法對嗎？

Is that how we should be looking at capital interest as we head into 2027?

我們在邁向 2027 年時，應該用這種方式來看資本化利息嗎？

Yes, we're not giving guidance for '27, but Marc will give you some framework.

是的，我們不提供 2027 年的指引，但 Marc 會給你一些框架。

Yes. Yes. That's right. I mean -- if you look at the basis today, it's north of $6 billion basis that we're capping today. And we've said, okay, we think the second half comes down because we've got some big deliveries.

是的。是的。沒錯。我的意思是——如果你看目前的基礎，今天我們正在資本化的基礎金額超過 60 億美元。而我們也說過，好，我們認為下半年會下降，因為我們有一些大型交付。

There's the one big delivery in San Diego, and then we've got some assets that have got some milestones that are probably going to either be put on pause or in some cases, sold some of that land. And so we gave in our supplemental, we gave what we think that basis under capitalization is going to be in the fourth quarter, which was that kind of $4.5 billion or $4.6 billion of basis at the midpoint of that revised range for the fourth quarter.

其中有一個在聖地牙哥的大型交付，另外我們也有一些資產有里程碑，可能會被暫停，或在某些情況下出售部分土地。因此我們在補充資料中提供了我們認為到第四季、在資本化之下的基礎金額會是多少，也就是在第四季修正後區間中點，大約 45 億或 46 億美元的基礎。

And then we tried to give folks a sense of what -- how much basis is out there that has milestones in 2027. Some of that is land, and we broke that out very carefully in our supplemental, some of its land and then some of it is the -- are these kind of five assets that we've been highlighting that we're -- we characterized it as evaluating business and financial strategy. There are some milestones related with those assets that's in the early part of 2027. Those are being capitalized today. The big one is 421 Park.

然後我們也試著讓大家了解：外面還有多少基礎金額在 2027 年有里程碑。其中一部分是土地，我們在補充資料中非常仔細地把它拆分出來；有些是土地，另外一些則是——就是我們一直在強調的那五個資產——我們將其描述為正在評估商業與財務策略。這些資產有一些相關里程碑落在 2027 年初。它們目前正在被資本化。最大的一個是 421 Park。

And that will -- we don't know what's going to happen there. It will -- a lot of it will just depend on the demand and how quickly we can lease up that project. But -- so that's about as best as I can frame it for you at this point.

而那裡——我們不知道會發生什麼。很大一部分將取決於需求，以及我們能多快把該專案租滿。不過——所以就目前而言，我能給你的框架大概就到這裡。

Michael Carroll, RBC Capital Markets.

Michael Carroll，RBC Capital Markets。

Marc, I wanted to circle back on those five projects that ARE is evaluating for a potential change in the business strategy. Like what are the exact options here? Is it you're going to build it for a different use like advanced technologies? And then if that doesn't work, then you're going to like keep it kind of as is waiting for a better market to pursue those projects. So it's lease it as a different use or hold off until a better market?

Marc，我想回到 ARE 正在評估、可能改變商業策略的那五個專案。具體的選項是什麼？是你們會把它改建成不同用途，例如先進科技用途嗎？如果那行不通，你們就會維持現狀、等待更好的市場再推進這些專案嗎？所以是「改作不同用途出租」或「延後到市場更好再做」？

Are those the two options that you're analyzing?

這是你們正在分析的兩個選項嗎？

Yes, Michael. So I mean I think for most of these assets, it is considering whether we pivot away from a traditional lab use to some type of advanced technology use or other interested parties that would find kind of the nature of those buildings very interesting for other uses other than laboratory. So that's most of the assets 311 Arsenal Street. We mentioned, we've seen some activity there from those types of uses I think we signed 80-plus thousand of LOIs for that, 40 Silvan, similar bucket, 3,000 minute man we actually did sign a big LOI for nonlaboratory use there.

