Prologis Inc (PLD) 2022 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Greetings. Welcome to Prologis Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions)

問候。歡迎來到 Prologis 2022 年第二季度收益電話會議。 （操作員說明）

Please note, this conference is being recorded. I'll now turn the conference over to Jill Sawyer, Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Sawyer, you may now begin.

請注意，本次會議正在錄製中。我現在將會議轉交給投資者關係副總裁 Jill Sawyer。索耶女士，您現在可以開始了。

Thanks, Rob, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our second quarter 2022 earnings conference call. The supplemental document is available on our website at prologis.com under Investor Relations. I'd like to state that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements under federal securities laws. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the market and the industry in which Prologis operates as well as management's beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance, and actual operating results may be affected by a variety of factors. For a list of those factors, please refer to the forward-looking statement notice in our 10-K or other SEC filings. Additionally, our second quarter results' press release and supplemental do contain financial measures such as FFO and EBITDA that are non-GAAP measures. And in accordance with Reg G, we have provided a reconciliation to those measures.

謝謝，Rob，大家早上好。歡迎參加我們的 2022 年第二季度收益電話會議。補充文件可在我們的網站 prologis.com 的投資者關係下獲得。我想聲明，本次電話會議將包含聯邦證券法下的前瞻性陳述。這些陳述基於對 Prologis 經營所在市場和行業的當前預期、估計和預測以及管理層的信念和假設。前瞻性陳述並非業績保證，實際經營業績可能受多種因素影響。有關這些因素的列表，請參閱我們 10-K 或其他 SEC 文件中的前瞻性聲明通知。此外，我們第二季度業績的新聞稿和補充確實包含財務指標，例如非公認會計準則指標的 FFO 和 EBITDA。並且根據 Reg G，我們對這些措施進行了調整。

On July 13, we announced the merger between Prologis and Duke Realty. This call will focus on our second quarter results. The company will not provide comments related to this transaction beyond those included in our prepared remarks. I'd like to welcome Tim Arndt, our CFO, who will cover results, real-time market conditions and guidance. Hamid Moghadam, our CEO, and our entire executive team are also with us today. With that, I'll hand the call over to Tim.

7 月 13 日，我們宣布 Prologis 與 Duke Realty 合併。本次電話會議將重點關注我們的第二季度業績。除了我們準備好的評論中包含的評論外，公司不會提供與本次交易相關的評論。我要歡迎我們的首席財務官 Tim Arndt，他將負責報告結果、實時市場狀況和指導。我們的首席執行官 Hamid Moghadam 和我們的整個執行團隊今天也與我們同在。有了這個，我會把電話交給蒂姆。

Thanks Jill. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining our call. This morning, we reported our second quarter results, which were strong and ahead of our expectations with occupancy, leasing and rent change all at record highs. Duke also released their operating results this morning, which tell a similarly strong story. That said, the macroeconomic environment is making it difficult for investors to fully assess the state of our industry. There's frankly a stark difference between what one reads in headlines versus what is actually happening in our business.

謝謝吉爾。大家早上好，感謝您加入我們的電話會議。今天早上，我們報告了我們的第二季度業績，該業績強勁，超出了我們的預期，入住率、租賃和租金變化均創歷史新高。杜克大學今天早上還發布了他們的經營業績，講述了一個同樣強大的故事。也就是說，宏觀經濟環境使投資者難以全面評估我們行業的狀況。坦率地說，人們在頭條新聞中讀到的內容與我們業務中實際發生的事情之間存在明顯差異。

Accordingly, we find ourselves focusing more on our own proprietary metrics and real-time feedback from our customers to build a forward-looking view of our markets and demand. Before going through that view, let me first step through our results. Core FFO with and without promotes was $1.11 per share, slightly ahead of our forecast. Rent change on rollover was 46%, led by the U.S. at 54%. Retention in the quarter was 79%, driving occupancy higher by 30 basis points over the quarter to 97.7%. All of this led to net effective same-store NOI growth of 7.6% and cash same-store of 8.2%.

因此，我們發現自己更加關注我們自己的專有指標和客戶的實時反饋，以建立對我們市場和需求的前瞻性看法。在了解該觀點之前，讓我先了解一下我們的結果。有和沒有促銷的核心 FFO 為每股 1.11 美元，略高於我們的預測。展期租金變化為 46%，美國以 54% 居首。本季度的留存率為 79%，使本季度的入住率提高了 30 個基點，達到 97.7%。所有這些導致淨有效同店 NOI 增長 7.6%，現金同店增長 8.2%。

We started $1.7 billion in new development projects, bringing our year-to-date starts to $2.7 billion. On the balance sheet, we closed on a refinancing of our lines of credit, expanding the total commitment to $5.4 billion, ending the quarter with $5.2 billion of liquidity. We are very pleased to have not only increased our line capacity but also to have done so while maintaining our spread and staggering maturities.

我們啟動了 17 億美元的新開發項目，使我們年初至今的開工達到 27 億美元。在資產負債表上，我們完成了對信貸額度的再融資，將總承諾擴大至 54 億美元，本季度末流動性為 52 億美元。我們很高興不僅增加了我們的生產線容量，而且在保持我們的價差和驚人的成熟度的同時做到了這一點。

In strategic capital, our net equity queue, which combines the committed queue plus outstanding redemptions and deployment, it was $2.8 billion at the end of the quarter. While performance in the second quarter was strong, we recognize that with the current backdrop, markets do have the potential to soften. Instead of repeating macroeconomic statistics from media headlines, which you all know well, I'll instead share observations from our unique data and insights.

在戰略資本方面，我們的淨股權隊列結合了承諾隊列以及未償贖回和部署，截至本季度末為 28 億美元。儘管第二季度表現強勁，但我們認識到在當前背景下，市場確實有可能走軟。我不會重複大家都知道的媒體頭條中的宏觀經濟統計數據，而是分享我們獨特的數據和見解的觀察結果。

At quarter end, we had proposals on 52% of our remaining availabilities versus an average of 38% prior to COVID, reflective of the very active dialogue we've had and the fact that little space remains available to lease in our portfolio. 71% of leases expiring in the next 12 months are either pre-leased or in negotiations ahead of the pre-COVID average of 56%.

在季度末，我們對 52% 的剩餘可用性提出了建議，而在 COVID 之前平均為 38%，這反映了我們進行的非常積極的對話以及我們的投資組合中可供租賃的空間很小的事實。未來 12 個月到期的租約中有 71% 已預租或正在談判中，高於疫情前 56% 的平均水平。

Lease negotiation periods have lengthened by a few days to an average of 60, while up from the more rapid pace of 50 days across 2021, It has essentially returned to the normalized levels we saw pre-COVID. And as it relates to pricing, our SPEAR data, which measures normalized effective rents against forecast, reflects that markets remain strong and rent growth stays ahead of our expectations.

租賃談判期延長了幾天，平均為 60 天，而從 2021 年更快的 50 天開始，它基本上已恢復到我們在 COVID 之前看到的正常水平。由於與定價相關，我們根據預測衡量標準化有效租金的 SPEAR 數據反映了市場依然強勁，租金增長仍高於我們的預期。

Our field teams report market activity, which is totally consistent with all of this data. While the number of customers competing for available space has decreased from unprecedented levels tempering urgency, our teams report still healthy demand and limited downtime. This is also reflected in our monthly customer survey data, which report high historical utilization at 86% and an IBI index that reflects growth in activity.

我們的現場團隊報告的市場活動與所有這些數據完全一致。雖然爭奪可用空間的客戶數量已從前所未有的水平下降，緩和了緊迫性，但我們的團隊報告稱需求仍然健康，停機時間有限。這也反映在我們的月度客戶調查數據中，該數據報告了 86% 的高歷史利用率和反映活動增長的 IBI 指數。

In the end, we believe we're seeing a normalization in the volume and pace of demand which we expected as the world reopened from COVID and consumers seek more in-person experiences. But given exceptionally tight markets and availability, the fundamentals remain excellent. E-commerce represented 14% of new leasing, down from approximately 25% in 2021, a shift we've long telegraphed.

最後，我們相信隨著世界從 COVID 重新開放以及消費者尋求更多的親身體驗，我們預計需求量和速度正在正常化。但鑑於市場和供應異常緊張，基本面仍然很好。電子商務佔新租賃的 14%，低於 2021 年的約 25%，這是我們長期以來一直在傳達的轉變。

As noted, overall occupancy and leasing have continued to grow with take-up coming from a broad set of users, most notably transportation, health care and auto. E-commerce remains a positive long-term trend for our business. Clearly, COVID accelerated its adoption from a 15% share of retail sales pre-pandemic and running at 23% during. At 21% today, it is roughly 150 basis points ahead of our pre-COVID expectations.