是的，Michael。我的意思是，我認為對於大多數這些資產而言，我們在考慮是否從傳統實驗室用途轉向某種先進科技用途，或其他對這些建築特性很感興趣、且會將其用於非實驗室用途的對象。這涵蓋了大多數資產，例如 311 Arsenal Street。我們提到過，我們在那裡看到一些這類用途的活動；我想我們已簽了超過 8 萬平方英尺的 LOI；40 Silvan 也屬於類似類別；3,000 Minuteman 我們其實也簽了一份大型的非實驗室用途 LOI。

So the pivot -- the potential pivot there is -- on most of those assets is for other types of uses. But as Joel mentioned, we could also consider these as potential sale candidates down the road. 421 was the one that was a little uniquely different than the others, where we could consider condo interest or that that asset could go off is, I suppose, but it is intended to be a lab building. But all these assets are -- have -- we've got a little bit of a little bit of time here, but we're running up on milestones where we would need to make decisions or capitalized interest would turn off. And those milestones are coming up on average kind of early part of next year.

所以，所謂的轉向——在多數資產上可能的轉向——是改作其他類型用途。但如 Joel 提到的，我們也可能把這些視為未來的潛在出售標的。421 是稍微比較獨特的一個，因為我們可能考慮分層（condo）權益，或我想那個資產也可能改作其他用途，但它原本的意圖是做實驗室大樓。不過所有這些資產——我們還有一點時間，但我們正接近一些里程碑，屆時我們需要做決策，否則資本化利息就會停止。而這些里程碑平均大概落在明年初。

Great. And then if you do change the scope of those specific development projects, I mean, could that impact your construction budget in 2026. Or is that really the $500 million, I think that it was highlighted in the supplemental is that more of a '27 and beyond impact just because the investments for these other types of uses would be smaller investments versus life science?

很好。那如果你們確實改變那些特定開發專案的範疇，是否會影響你們 2026 年的建造預算？或者說，補充資料中強調的那 5 億美元——我想是這個數字——其實更多是對 2027 年及以後的影響，因為這些其他用途的投資會比生命科學用途需要更小的投資？

Yes. I think we have a good handle on this year's capital plan, Michael. It would really be more of an item that could impact spending for next year.

是的。Michael，我認為我們已經很好地掌握了今年的資本計畫。這更可能是一個會影響明年支出的事項。

Dylan Burzinski, Green Street.

Dylan Burzinski，Green Street。

Appreciate the commentary so far on sort of the $97 million of vacates in 2027. I guess what we're trying to figure out is it looks like, excluding that amount, there is call it another 1.6 million square feet of lease expirations. Do you guys sort of have a good handle on that? Is that -- are those likely to renew? I guess what we're trying to figure out is like the likelihood of probability of that $97.5 million moving higher as we get closer to '27.

感謝你們目前對於2027年約9,700萬美元退租的評論。我想我們試圖釐清的是，看起來如果排除那個金額，還有大約另外160萬平方英尺的租約到期。你們對那部分是否已經有比較清楚的掌握？那些——是否可能續租？我們想了解的是，隨著接近2027年，那9,750萬美元上升的可能性／機率有多大。

Yes. Dylan, Yes, it's just a little bit too early to tell on what happens with the rest of the expirations for 2027. What we do know now is that, that 1.5 million for the $97 million of rent you referenced that those may have or likely to have some downtime. So it's really hard to predict at this point what the retention rate looks on the balance. I can tell you, at least for this year, we're I think at the beginning of the year, at least for 2026 expirations when we carved out the kind of the key lease expirations for '26.

是的。Dylan，是的，對於2027年其餘到期租約會發生什麼，現在還是有點太早下定論。我們目前知道的是，你提到那150萬平方英尺、約9,700萬美元租金的部分，可能或很可能會有一段空置期。所以在這個時間點，要預測其餘部分的續租率長什麼樣子確實很困難。我可以告訴你，至少就今年而言，我們——我想在年初時，至少針對2026年到期的租約，當我們把2026年的關鍵到期租約先行拆分出來時。

We thought we would be somewhere in the 60%-plus retention rate. But I really don't think we're prepared to kind of comment on where '27 is.

我們原本認為續租率會落在60%以上。但我真的不認為我們已準備好去評論2027年的情況。

And maybe just -- appreciate the color in sort of the potential amount of leasing activity that you guys think you'll get done in Q2. I guess, as we sort of think about beyond that, is that sort of a good, call it, 3.5 million to 4 million square feet of annualized leasing volume and good amount to sort of use as a run rate? Or -- and obviously, leasing is going to ebb and flow, but just sort of curious should sort of think about the pipeline beyond the next quarter.