如前所述，隨著廣大用戶的使用，尤其是交通、醫療保健和汽車，整體入住率和租賃率持續增長。電子商務對我們的業務來說仍然是一個積極的長期趨勢。顯然，COVID 加速了其在大流行前零售銷售中的 15% 份額和期間的 23% 的採用率。今天為 21%，比我們在 COVID 之前的預期高出大約 150 個基點。

We are also seeing the emergence of supply chain resiliency as a secular and incremental demand driver for our business. We hear it from our customers both in daily dialogue as well as our advisory boards, including 3 events held this quarter. We expect that this need for safety stock will lift demand for years to come, although economic uncertainty could cause some delay this year.

我們還看到供應鏈彈性的出現成為我們業務的長期和增量需求驅動因素。我們在日常對話以及我們的顧問委員會（包括本季度舉行的 3 場活動）中都從客戶那裡聽到了這一點。我們預計，這種對安全庫存的需求將在未來幾年提振需求，儘管經濟不確定性可能會在今年造成一些延遲。

In light of very low vacancy and healthy demand, we are increasing our overall market rent growth forecast for the year to 23% on a global basis and 25% in the U.S. This is due to a very strong first half where we see rents having increased 14% globally and 16% in the U.S. We continue to see increases in construction costs which provide a pricing umbrella for continued rent growth given the need to uphold expected yields before new spec development can be started.

鑑於空置率非常低且需求健康，我們將今年整體市場租金增長預測上調至全球 23%，美國為 25%。這是由於上半年非常強勁，我們看到租金上漲全球為 14%，美國為 16%。我們繼續看到建築成本的增加，這為租金的持續增長提供了定價保護，因為在開始新的規格開發之前需要維持預期收益率。

The increase in rents over the second quarter has expanded our lease mark-to-market to nearly 56%, translating to over $2 billion of embedded annual NOI as these leases roll. Applying this mark-to-market to our lease expiration schedule will show that net effective same-store NOI growth through 2025 should exceed 8% without any further increases in market rent, an incredible amount of built-in organic growth and resiliency in our earnings.

第二季度租金的增長將我們的租賃按市值計算擴大到近 56%，隨著這些租賃的滾動，這意味著超過 20 億美元的嵌入式年度 NOI。將此按市值計價應用於我們的租約到期時間表將表明，到 2025 年，淨有效同店 NOI 增長應超過 8%，而市場租金不會進一步增加，我們的收入將有驚人的內在有機增長和彈性.

Before turning to guidance, we expect to imminently file the S-4 related to our acquisition of Duke Realty, which will guide the timing of our shareholder votes and the close date of the transaction. The following guidance excludes the deal's expected accretion.

在轉向指導之前，我們預計將盡快提交與我們收購 Duke Realty 相關的 S-4，這將指導我們股東投票的時間和交易的結束日期。以下指導不包括該交易的預期增長。

Beginning with operating guidance. We expect average occupancy to range between 97.25% to 97.75%, an increase of nearly 40 basis points from our prior guidance. We are increasing our net effective same-store guidance to a range of 7.25% to 7.75% and cash same-store to a range of 8.25% to 8.75%, each an increase of roughly 90 basis points. Rent change on rollover is expected to grow from our first half levels, increasing spreads to over 50% in each the third and fourth quarters.

從操作指導開始。我們預計平均入住率將在 97.25% 至 97.75% 之間，比我們之前的指導增加近 40 個基點。我們將淨有效同店指導提高至 7.25% 至 7.75% 的範圍，將現金同店指導提高至 8.25% 至 8.75% 的範圍，每個提高約 90 個基點。展期租金變化預計將從我們上半年的水平增長，在第三和第四季度將利差增加到 50% 以上。

Given our view of market rent growth, we expect our portfolio's lease mark-to-market will expand to over 60% by the end of the year. We are holding our guidance for net promotes at $0.60 for the year. Our current appraised values would generate net promote income above this level, but given market uncertainty, we're holding our prior guidance. Our overall deployment guidance is unchanged from last quarter with the exception of acquisitions, which we have increased to $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion at our share based on our belief that opportunities are likely to emerge in the back half, which will be well positioned to pursue.

鑑於我們對市場租金增長的看法，我們預計到今年年底，我們的投資組合的按市值計價租賃將擴大至 60% 以上。我們將今年的淨促銷指導保持在 0.60 美元。我們目前的評估值將產生高於此水平的淨促銷收入，但鑑於市場的不確定性，我們維持之前的指導。我們的整體部署指導與上一季度相比沒有變化，但收購除外，我們的份額已增加到 12 億美元至 17 億美元，因為我們相信機會可能會在後半部分出現，這將有能力追求.

I'm also pleased to note that despite extraordinary moves in both interest rates and FX, our forecast remains unimpacted due to our proactive approach to managing both risks through limited maturities and robust FX hedging program. In total, we are increasing our full year earnings guidance to $5.14 to $5.18 per share, including promotes and $4.54 to $4.58 per share, excluding promotes, representing 11.5% growth from 2021.

我也很高興地註意到，儘管利率和外匯都出現了非凡的變化，但由於我們通過有限期限和穩健的外匯對沖計劃來管理這兩種風險的積極態度，我們的預測仍然沒有受到影響。總體而言，我們將全年盈利指引提高至每股 5.14 美元至 5.18 美元（包括促銷）和每股 4.54 美元至 4.58 美元（不包括促銷），比 2021 年增長 11.5%。

Before closing, I'd like to spend just a few minutes highlighting one of the more important announcements we've made in recent years. Last month, we announced a new commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2040, a full decade ahead of the targets established in the Paris Climate Agreement. Our plan includes key milestones along the way, such as a dramatic increase in our solar energy production and storage goal to 1 gigawatt by 2025, more than doubling our previous goal.

在結束之前，我想花幾分鐘強調一下我們近年來發布的一項更重要的公告。上個月，我們宣布了一項新的承諾，即到 2040 年實現淨零排放，比《巴黎氣候協定》設定的目標提前了整整十年。我們的計劃包括沿途的關鍵里程碑，例如到 2025 年將我們的太陽能生產和存儲目標大幅提高到 1 吉瓦，是我們之前目標的兩倍多。

We will also conduct carbon-neutral operations and construction by 2025. Ultimately, we plan to get to net zero without reliance on carbon offsets and our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 and net zero in our entire value chain by 2040. It's noteworthy that we are one of very few REITs to commit to science-based targets for our net zero goal. Prologis has long been a leader in ESG, both inside and outside of our industry. We're extremely pleased to have once again raised the bar and hold ourselves accountable to real, measurable and reportable progress for our investors, our customers and our planet.

我們還將在 2025 年之前進行碳中和運營和建設。最終，我們計劃到 2030 年在不依賴碳抵消和我們的範圍 1 和 2 排放的情況下實現淨零排放，到 2040 年在我們的整個價值鏈中實現淨零排放。值得注意的是我們是為數不多的致力於實現我們的淨零目標的科學目標的房地產投資信託基金之一。 Prologis 長期以來一直是我們行業內外的 ESG 領導者。我們非常高興再次提高標準，並對我們的投資者、客戶和地球的真實、可衡量和可報告的進展負責。

We truly feel great about our business and how we've positioned our teams, our portfolio and our balance sheet to thrive across the cycle even in uncertain times as we see today. With that, I'll now turn the call over to our operator to take your questions. As a reminder, we won't be addressing questions related to the Duke transaction on this morning's call.

我們真的對我們的業務以及我們如何定位我們的團隊、我們的投資組合和我們的資產負債表感到非常滿意，即使在我們今天看到的不確定時期，我們也能在整個週期中蓬勃發展。有了這個，我現在將把電話轉給我們的接線員來回答你的問題。提醒一下，我們不會在今天上午的電話會議上解決與杜克交易有關的問題。

(Operator Instructions) And our first question will be coming from the line of Michael Bilerman with Citi.

（操作員說明）我們的第一個問題將來自花旗的 Michael Bilerman。

It's actually [Craig Newman] here with Michael. I just want to hit on the market rent growth and mark-to-market piece. You guys had 79% retention, 27.5% cash mark-to-market, just peak average occupancy levels. And so I guess maybe a 2-parter here. Just what breaks the camel's back here in the near term from an occupancy or market rent growth perspective?

實際上是 [Craig Newman] 和邁克爾在這裡。我只想談談市場租金的增長和按市值計價的部分。你們有 79% 的留存率，27.5% 的現金按市值計價，平均入住率剛剛達到峰值。所以我猜這裡可能是 2 人。從入住率或市場租金增長的角度來看，是什麼在短期內打破了駱駝的回歸？

And then two, maybe, Tim, could you just address as you head into the back half of the year and into '23, kind of remind us what that mark to market on a stand-alone basis means for FFO per share?

然後是兩個，也許蒂姆，你能不能在你進入今年下半年和 23 年時發表講話，提醒我們獨立市場的標記對每股 FFO 意味著什麼？

Yes, I can take the second part. We actually really don't break the number down in that way. We have full year same-store guidance as noted, with a midpoint of -- it's at 7.5% to -- yes, sorry, 7.5%. And the growth in the back half is probably adding $0.01 to $0.02 of the run rate that you'll see in Q3 and Q4.

是的，我可以參加第二部分。我們實際上並沒有以這種方式分解數字。如前所述，我們有全年同店指導，中點為 - 7.5% 至 - 是的，抱歉，7.5%。後半部分的增長可能會使您在第三季度和第四季度看到的運行率增加 0.01 美元到 0.02 美元。

Yes. And we didn't really hear -- I didn't really hear the first half of the question. Can you repeat that, please?

是的。我們並沒有真正聽到——我沒有真正聽到問題的前半部分。請你再說一遍？

Sorry, I was just saying kind of given the strength of the operating metrics, what breaks the camel's back from the sense of risk to occupancy market rent growth and the mark-to-market here? I know you guys talked a lot about kind of the headline risk versus the reality of what you're seeing on the ground. But just to maybe put out there from your perspective, what the real risks are given what you're seeing on the ground?

抱歉，我只是說鑑於運營指標的強度，是什麼讓駱駝從風險意識轉向入住率市場租金增長和按市值計價？我知道你們談論了很多關於標題風險與你在實地看到的現實的問題。但只是從你的角度來看，考慮到你在實地看到的情況，真正的風險是什麼？

Yes. So there is -- the much talked about the risk to supply exceeding demand. And there's a fair amount of confusion between the supply and demand balance in the overall U.S. industrial market and the markets that we are involved in. And I'll turn it over to Chris to actually walk you through that because that's a pretty important distinction, and I really don't think there is a risk to supply particularly given the low vacancy rates from which we are operating today.

是的。因此，人們經常談論供應超過需求的風險。整個美國工業市場的供需平衡與我們所參與的市場之間存在相當多的混淆。我將把它交給克里斯，讓你真正了解這一點，因為這是一個非常重要的區別，我真的不認為供應存在風險，特別是考慮到我們今天運營的低空置率。

But let's bookmark that, and Chris will talk about that.

但是，讓我們為它添加書籤，然後 Chris 會談論它。

On the demand side, the way I think about it is that I've been doing this for 40 years. And I would say, prior to last quarter and the quarter before, let's call the peak in terms of strength of market on the demand side as a 10 on a 1 to 10 scale. I think the last quarter and the quarter before were like on 12 or 13. They were just crazy good. And I think this quarter, there may be 9.5 to 10.

在需求方面，我認為我已經這樣做了 40 年。我想說的是，在上一季度和上一季度之前，我們將需求側市場強度的峰值稱為 1 到 10 的 10。我認為最後一個季度和前一個季度就像是在 12 或 13 號。他們簡直太棒了。我認為本季度可能會有 9.5 到 10 個。

I mean by historical standards, this would be exceptionally good. I mean in the 5 percentile, good for the last 40 years. It just -- it can never be as good as it was in the last quarter and the quarter before because, frankly, everybody reads the same papers. And if you're a CEO of a company and you're looking to expand your operations, you're going to just take your time a little bit more, just to be sure that you're not making a stupid mistake.

我的意思是按照歷史標準，這將是非常好的。我的意思是在 5 個百分位，在過去的 40 年裡很好。它只是 - 它永遠不會像上一季度和上一季度那樣好，因為坦率地說，每個人都閱讀相同的論文。如果你是一家公司的 CEO，並且你正在尋求擴大你的業務，你會多花一點時間，以確保你沒有犯愚蠢的錯誤。

So the difference between sort of grabbing every piece of the space that you can see, which may push demand 10%, 20% above what is really needed, probably in an environment like this could haven't been conservative by 10% to 20%. And that swing is basically coming out of the froth that we saw in the last 2 quarters. So that's the way I think about it. But Chris can give you the supply-demand numbers because there's a lot of misunderstanding on those factors.

因此，抓住你能看到的每一塊空間之間的區別，這可能會將需求推高 10%、20% 高於實際需要，可能在這樣的環境中可能不會保守 10% 到 20% .這種波動基本上是我們在過去兩個季度看到的泡沫中出現的。所以我就是這麼想的。但是克里斯可以給你供需數據，因為對這些因素有很多誤解。

Yes. Let's be clear. And indeed, we publish our data quarterly to try and help bring clarity to the marketplace. And what does that data reveal? Well, we forecast 375 million square feet of net absorption and completions this year, calendar year 2022, and see vacancy rate falling to 3.2%. Now our statistics focus on our 30 U.S. markets and is based on the leading source in each market.

是的。讓我們清楚一點。事實上，我們每季度發布一次數據，試圖幫助市場清晰化。這些數據揭示了什麼？好吧，我們預測今年 2022 日曆年的淨吸納量和竣工量為 3.75 億平方英尺，空置率將降至 3.2%。現在，我們的統計數據集中在我們的 30 個美國市場，並基於每個市場的主要來源。

Now we could look out to 2023. It's a little early, but we foresee a gap, say, 50 million to 100 million square feet in differential between supply and demand. That would lead to a moderate rise in market vacancies, but they would remain below 4%, which is well below the pre-pandemic and historical averages.

現在我們可以展望 2023 年。現在還為時過早，但我們預計供需之間存在 5000 萬至 1 億平方英尺的差距。這將導致市場空置率溫和上升，但仍將低於 4%，遠低於大流行前和歷史平均水平。

Now what we're seeing when we look at market commentary is that sources -- some sources are using unconventional methodologies and also include additional non-Prologis markets. So for example, the next 20 U.S. markets, places like Memphis, St. Louis, Detroit, have a market vacancy rate that's roughly 1 percentage point higher in our markets and do have a supply-demand imbalance with 126 million square feet under construction versus trailing 12-month net absorption of 88 million square feet.

現在，當我們查看市場評論時，我們看到的是消息來源——一些消息來源正在使用非常規方法，還包括其他非 Prologis 市場。因此，例如，接下來的 20 個美國市場，如孟菲斯、聖路易斯、底特律等地，其市場空置率大約高出 1 個百分點，並且確實存在供需失衡，在建面積為 1.26 億平方英尺，而在建面積為 1.26 億平方英尺。過去 12 個月淨吸收量為 8800 萬平方英尺。

Yes. The other thing that's going on, and we're probably overkilling this response, but I think it's probably the single biggest area where we get questions on. Construction has not only become expensive, but also construction periods have been really stretched out because of limited availability of certain components. And by the way, we've been really good about ordering that stuff ahead of time. I'm talking about the market, not our situation in particular.

是的。正在發生的另一件事，我們可能誇大了這種反應，但我認為這可能是我們提出問題的最大領域。建設不僅變得昂貴，而且由於某些組件的可用性有限，建設週期也確實延長了。順便說一句，我們非常擅長提前訂購這些東西。我說的是市場，而不是我們的具體情況。

So an extended construction period will make the pipeline of supply sound bigger. So if you're having a third longer construction period, which is sort of what we're estimating, with the same amount of supply, the numbers will just be 1/3 bigger. That's just math. So again, a lot of confusion about this issue. And I think it's a single biggest disconnect between investor perceptions and the reality on the ground.

因此，延長建設工期將使供應管道聽起來更大。因此，如果你有三分之一的建設期，這是我們估計的，在供應量相同的情況下，這個數字只會大 1/3。那隻是數學。再說一次，關於這個問題的很多困惑。我認為這是投資者的看法與實際情況之間最大的脫節。

Our next question is from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.

我們的下一個問題來自於 Evercore ISI 的 Steve Sakwa。

Appreciate the comments, Hamid, on supply and demand. Could you maybe just talk a little bit about region and kind of what you're seeing both in the U.S. and Europe, just given some of the bigger challenges that we're seeing in Europe right now?

欣賞哈米德關於供需的評論。考慮到我們現在在歐洲看到的一些更大的挑戰，您能否談談您在美國和歐洲看到的地區和類型？

Well, let me give you the general commentary on Europe. Europe is as good as I remember Europe being because actually, the war and sort of the excess population that's come out of Ukraine and in Central -- in the neighboring countries have actually increased demand and led to actually better market dynamics for unfortunate and tragic reasons, but it simply has.

好吧，讓我給你關於歐洲的一般評論。歐洲和我記憶中的一樣好 歐洲是因為實際上，戰爭以及來自烏克蘭和中部的人口過剩 - 在鄰國實際上增加了需求，並由於不幸和悲慘的原因導致了實際上更好的市場動態，但它只是有。

I would say the U.K. has slowed down a bit given what's going on with the politics. But Europe is generally a more muted market than the U.S., both on the supply and on the demand side. And that's why we're showing lower rental growth for Europe compared to the U.S. So that's not that unusual in terms of its historical relationship. Chris, do you have anything to add to that?

我想說的是，考慮到政治局勢，英國已經放慢了一些速度。但無論是在供應方面還是在需求方面，歐洲通常都比美國更加平靜。這就是為什麼我們顯示歐洲的租金增長低於美國的原因。因此，就其歷史關係而言，這並不罕見。克里斯，你有什麼要補充的嗎？

I would add, look, the U.S. has been a market leader, especially on the coast with rent growth meaningfully outperform lower barrier markets. We're talking about 10 to 15 percentage annual rent growth, it's better on the coast. And outside the U.S., whether it's Europe, whether it's the U.K., whether it's Toronto, whether it's Mexico, vacancy rates are below 2.5%, and we're seeing some of the best market rent growth we've ever seen.