另外——也謝謝你們提供一些資訊，關於你們認為在第二季可能完成的租賃活動量。我想，當我們進一步思考那之後的情況時，這是否算是一個不錯的、可稱之為年化350萬到400萬平方英尺的租賃量，並可作為一個運行水準（run rate）來參考？或者——當然租賃會有起伏，但我只是好奇，對於下一季之後的管線，我們應該怎麼看。

I don't think you should assume that, that is a run rate. I think we're in a different time now. So I think the run rate will evolve over time, especially given a more life science/advanced technology mix given the assets. So I don't think you could use that immediately. But I mean, historically, give or take, some amount on either side, $1 million has been a common run rate over time, whether we get back to that as a run rate, I think time will tell.

我不認為你應該假設那就是一個運行水準。我認為我們現在處於不同的時期。因此我認為運行水準會隨時間演變，尤其是考量到資產組合更偏向生命科學／先進科技。所以我不認為你可以立刻用那個數字。不過從歷史來看，大致上下有些波動，100萬一直是長期以來常見的運行水準；至於我們是否會回到那樣的運行水準，我想時間會給答案。

Jamie Feldman, Wells Fargo.

Jamie Feldman，Wells Fargo。

I just wanted to take your -- the latest temperature on opportunistic capital looking at the space from the real estate perspective. I think you had mentioned JVs looking a little more interesting. Has anything changed? Or can you give us the update on whether it's global capital, whether it's domestic capital, there's a lot of shifting around there in terms of capital needs across the globe. What's the latest state of affairs in terms of opportunistic deals into life science?

我想了解一下你們對於機會型資本（opportunistic capital）從不動產角度看待這個領域的最新溫度。我記得你們提到合資（JV）看起來更有吸引力一些。有任何變化嗎？或者能否更新一下：是全球資本、還是國內資本？在全球各地資本需求方面有很多重新配置與移動。就投入生命科學的機會型交易而言，目前最新的狀況是什麼？

I don't think we want to comment really too much on that. But Peter, you can --

我想我們不太想對此做太多評論。不過Peter，你可以--

Yes. I would say that it's a combination of both domestic and international capital. that is looking at these assets.

是的。我會說，正在關注這些資產的資本同時包含國內與國際資本。

So would you say the appetite has changed? Or it's pretty much the same?

所以你會說胃納（appetite）有改變嗎？還是基本上差不多？

What has changed is over the last two years, up until this year, there was really no money looking at core it was all opportunistic. And for the right reasons, right? I mean we are coming -- we are hopefully bottoming out in the real estate industry, and everybody was raising money based on double-digit IRRs. And that's what those funds and targets were and that's what they had to invest in. Now we have money, how it came about, I don't know, but we have folks that are saying, hey, I want good quality, safer assets.

改變的是，在過去兩年直到今年之前，幾乎沒有資金在看核心型（core）資產，全部都是機會型。而且理由也很充分，對吧？我的意思是，我們正——我們希望——正處於不動產產業觸底的階段，而大家募資時都是以兩位數的IRR為基礎。那就是那些基金的目標與要求，也是他們必須投入的方向。現在我們有資金了，怎麼來的我不確定，但我們確實有一些人說，嘿，我想要高品質、較安全的資產。

And I know I can get a real estate deal that will provide a spread over bonds that I like for the risk that I'm going to take -- and so now that, that money is there. And as I said, it comes both domestically and internationally, we're leveraging that to get a better cost of capital overall for our program.

而且我知道我可以做一筆不動產交易，提供我喜歡的、相對於債券的利差，來補償我將承擔的風險——所以現在那筆資金已經在那裡了。如我所說，資金同時來自國內與國際，我們正利用這點，為我們的計畫取得整體更好的資金成本（cost of capital）。

Thank you, and that concludes our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the conference back over to Joel Marcus for any closing remarks.

謝謝，問答環節到此結束。我想把會議交回給Joel Marcus，請他做任何結語。

Yes. Thank you, operator, and thank you, everybody. We appreciate it.

是的。謝謝主持人，也謝謝各位。我們非常感謝。

Thank you. That concludes today's conference call. We thank you all for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your lines, and have a wonderful day.

謝謝。今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參加今天的簡報。您現在可以掛線，祝您有美好的一天。