我要補充一點，看，美國一直是市場領導者，尤其是在沿海地區，租金增長明顯優於低門檻市場。我們談論的是每年 10% 到 15% 的租金增長，在沿海地區會更好。在美國以外，無論是歐洲，還是英國，無論是多倫多，還是墨西哥，空置率都低於 2.5%，我們看到了一些我們見過的最好的市場租金增長。

Our next question is from the line of Tom Catherwood with BTIG.

我們的下一個問題來自 BTIG 的 Tom Catherwood。

Excellent. Tim, I appreciate your comment about proposals on remaining availability of 52%. I think that was the number versus 38% pre-COVID. How does that 52% compared to the last few quarters? And then maybe more broadly on your kind of leading indicators. How much of a lag have you experienced during prior cycles between a falloff in demand and fundamentals and warning signals coming from your proprietary metrics?

出色的。蒂姆，感謝您對剩餘 52% 可用性的建議的評論。我認為這是這個數字與 COVID 之前的 38% 相比。與過去幾個季度相比，這 52% 的情況如何？然後可能更廣泛地了解您的領先指標。在之前的周期中，在需求和基本面的下降以及來自您的專有指標的警告信號之間，您經歷了多少滯後？

Yes. Thanks, Tom. Basically, the 52% we measured this last quarter is the strongest it's been. It has accelerated from that pre-COVID number that we quoted of 38% lifted up into the 40s through COVID and has now hit what I think is an all-time high. And Chris, maybe you can pick up the past cycles?

是的。謝謝，湯姆。基本上，我們上個季度測得的 52% 是有史以來最強的。它已經從我們引用的 38% 的 COVID 之前的數字加速到 40 年代，現在已經達到了我認為的歷史新高。克里斯，也許你可以回顧過去的周期？

Yes. So I'd start by saying some of these insights are based on our investments in data that are unavailable elsewhere in real estate and uniquely available in this cycle. One metric that we invented in the last cycle was the IBI by way of a preview or by way of retrospective, I suppose. That metric is great at predicting next 12 months of net absorption and remains at a healthy level today.

是的。因此，我首先要說，其中一些見解是基於我們對房地產其他地方無法獲得的數據的投資，並且在這個週期中是獨一無二的。我想，我們在上一個週期中發明的一個指標是 IBI，通過預覽或回顧的方式。該指標非常適合預測未來 12 個月的淨吸收量，並且今天仍處於健康水平。

Yes. And the absolute vacancy rates today are just crazy low. I mean, like half of what they were in prior cycles at the peak of the market. So whether -- so we're talking about just so that we've got our cycles clear. Probably some of you on the call weren't even born then. But I'm talking about the early '80s oil crisis, the late '80s, early '90s, the SNL crisis, real estate crisis, the dot-com collapse in the early 2000s, the global financial crisis.

是的。而今天的絕對空置率簡直太低了。我的意思是，就像市場高峰期之前週期的一半。那麼是否 - 所以我們正在談論只是為了讓我們的周期清晰。可能你們中的一些人當時還沒有出生。但我說的是 80 年代初的石油危機、80 年代末、90 年代初、SNL 危機、房地產危機、2000 年代初的互聯網泡沫崩潰、全球金融危機。

Compared to all of those, first of all, I don't think we're looking at the same side of situation. And certainly, we're not starting off a vacancy rate that starts with a 3. So I think it's crazy that we're even thinking about those situations.

與所有這些相比，首先，我不認為我們看到的是同一方面的情況。當然，我們並沒有以 3 開頭的空置率開始。所以我認為我們甚至考慮這些情況是很瘋狂的。

Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Feldman with Bank of America.

我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 Jamie Feldman。

Maybe shifting gears a little bit and thinking about asset values. It looks like you're going to ramp up your acquisitions in the back half of the year. I assume that means you're finding some interesting opportunities. Can you talk about how much you think cap rates have moved and how much do you think asset values have moved? And maybe what looks interesting to you that you're ramping up your outlook?

也許稍微換檔並考慮資產價值。看起來你將在今年下半年加大收購力度。我認為這意味著您正在尋找一些有趣的機會。您能否談談您認為上限利率發生了多大變化以及您認為資產價值發生了多大變化？也許你正在提升你的前景，你覺得有趣的是什麼？

Yes. Good question. The fact of the matter is we're not seeing that much because just like any other market cycle when people see an inflection point, basically, transaction volume goes down. And buyers basically go and on deals that are in progress, try to get a price reduction. And oftentimes, they don't get it, and it just doesn't transact. So there is not a whole lot of visibility as to what values would -- are likely to be.

是的。好問題。事實是我們沒有看到那麼多，因為就像人們看到拐點的任何其他市場週期一樣，基本上，交易量下降了。買家基本上會繼續進行正在進行的交易，試圖降低價格。很多時候，他們沒有得到它，它只是不交易。因此，對於可能的價值，並沒有太多的可見性。

I can also tell you that based on our appraisal -- external appraisals which we have to do for our private capital business, the external appraisers have actually written up our values by 4% this past quarter. Now, are we going to believe that? No, because appraisals are backwards looking. So certainly, I think valuations are somewhat more muted, particularly because of the fraud is not there because of the typical leverage buyer having a harder time being the marginal buyer.

我還可以告訴你，根據我們的評估——我們必須對我們的私人資本業務進行的外部評估，外部評估師實際上在上個季度將我們的價值寫了 4%。現在，我們會相信嗎？不，因為評估是向後看的。所以當然，我認為估值要低一些，特別是因為欺詐並不存在，因為典型的槓桿買家很難成為邊際買家。

Having said that, I think cap rates are likely to remain pretty strong. If you were going to sort of give me a truth serum and say, where do you expect this to settle? I would say 10 to 25 basis points higher than where we saw it prior to the downturn. And that's on top of the 4% that people have written up. In other words, not from that level. If it's 100, I would say, going down 10 to 25 basis points in terms of value as opposed to going up by 4% on value.

話雖如此，我認為上限利率可能會保持相當強勁。如果你要給我一個真相血清然後說，你希望這會在哪裡解決？我會說比我們在經濟低迷前看到的高出 10 到 25 個基點。這是人們所寫的 4% 之上的數據。換句話說，不是從那個層面。如果是 100，我會說，價值下降 10 到 25 個基點，而不是價值上升 4%。

So Dan, do you have anything to add to that?

所以丹，你有什麼要補充的嗎？

Yes. The only thing I would add to that, Jamie, 6 weeks ago at NAREIT, we talked about we were entering a period of price discovery. And I think at the time, we thought it would be 60 to 90 days before we started seeing some of those comps shake out. And we're just not quite seeing it yet. Volumes are way down -- deal volumes are way down, and we're hearing of a number of renegotiations happening for deals that were tied up before the headlines started to get niggling. So at this point, we'll see how it plays out, but this is in sync with what we were thinking 6 weeks ago.

是的。我唯一要補充的是，傑米，6 週前在 NAREIT，我們談到我們正在進入價格發現期。而且我認為當時，我們認為需要 60 到 90 天才能開始看到其中一些組合動搖。我們只是還沒有完全看到它。交易量大幅下降 - 交易量大幅下降，我們聽說在頭條新聞開始變得瑣碎之前就已經達成的交易進行了一些重新談判。所以在這一點上，我們將看到它是如何發揮作用的，但這與我們 6 週前的想法是同步的。

Our next question is from the line of Ki Bin Kim with Truist.

我們的下一個問題來自於 Ki Bin Kim 與 Truist 的對話。

So just putting together some of the commentary around normalized customer behavior or at least proposals, how does that translate into your willingness to deploy capital on developments? So on a combined basis, you and Duke are probably reaching close to $6 billion. Is that a sustainable level given some of the things that you're seeing? Or how should we think about that changing?

因此，只需將一些關於規範化客戶行為或至少建議的評論放在一起，這如何轉化為您將資金用於開發的意願？所以加起來，你和杜克大學的收入可能接近 60 億美元。考慮到你所看到的一些事情，這是一個可持續的水平嗎？或者我們應該如何看待這種變化？

Yes. Our development activity is always bottoms up deal by deal, leasing opportunity by leasing opportunity. And remember, if we're not developing in new markets, we're developing in places we -- where we have, I don't know, 20, 30, 40 in the case of Southern California, over 100 million square feet of activity that we're seeing on a day-to-day basis. So there are bottoms up. They're not like we're building to a goal. It's not that at all.

是的。我們的開發活動始終是自下而上的逐筆交易，通過租賃機會租賃機會。請記住，如果我們不是在新市場開發，我們是在我們的地方開發——我不知道，在南加州，我們有 20、30、40 個超過 1 億平方英尺的我們每天看到的活動。所以有自下而上。他們不像我們正在建立一個目標。根本不是這樣。

But we are likely not going to be deploying the same amount of capital in development across the cycle. I think we're on the good side of the cycle. Where that will moderate? I don't know. But construction costs today are probably up 50%, land values are up significantly. So the rents you need to get acceptable margins. And I mean land values at market, not land values at our cost because with our costs, we have significant margins.

但我們可能不會在整個週期內部署相同數量的開發資金。我認為我們處於週期好的一面。哪裡會緩和？我不知道。但今天的建築成本可能上漲了 50%，土地價值大幅上漲。所以租金你需要得到可接受的利潤。我的意思是市場上的土地價值，而不是我們成本的土地價值，因為我們的成本，我們有很大的利潤。

Really make it tough to make some of the numbers work, particularly for a lot of our competitors that buying land just -- as just-in-time type of acquisition. So I think that's a real limiter and governor on profitable development. And we'll just see. But across a 10-year cycle, we're towards the high end of deployment levels today, for sure.

真的很難讓一些數字發揮作用，特別是對於我們的許多競爭對手來說，購買土地只是——作為即時收購類型。所以我認為這是盈利發展的真正限制者和管理者。我們拭目以待。但在 10 年的周期中，我們肯定會在今天達到部署水平的高端。

The next question is from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.

下一個問題來自 BMO Capital Markets 的 John Kim。

Similar line of questioning. The yields you have on development starts increased to 6.1% this quarter, which is a pretty wide spread to your acquisition cap rates. But it was the cap rates -- or sorry, it was the acquisition guidance that you increased (inaudible) development starts. I was just wondering how easy it is to pull forward some of the development opportunities earlier just given the increase in margins and development yields?

類似的提問方式。您在本季度開始開發的收益率增加到 6.1%，這與您的收購上限率相差很大。但這是上限率 - 或者抱歉，這是您增加（聽不清）開發開始的收購指南。我只是想知道，鑑於利潤率和開發收益的增加，提早推出一些開發機會是多麼容易？

One thing I'll just highlight and maybe throw it over to Dan is just that the development yields you are looking at there while conservative would incorporate our view of rents at the time that the assets are stabilized and as the leasing is occurring, whereas acquisition cap rates are going to be reflecting current and in-place NOI. So that's a pretty big gap in there to appreciate.

我要強調的一件事可能會交給丹，那就是您正在查看的開發收益，而保守派會在資產穩定和租賃發生時納入我們對租金的看法，而收購上限利率將反映當前和就地 NOI。所以這是一個很大的差距。

And as it relates -- this is Dan. As it relates to how quickly we can pull forward starts, we've got this land bank as a differentiator right now, right? We've got $2.5 billion worth of land on the balance sheet worth nearly double. So this is land that's largely entitled and ready to go. So that's -- really the beauty of our development business is that we can start and stop as we see the demand.

正如它所涉及的 - 這是丹。由於它關係到我們能夠以多快的速度推進起步，我們現在已經將這塊土地儲備作為差異化因素，對吧？我們在資產負債表上擁有價值 25 億美元的土地，價值幾乎翻了一番。因此，這片土地在很大程度上是有資格並準備好去的。所以這就是我們開發業務的真正美妙之處在於我們可以在看到需求時開始和停止。

Yes. The only thing I have to add is that implied in your question is that we think it's really important to pull forward development. Again, it is not. We're not building to a particular budget or anything like that. So if we see the market again bottoms up deal by deal, not being as strong as we wanted, we're just happy to sit and not develop in that market. Not to mention that the big portion of our developments are build-to-suit and lease. So we know the economics going in.

是的。我唯一要補充的是，您的問題中暗示的是，我們認為推動發展非常重要。再次，它不是。我們不會按照特定的預算或類似的預算進行建設。因此，如果我們看到市場再次逐筆觸底，並沒有我們想要的那麼強勁，我們很樂意坐在那個市場上而不是發展。更不用說我們的大部分開發項目都是量身定制和租賃的。所以我們知道其中的經濟學。

The next question is coming from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS.

下一個問題來自瑞銀的邁克爾戈德史密斯。

My question is on the near-term expected strength and how that evolves. Your same-store NOI guidance implies it remains at about 8.5% in the back half. Last year growth in the back half was about 200 basis points higher than the first half. So can you talk about the contributing factors that allow you to achieve stable results despite the more difficult comparison?

我的問題是近期的預期強度以及它是如何演變的。您的同店 NOI 指導暗示它在後半部分保持在 8.5% 左右。去年下半年的增長比上半年高出約200個基點。那麼，您能否談談儘管比較困難，但仍能讓您獲得穩定結果的促成因素？

So accelerating results on the 2-year stack, I'm not asking for guidance here, but can you help marry that with when the impact from the expectation that conditions normalize? Like when can that start to weigh on some of the fundamental numbers that you report?

因此，加速 2 年堆棧的結果，我不是在這裡尋求指導，但是當預期條件正常化的影響時，你能幫助將其結合起來嗎？比如什麼時候會開始影響你報告的一些基本數據？

Yes. It's Tim. I would say two things. One, the back half, and I think this we discussed last quarter is -- does not have the occupancy gains that we see in Q1 and Q2 that this year same-store is enjoying, in the back half the occupancy gains driving same-store more muted and it's pretty much rent changed from there. I think to shift your question more to the long term, I'd refer back to my comments for the script where you can look at our expiration schedule, you can use the lease mark-to-market. We've highlighted -- establish our market rent and look at the rents expiring in the remainder of this year, next year, '24, et cetera.

是的。是蒂姆。我想說兩件事。一，後半部分，我認為我們上個季度討論的這一點是 - 沒有我們在今年第一季度和第二季度看到的同店正在享受的入住率增長，在後半部分，入住率增長推動了同店更安靜，從那裡幾乎改變了租金。我認為要將您的問題更多地轉移到長期，我會參考我對腳本的評論，您可以在其中查看我們的到期時間表，您可以使用按市值計價的租賃。我們已經強調了——確定我們的市場租金，並查看今年剩餘時間、明年、'24 等到期的租金。

That's the point I made about computing easily 8% same-store growth enduring for many years to come. So that's how I would use the data and then look at that resiliency.

這就是我提出的關於輕鬆計算未來許多年同店增長 8% 的觀點。這就是我使用數據的方式，然後查看彈性。

By the way, other than this cycle in the entire history of the company, the highest same-store number ever was 6.5% for the forward 1 year. So we -- I mean to have sort of 8% rental growth for multiple years, like 5 years, it's just crazy good because the mark-to-markets are so high.

順便說一句，除了公司整個歷史上的這個週期之外，前 1 年的最高同店數量為 6.5%。所以我們——我的意思是在未來幾年，比如 5 年，租金增長 8%，這簡直太棒了，因為市價率非常高。

Our next question comes from the line of Ronald Camden with Morgan Stanley.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根士丹利的 Ronald Camden。

Just a quick one on Amazon. They talked about putting space back on the market. Maybe can you give us what's the update in terms of what you've seen in your portfolio and in the market in terms of face being put back and what you're hearing?

只是亞馬遜上的一個快速的。他們談到將空間重新投放市場。也許你能告訴我們你在投資組合和市場上看到的關於面子被放回和你聽到的內容的最新情況嗎？

Ronald, this is Mike Curless. We've heard the same rumors out on the Street, the 10 million to 30 million square feet. None of it has been substantiated by Amazon. And what matters is what we're seeing on the ground and we're not seeing much at all. We had our national broker calls last week, literally heard about 1 space that's out there for sublease in the markets that we focus on.

羅納德，這是邁克·庫利斯。我們在街上聽到了同樣的謠言，1000 萬到 3000 萬平方英尺。亞馬遜都沒有證實這一點。重要的是我們在實地看到的，而我們根本沒有看到太多。上週我們接到了全國經紀人電話，從字面上聽說我們關注的市場中有 1 個空間可供轉租。

But more importantly, let's go to our portfolio of 132 spaces. And early on, we had an inquiry on 2 out of 132, let me reemphasize just 2. And early on, those got taken off the table. So we have 0 in play. And I think if you're very familiar with our portfolio like we are, it should not be a surprise. Those are mission-critical facilities located in the population centers.

但更重要的是，讓我們看看我們的 132 個空間組合。早些時候，我們對 132 個中的 2 個進行了調查，讓我再次強調 2 個。在早期，那些被取消了。所以我們有0在玩。而且我認為，如果您像我們一樣非常熟悉我們的產品組合，那就不足為奇了。這些是位於人口中心的關鍵任務設施。

And to put a finer point on that, in the last 18 months, our retention rate in that set of spaces, Amazon has been 95%, 20 points higher than our company average at the same time. And just take it one step further. As we look to the future, we're 99% leased in the 36 markets. We're doing business with them. We have 54% in place to market, very favorable there. So I'd think we are very well positioned for anything that might come our way.

更具體地說，在過去的 18 個月裡，我們在這組空間中的保留率，亞馬遜一直是 95%，同時比我們公司的平均水平高 20 個百分點。並且更進一步。當我們展望未來時，我們在 36 個市場中 99% 是租賃的。我們正在與他們做生意。我們有 54% 的產品上市，非常有利。所以我認為我們已經做好了應對任何可能發生的事情的準備。

Yes. The only thing I would add is that I didn't listen to the Amazon earnings call. But I got more questions about that one comment than comments from the entire industrial real estate industry, which is pretty consistent. So I guess if you have a market cap of over $1 trillion, people listen to you a lot more. But I think the single biggest miss for investors is that they've read too much into that commentary. And the facts on the ground just don't support it. So that's all I have to say. And I'm prepared to be on the record for that.

是的。我唯一要補充的是，我沒有聽亞馬遜的財報電話會議。但我對這一評論的質疑比整個工業房地產行業的評論還多，這是相當一致的。所以我想如果你的市值超過 1 萬億美元，人們會更多地聽你的話。但我認為投資者最大的失誤是他們對該評論閱讀過多。而實地的事實並不支持它。這就是我要說的。我已準備好為此記錄在案。

Our next question comes from the line of Todd Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

我們的下一個問題來自 KeyBanc Capital Markets 的 Todd Thomas。

Within the context and conversation about the lease negotiation period and decrease or, I guess, normalization and competition for space. Are you expecting some of the leading indicators you track to continue normalizing or softening a bit further as you look out over the next several quarters? Or do you think that you might see conditions and underlying fundamentals stabilize at current levels, just a bit off the extreme peaks you discussed that you realized over the last few quarters?

在有關租賃談判期的背景和對話中，減少或我猜是正常化和空間競爭。當您展望未來幾個季度時，您是否期望您跟踪的一些領先指標繼續正常化或進一步軟化？或者您是否認為您可能會看到情況和基本面穩定在當前水平，與您討論的在過去幾個季度中實現的極端峰值略有不同？

I think if I were going to bet, of course, nobody knows is that I think that will normalize at a higher level than normal. But right now, I would say it's prudent to assume that [narrow] will be slightly down, but better than most market cycles. So that's the way we're running our business.

我想如果我要打賭，當然，沒有人知道我認為這將在比正常水平更高的水平上正常化。但現在，我認為謹慎的做法是假設 [narrow] 會略微下跌，但好於大多數市場週期。這就是我們經營業務的方式。

Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Powell with Barclays.

我們的下一個問題來自巴克萊銀行的安東尼鮑威爾。

You mentioned that you saw transportation, health care and auto pickup in terms of mix of leasing. What's driving those sectors really pick up their activity? And would you expect them to continue to kind of lead the mix over the next several quarters?

您提到您在租賃組合方面看到了運輸、醫療保健和汽車接送。是什麼推動這些行業真正開始活躍起來？您是否希望他們在接下來的幾個季度中繼續引領市場？

Yes. Here's what I would say generally. We have -- we lease about 1 million square feet a day, actually more than 1 million square feet a day. But as big as we are, once you start dividing the numbers into the markets we operate in and the economic sectors that we lease to, the 1 million square foot lease can move the numbers around radically in a quarter. And by the way, if you look at the same kind of data from other companies, 100,000 square foot lease can really move their numbers around.

是的。這是我一般要說的。我們有——我們每天租賃大約 100 萬平方英尺，實際上每天超過 100 萬平方英尺。但與我們一樣大，一旦你開始將數字劃分為我們經營的市場和我們租用的經濟部門，100 萬平方英尺的租約可以在四分之一內徹底改變數字。順便說一句，如果你看看其他公司的同類數據，100,000 平方英尺的租約真的可以讓他們的數字四處移動。

So I wouldn't look at those statistics on a quarter-by-quarter basis. I think they're totally meaningless because of the law of smaller numbers. So the answer is, I don't know. But I don't think -- I wouldn't look to that for any kind of long-term assumptions on how to run our business.

因此，我不會按季度查看這些統計數據。我認為由於小數定律，它們完全沒有意義。所以答案是，我不知道。但我不認為 - 我不會對如何經營我們的業務進行任何長期假設。

Our next question comes from the line of Vince Tibone with Green Street.

我們的下一個問題來自 Green Street 的 Vince Tibone。

Have your expectations for supply completions in '23 changed in recent months? Are you seeing any other players taking a pause from new tech development starts due to macro concerns?

最近幾個月，您對 23 年供應完成的期望是否發生了變化？您是否看到任何其他參與者因宏觀擔憂而暫停新技術開發的開始？

Vince, it's Chris Caton. Yes, our expectations have evolved a couple of ways. One is, first, for this calendar year, we have reduced it, not increased it based on the challenge of delivering product as Hamid described earlier and products basically getting stuck in the supply pipeline. We have also reduced our view for next year just as you surmise based on fluidity and the landscape and the rise in financial return of...

文斯，我是克里斯·卡頓。是的，我們的期望已經演變了幾種方式。一個是，首先，在這個日曆年，我們減少了它，而不是增加了它，這是基於 Hamid 之前描述的交付產品的挑戰，並且產品基本上卡在供應管道中。正如您根據流動性和景觀以及...

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Carroll with RBC Capital Markets.

我們的下一個問題來自加拿大皇家銀行資本市場的邁克爾卡羅爾。

Yes. I just have a real quick question. I know the GAAP mark-to-market is about 56% today. Can you provide some color on what the cash mark-to-market is? I believe a few quarters ago, you highlighted was near 30%. Can you kind of highlight where that has trended?

是的。我只是有一個非常簡單的問題。我知道今天的 GAAP 按市值計價約為 56%。你能提供一些關於現金按市值計價的顏色嗎？我相信幾個季度前，您強調的比例接近 30%。你能強調一下它的趨勢嗎？

Yes, it's moving by the same delta. Roughly at the end of the quarter, it was 48%. You probably heard me say that's not a number I find very useful. I would focus on the net effective because that stat is heavily influenced by where you are with remaining lease terms. So it creates all kinds of problems interpreting it. And the net effective number that we gave you of about 56%, I think it's a better representative of what's going on in the economics and the leases and also better representative of what will go on in our earnings.

是的，它以相同的增量移動。大約在本季度末，這一比例為 48%。你可能聽到我說這不是一個我覺得很有用的數字。我會關注淨有效值，因為該統計數據在很大程度上受到剩餘租賃條款的影響。因此，它會產生各種解釋它的問題。我們給你的淨有效數字約為 56%，我認為它更好地代表了經濟和租賃方面的情況，也更好地代表了我們收益中的情況。

Our next question is from the line of Nikita Bely with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的 Nikita Bely。

Can you talk a little bit about the institutional capital in your funds business? Any conversations you've had with them? And is there any change in the amount of capital that these folks are willing to put into your funds? And any color you could provide around that subject?

您能談談您的基金業務中的機構資本嗎？你和他們有過什麼對話嗎？這些人願意投入到你的資金中的資金量有什麼變化嗎？您可以圍繞該主題提供任何顏色嗎？

Sure. I would say similar to the fundamentals of our business, in the past couple of years, we've had more demand for our funds than we've chosen to take money for. In other words, we've turned down people who wanted to invest money in our funds because we had these really long queues. And it was irresponsible to take -- keep taking money when we have hard time deploying that volume of money.

當然。我想說，與我們業務的基本麵類似，在過去的幾年裡，我們對資金的需求比我們選擇的要多。換句話說，我們拒絕了那些想在我們的基金中投資的人，因為我們排起了長隊。拿錢是不負責任的——當我們很難部署這麼多錢的時候繼續拿錢。

I would say that has shifted a bit. So demand for new products has shifted down. And on the margin, there is a little bit more of redemption requests. Well, a little bit more before it was 0, and now we have some redemption requests. All of this is reflective of what I call the denominator effect is that their stock and bond portfolios are getting hammered, their private equity and venture portfolios are getting write-down.

我會說這已經發生了一些變化。因此對新產品的需求已經下降。此外，還有更多的贖回請求。好吧，在它是 0 之前還有一點點，現在我們有一些兌換請求。所有這一切都反映了我所說的分母效應，即他們的股票和債券投資組合正在受到重創，他們的私募股權和風險投資組合正在被減記。

So basically, real estate generally is getting to be a larger percentage, and they have to rebalance. So -- and industrial is probably the best sector to rebalance out of because that's where the liquidity and the market strength and the embedded gains have been in the last market cycle. So not at all surprising, but we still have plenty of private capital to run our business for a long, long time.

所以基本上，房地產通常會佔據更大的比例，他們必須重新平衡。所以 - 工業可能是重新平衡的最佳行業，因為這是上一個市場週期中流動性和市場實力以及嵌入式收益的所在。所以一點也不奇怪，但我們仍然有足夠的私人資本來經營我們的業務很長很長一段時間。

And I think we have a great franchise in that area and one that has been really well tested in through 3 or 4 market cycles. And by the way, that's the same reason we've kept our leverage in that business so low because when everybody is kind of levering up, the thing to do is to run your business unlevered. And if we see some great opportunities coming out of that cycle, our remaining powder is not just what we have in the queues that we talked about, but also the opportunity of levering up to the more normalized levels that those funds were designed to do. So I don't think capital is a constraint for us on the private side.

而且我認為我們在該領域擁有出色的特許經營權，並且已經通過 3 或 4 個市場週期進行了很好的測試。順便說一句，這與我們在該業務中保持如此低的槓桿率的原因相同，因為當每個人都在提高槓桿率時，要做的就是無槓桿地經營您的業務。如果我們看到這個週期中出現了一些巨大的機會，我們剩餘的粉末不僅僅是我們討論過的隊列中的東西，而且還有機會利用這些基金設計的更規範的水平。所以我不認為資本在私人方面對我們來說是一個限制因素。

Our next question comes from the line of Bill Crow with Raymond James.

我們的下一個問題來自 Bill Crow 和 Raymond James 的觀點。

Within the context of the market rent growth that we're talking about and the Street expecting kind of 4 or 5 years' worth, are you seeing any markets where either sequentially or on a year-over-year basis market rents are starting to come down from their peaks?

在我們正在談論的市場租金增長以及華爾街預計 4 或 5 年價值的背景下，您是否看到任何市場租金開始按順序或按年計算從他們的高峰下降？

Go ahead, Chris.

來吧，克里斯。

It's Chris Caton. I ran through the regional differences. And the pace of growth this year is, in fact, higher than last year. So all the U.S. and those differentials, Europe as well is faster, not slower. So we are -- we have quite a bit of momentum. In terms of individual markets, we track our risk -- our supply risk markets. And that list has not appreciably changed over the past year. We are watchful of supply in a handful of markets, Dallas, Indianapolis and Phoenix. But we would not rate that supply as too much to damage rent growth, but it's -- those are a couple of markets we are watching.

是克里斯·卡頓。我經歷了地區差異。事實上，今年的增長速度高於去年。所以所有的美國和那些差異，歐洲也是更快，而不是更慢。所以我們 - 我們有相當多的動力。在個別市場方面，我們跟踪我們的風險——我們的供應風險市場。在過去的一年裡，這份名單並沒有明顯改變。我們密切關注達拉斯、印第安納波利斯和鳳凰城等少數市場的供應。但我們不會將供應量評估為會損害租金增長，但這是我們正在關注的幾個市場。

Our next question comes from the line of Derek Johnston with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行的 Derek Johnston。

Many companies like retail, they're reporting higher inventory levels and inventory-to-sales ratios are creeping up. So how is the inventory build demand driver that you guys discussed impacted last quarter's leasing? And are you seeing any delays now for this year? Or really in the opening, just to clarify, was that cautionary given the macro? So any more insight as you were working to get our head around this emerging driver?

許多公司喜歡零售，他們報告更高的庫存水平，庫存與銷售的比率正在攀升。那麼你們討論的庫存增加需求驅動因素如何影響上一季度的租賃？你現在看到今年有任何延誤嗎？或者真的在開場白，只是為了澄清一下，考慮到宏觀，這是警告嗎？那麼，當你努力讓我們了解這個新興的驅動因素時，還有更多的見解嗎？

Thanks, Derek. It's Chris Caton. Yes, indeed, Tim summarized our view, and we do think it's in his script, and we think it's appropriate to be prudent in macro. In fact, we're getting a lot of questions on this, just as you're asking. So we're going to publish a paper this week on this very topic. Look, summary is the buildup of real inventories for resilience is really only half done and it's progressing. It's progressing with our view.

謝謝，德里克。是克里斯·卡頓。是的，確實，蒂姆總結了我們的觀點，我們確實認為這是在他的劇本中，我們認為在宏觀上謹慎是合適的。事實上，正如您所問的那樣，我們收到了很多關於此的問題。所以我們將在本週發表一篇關於這個主題的論文。看，總結是為彈性建立真正的庫存實際上只完成了一半，並且正在取得進展。它正在按照我們的觀點進行。

Now notwithstanding some of that excess inventory for some retailers for some products, which you just described, the broader landscape has continued to focus on raising inventory levels, reducing stock outs and reintroducing product variety. As it relates to leasing, we are seeing it in the marketplace now for resilience.

現在，儘管您剛才描述的某些產品的某些零售商的庫存過剩，但更廣泛的領域繼續關注提高庫存水平、減少缺貨和重新引入產品種類。由於它與租賃有關，我們現在在市場上看到它具有彈性。

I'll just give you the basic numbers. Trend demand growth in our 30 markets is roughly 200 million to 225 million square feet per year, and we are running at a pace of 300 million square feet per year. So we have indeed seen quite a bit of growth in excess of -- excuse me, it's 400 million, so 300 million realized over the last 18 months. So we've begun to realize some of these structural drivers, but more is in front of us than has been realized.

我只會給你基本的數字。我們 30 個市場的趨勢需求增長約為每年 2 億至 2.25 億平方英尺，我們正以每年 3 億平方英尺的速度運行。所以我們確實看到了相當多的增長——對不起，這是 4 億，所以在過去 18 個月裡實現了 3 億。因此，我們已經開始意識到其中一些結構性驅動因素，但擺在我們面前的遠比已經意識到的要多。

Yes. I would say this is the second worst understood point about our business. I think I would put Amazon first and I would put a level of inventory second. That's why we've chosen to put out this paper, and I just invite you to get into the nuances. These kinds of numbers, particularly sort of ratio type numbers, can be very misleading if you don't parse them out. For example, whether you include autos or non-autos or general merchandise and non-general merchandise, you'll see those conclusions to be radically different.

是的。我想說這是關於我們業務的第二個最糟糕的理解點。我想我會把亞馬遜放在第一位，我會把庫存水平放在第二位。這就是我們選擇發布這篇論文的原因，我只是邀請您了解其中的細微差別。如果您不將它們解析出來，這些類型的數字，尤其是比率類型的數字，可能會非常具有誤導性。例如，無論您包括汽車或非汽車或一般商品和非一般商品，您都會看到這些結論完全不同。

Our next question is from the line of Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.

我們的下一個問題來自 Scotiabank 的 Nick Yulico。

I just had a couple of questions here on Page 4 where you give the leading indicators. I guess on lease proposals, I just want to see what you would attribute to that number having coming down? Is that just now finally realizing the Amazon effect removing them from the market? I mean lease proposals look like they're down 10%, 15% versus your 3-year average.

我剛剛在第 4 頁有幾個問題，您在其中給出了領先指標。我想在租賃建議中，我只是想看看你認為這個數字下降的原因是什麼？是不是現在才終於意識到亞馬遜效應將它們從市場上移除？我的意思是，與您的 3 年平均水平相比，租賃提案看起來下降了 10%、15%。

And then on the IBI activity index, I just want to also make sure in terms of the -- what you're serving people about, is that really looking forward on space demand? Or is it more of a -- I mean the chart looks like it's almost more of a coincidental indicator rather than much of a leading indicator if you look at the last sort of 2 recessions and how it played out.

然後在 IBI 活動指數方面，我只想確定——你為人們服務的內容，真的是對空間需求的展望嗎？或者它更像是一個 - 我的意思是，如果你看看最後一次兩次衰退以及它是如何發揮作用的，圖表看起來更像是一個巧合指標，而不是一個領先指標。

All I can tell you is that it's hard to increase lease proposals when you have less space to rent. We only have 2% vacancy. So the metric that you should think about is the one that we mentioned in the script, which is that we are 52% on our vacancy at this point in the cycle, which is by far higher than the normal point in the cycle in terms of pre-leasing or re-leasing of our vacancies. These are proposals by the way.

我只能告訴你的是，當你的出租空間減少時，很難增加租賃建議。我們只有 2% 的空缺。因此，您應該考慮的指標是我們在腳本中提到的指標，即在周期中的這一點上，我們的空置率為 52%，這遠遠高於週期中的正常點預租或轉租我們的空缺。順便說一下，這些都是建議。

Yes. And as it relates to the IBI, which you asked, we find it to be more closely correlated with next 12-month absorption than any other economic indicator.

是的。並且由於它與您詢問的 IBI 相關，我們發現它與未來 12 個月吸收的相關性比任何其他經濟指標都更密切。

The next question comes from the line of Dave Rodgers with Baird.

下一個問題來自戴夫羅傑斯與貝爾德的對話。

Given the comments you made earlier, just about the price discovery in the market. Curious about your thoughts around asset sales dispositions. You didn't update guidance. But should we anticipate that, that pushes later into the year? And then maybe more broadly, as you bring Duke on board, not a question about them, but about you, that effective transaction as a deleveraging event, it seems for you guys.

鑑於您之前發表的評論，只是關於市場上的價格發現。好奇您對資產出售處置的看法。您沒有更新指南。但我們是否應該預料到這一點，這會推遲到今年晚些時候？然後也許更廣泛地說，當你讓杜克加入時，不是關於他們的問題，而是關於你的問題，作為去槓桿事件的有效交易，對你們來說似乎是這樣。

So do you run leverage back up as a company? Are you comfortable, you are -- do you run lower kind of in the future and trying to think about asset sales and recycling going forward?

那麼，作為一家公司，您是否會利用槓桿進行備份？你舒服嗎，你是 - 你在未來跑得更低，並試圖考慮未來的資產銷售和回收嗎？

Yes, pretty hard to run leverage any lower than where we are, but we're not conscious with thinking of leveraging up. And the fact that the combination will actually improve or reduce our leverage is totally coincidental. We're not doing the deal to reduce our leverage. Our leverage is pretty low. So I would say our leverage is probably much lower than it's likely to be across the cycle. But again, that's opportunity driven, not sort of top-down driven. Tim, anything else?

是的，槓桿率很難低於我們現在的水平，但我們並沒有意識到要提高槓桿率。事實上，這種組合實際上會提高或降低我們的槓桿率，這完全是巧合。我們做這筆交易並不是為了降低我們的影響力。我們的槓桿率很低。所以我想說我們的槓桿率可能遠低於整個週期的槓桿率。但同樣，這是機會驅動的，而不是自上而下的驅動。提姆，還有什麼？

No, I fully agree on how we view that transaction. And then with regard to dispo timing, nothing has really changed in our forecast. The holding of our guidance reflects our original view. There's always puts and takes on which quarter, some things will land in and what the right mix of assets are going to be, but we're good with our guidance.

不，我完全同意我們如何看待該交易。然後關於處置時間，我們的預測沒有真正改變。我們的指導意見反映了我們的原始觀點。總有投入和投入哪個季度，有些東西會落入以及正確的資產組合將是什麼，但我們對我們的指導很好。

Yes. Let me just give you an example of dispo guidance. We had a portfolio that we had on the market, nothing to -- obviously, with Duke. And the buyer came back for a price discount. And we basically told them, they can take a hike. The same thing happened in the week that the world shut down because of COVID. A buyer came in, they were way down the road on the acquisition, and they came back, this is 2 years ago, for a price discount, okay? And we told them to go away.

是的。讓我給你舉一個 dispo 指導的例子。我們有一個我們在市場上擁有的投資組合，顯然與杜克沒有任何關係。買家回來是為了打折。我們基本上告訴他們，他們可以徒步旅行。同樣的事情發生在世界因 COVID 而關閉的那一周。一個買家進來了，他們在收購的路上走得很遠，然後他們回來了，這是兩年前，為了價格折扣，好嗎？我們告訴他們走開。

They came back 1.5 years later, and they paid 15% more than they had the deal tied up on. So 20% more than where they were trying to drive the price. I'm not saying the same thing will happen, but I'm just saying, look, at the end of the day, no level of disposition or acquisition or development is going to affect the company that's of this scale and diversity.

他們在 1.5 年後回來了，他們支付的費用比交易完成時高出 15%。所以比他們試圖推動價格的地方高出 20%。我並不是說同樣的事情會發生，但我只是說，看，歸根結底，沒有任何水平的處置、收購或發展會影響具有這種規模和多樣性的公司。

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Bilerman with Citi.

我們的下一個問題來自花旗的 Michael Bilerman。

I mean, just staying with sort of the investment market, I just wanted to get some of your views thinking about it more so from an IRR perspective than a cap rate, just given how large of the mark-to-market there is today in various assets, talking about a spot cap rate sometimes leads to different conclusions? And so I'd be curious of your view how you're approaching it from an IRR basis, either on a 5- or 7-year basis and how you're thinking about the required return, but also how you're seeing this usual investor change, perhaps their view overall on underwriting?

我的意思是，只是停留在某種投資市場上，我只是想讓你的一些觀點更多地從內部收益率的角度而不是從上限利率的角度來考慮，考慮到當今市場的市值有多大各種資產，談論即期上限利率有時會導致不同的結論？所以我很好奇你的看法，你是如何從內部收益率的基礎上接近它的，無論是在 5 年還是 7 年的基礎上，以及你如何考慮所需的回報，以及你如何看待這個通常的投資者變化，也許是他們對承銷的整體看法？

Third, at least well understood point. And you make a great point. What does the spot cap rate mean if your mark-to-market is 50 basis points. If you're investing in apartments, you're -- there is no mark-to-market. So the cap rate is the cap rate. But the fact that you have that built-in mark-to-market, just as your question suggests, that alone would drive cap rates way down. So I think the IRR is a much better measure of return requirements.

第三，至少很好理解的一點。你提出了一個很好的觀點。如果您的市值為 50 個基點，即期上限利率意味著什麼。如果您正在投資公寓，那麼您就是 - 沒有按市值計價。所以上限率就是上限率。但是，正如您的問題所暗示的那樣，您擁有內置的按市值計價的事實，僅此一項就會導致上限利率下降。所以我認為內部收益率是衡量回報要求的更好衡量標準。

And I would say, a quarter ago, we were seeing transactions go down in the low 5 unleveraged IRRs, which is the way we like to look at it. By the way, we weren't investing at those kinds of returns. But they were literally low 5 IRRs. With an average, I would say, rent growth forecast -- a market rent growth forecast of probably 3%, okay?

我想說，一個季度前，我們看到交易在低 5 個無槓桿 IRR 中下降，這是我們喜歡看待它的方式。順便說一句，我們並沒有投資於那些回報。但它們實際上是低 5 的內部收益率。我想說的是平均租金增長預測——市場租金增長預測可能為 3%，好嗎？

Today, I would say the discount rates that people are likely to look at are going to have a 6 in front of them, low 6s. But the rental growth forecast, even with the same 3% market rent forecast is going to be substantially higher than before because the mark-to-markets have expanded. So the lease mark-to-market of 3% is on top of the mark-to-market. So the total lease growth rate is increasing.

今天，我想說人們可能會看到的折扣率將在他們面前出現 6，低 6。但租金增長預測，即使市場租金預測相同，為 3%，也將大大高於以前，因為按市價計算已經擴大。因此，3% 的租賃按市值計價是在按市值計價的之上。因此，總租賃增長率正在增加。

So I'm not sure the cap rates are going to move around that much because of the mark-to-market issue. I think what's going to happen is most people don't get that. So they're going to pause a bit on volume of deployment. But any time anybody wants to bring a good deal in one of our markets at -- with 50% mark-to-market at the kind of cap rates that we saw maybe 3 quarters ago, our number is [1 800] Prologis. We'd like to buy as much of that stuff as we can because I think to invest in that with that mark-to-market. And that level of discount to replacement costs is our dream come true, and our leveraged friends can't do that. So it's a great environment.

因此，由於盯市問題，我不確定上限利率是否會大幅波動。我認為將會發生的事情是大多數人不明白這一點。因此，他們將暫停部署量。但是，任何時候任何人都想在我們的一個市場中以 50% 的按市值計價以我們可能在 3 個季度前看到的那種上限利率帶來一筆好交易，我們的數字是 [1800] Prologis。我們想盡可能多地購買這些東西，因為我認為以按市值計價的方式進行投資。重置成本的這種折扣是我們的夢想成真，我們的槓桿朋友做不到。所以這是一個很棒的環境。

Our final question is from the line of Jamie Feldman with Bank of America.

我們的最後一個問題來自美國銀行的 Jamie Feldman。

I mean I don't know if you can quantify this or not, but when you think about your leasing pipeline, the proposals you've mentioned, 52% of remaining vacancies. Can you break that out by how much you think that is -- how much of that do you think is recession-sensitive versus not? So I guess I'm asking, when you think about if they're really trying to get supply chain resilience and all the secular trends we're talking about, how much of the leasing pipeline would just power through that versus take a pause if we do, in fact, have a mild recession as a latter calling for?

我的意思是我不知道你是否可以量化這一點，但是當你考慮你的租賃管道時，你提到的建議，剩餘空置的 52%。你能把它分解成你認為有多少——你認為有多少是對衰退敏感的還是不敏感的？所以我想我在問，當你考慮他們是否真的試圖獲得供應鏈彈性以及我們正在談論的所有長期趨勢時，有多少租賃管道將通過它而不是暫停事實上，我們確實有後者所要求的溫和衰退？

Jamie, it would be pure speculation. I have no idea, is the personal answer. First of all, I'm not sure we're going to have a recession. Secondly, I have no idea if we have a recession, how deep or extended it will be? I'm not sure even what the definition of the recession is anymore. Because we got this committee deciding whether we're in a recession or not, and they usually declare it a couple of quarters after it happens. So the answer is, I have no clue. That's the honest answer.

傑米，這純粹是猜測。我不知道，是個人的答案。首先，我不確定我們是否會出現衰退。其次，我不知道我們是否會出現衰退，它會有多深或多長？我什至不確定衰退的定義是什麼。因為我們讓這個委員會來決定我們是否處於衰退之中，他們通常會在衰退發生後幾個季度宣布。所以答案是，我不知道。這是誠實的答案。

That was the last question. Really appreciate your interest and look forward in our continued dialogue. Take care.

那是最後一個問題。非常感謝您的興趣，並期待我們繼續對話。小心。

Thank you. This will conclude today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and log off your computers. Thank you for your participation. Have a wonderful day.

謝謝你。今天的會議到此結束。此時您可以斷開線路並註銷您的計算機。感謝您的參與。有一個美好的一天。