Prologis Inc (PLD) 2022 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Greetings, and welcome to the Prologis Third Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Jill Sawyer, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

您好，歡迎參加 Prologis 2022 年第三季度收益電話會議。 （操作員說明）作為提醒，本次會議正在錄製中。我現在想將電話轉給投資者關係副總裁 Jill Sawyer。謝謝你。你可以開始了。

Thanks, Daryl, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our third quarter 2022 earnings conference call. The supplemental document is available on our website at prologis.com under Investor Relations.

謝謝，達里爾，大家早上好。歡迎參加我們的 2022 年第三季度收益電話會議。補充文件可在我們的網站 prologis.com 的投資者關係下獲得。

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 in 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.

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 經營所在行業市場的當前預期、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。

Additionally, our third 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. On October 3, we closed on the acquisition of Duke Realty. As a reminder, Duke's results are not contained in our third quarter earnings release. However, within our supplemental, we included a summary of the portfolio integrated as of quarter end. Please refer to our website for details on the transaction.

此外，我們的第三季度業績新聞稿和補充確實包含財務指標，例如非公認會計原則指標的 FFO 和 EBITDA。並且根據 Reg G，我們對這些措施進行了調整。 10 月 3 日，我們完成了對 Duke Realty 的收購。提醒一下，杜克的業績未包含在我們的第三季度收益發布中。但是，在我們的補充文件中，我們包含了截至季度末整合的投資組合的摘要。有關交易的詳情，請參閱我們的網站。

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.

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. We are clearly in a volatile macro environment, where ongoing inflation, steeply rising interest rates and the war and energy crisis in Europe are pressuring the global economy. And while we're closely monitoring each element, the fundamentals in our business are very strong, and our read of supply and demand in our markets remains out of sync with the headlines.

謝謝，吉爾。大家早上好，感謝您加入我們的電話會議。我們顯然處於一個動蕩的宏觀環境中，持續的通貨膨脹、急劇上升的利率以及歐洲的戰爭和能源危機正在給全球經濟帶來壓力。雖然我們密切關注每一個要素，但我們業務的基本面非常強勁，我們對市場供需的解讀與頭條新聞不同步。

This morning, we reported excellent third quarter results, which generated many new records in the quarter. We will spend less time on these results and more time describing our view of the market and how we're navigating the environment.

今天上午，我們公佈了出色的第三季度業績，在該季度創造了許多新紀錄。我們將在這些結果上花費更少的時間，而將更多的時間描述我們對市場的看法以及我們如何駕馭環境。

Before doing so, I'd like to thank our teams across the entire organization who did an exceptional job keeping focus on the business, especially while working through the Duke acquisition, which closed on October 3. We fully integrated the portfolio, achieved our day 1 synergies and look forward to the next phase, which is to build AFFO accretion through incremental property cash flows and Essentials income. We move forward with a better portfolio, a larger and stronger balance sheet, talented new employees and new customers to whom we can introduce to our Essentials business.

在此之前，我要感謝我們整個組織中的團隊，他們出色地專注於業務，尤其是在完成對杜克的收購工作期間，該收購於 10 月 3 日結束。我們完全整合了投資組合，成就了我們的一天1 協同效應並期待下一階段，即通過增加的財產現金流和基本收入來建立 AFFO 增值。我們以更好的投資組合、更大、更強大的資產負債表、有才華的新員工和新客戶向前邁進，我們可以向他們介紹我們的 Essentials 業務。

Turning to results. Core FFO was $1.73 per share, including $0.57 of net promote income earned principally from our PELP venture in Europe. Our annual guidance for Promotes was $0.60, with most of the revenue to be earned in the third quarter. The amount came in below expectations due to a nearly 5% write-down of European asset values in the quarter, partially offset by an increase in NAV from debt mark-to-market.

轉向結果。核心 FFO 為每股 1.73 美元，包括主要從我們在歐洲的 PELP 合資企業獲得的 0.57 美元淨推廣收入。我們對促銷活動的年度指導為 0.60 美元，大部分收入將在第三季度獲得。由於本季度歐洲資產價值減記近 5%，該金額低於預期，部分被債務按市值計算的資產淨值增加所抵消。

In the end, the promote was a record high, while the fund enjoyed a high teens annualized [IRR] across the 3-year performance period despite the recent markdown. I'll note a few operating stats from the quarter, all of which were records for the company. Ending occupancy increased 10 basis points over the quarter to 97.8%. Same-store growth was 8.3% on a net effective basis and 9.3% on a cash basis. Both were driven primarily by rent change, which was 60% on a net effective basis.

最終，促銷活動創下歷史新高，而儘管最近降價，該基金在 3 年的業績期間仍享有較高的青少年年化 [IRR]。我會注意到本季度的一些運營統計數據，所有這些都是公司的記錄。本季度的期末入住率增加了 10 個基點，達到 97.8%。同店增長在淨有效基礎上為 8.3%，在現金基礎上增長 9.3%。兩者都主要受到租金變化的推動，淨有效率為 60%。

Separately, the Duke portfolio ended the quarter with 99% occupancy and net effective rent change of 54%. While these markets are outstanding, they are also backward looking. So we've kept focus on more contemporaneous data, namely rent change on signings, which was 84% during the quarter, and our lease mark-to-market, which now stands at nearly 62%.

另外，杜克投資組合在本季度末的入住率為 99%，淨有效租金變化為 54%。雖然這些市場很出色，但它們也很落後。因此，我們一直關注更同期的數據，即簽約的租金變化，本季度為 84%，我們的租賃按市值計價，目前接近 62%。

Finally, we had a very active quarter on the balance sheet, raising over $3 billion of debt in a variety of markets and currencies given our broad access, including a $650 million green bond issued in late September. We ended the quarter with debt-to-EBITDA of 4.3x, excluding gains, providing us significant investment capacity.

最後，我們在資產負債表上度過了一個非常活躍的季度，鑑於我們的廣泛准入，我們在各種市場和貨幣中籌集了超過 30 億美元的債務，其中包括 9 月底發行的 6.5 億美元的綠色債券。我們在本季度末的債務與 EBITDA 之比為 4.3 倍，不包括收益，為我們提供了巨大的投資能力。

Turning to our observations of current conditions. We continue to see scarcity of available space across our markets. Vacancy rates are at historic lows, and our own occupancy sits at a record high. Market rent growth in the third quarter remained robust in response to this scarcity and continued strong demand.

轉向我們對當前狀況的觀察。我們繼續看到我們市場的可用空間稀缺。空置率處於歷史低位，而我們自己的入住率也創下歷史新高。為應對這種稀缺性和持續強勁的需求，第三季度的市場租金增長保持強勁。

Color across the markets remains generally upbeat in terms of customer inquiries, and our proprietary metrics also reveal healthy activity even if they've softened from the peak demand generated during COVID to levels still above long-term averages. Transaction gestation was stable during the third quarter at 62 days, proposals via available units slowed during the third quarter to levels more in line with the pace of 2019 and indicative of less urgency to renew space far ahead of exploration.

就客戶查詢而言，整個市場的色彩總體上保持樂觀，我們的專有指標也顯示出健康的活動，即使它們已經從 COVID 期間產生的峰值需求軟化到仍高於長期平均水平的水平。第三季度的交易孕育期穩定在 62 天，通過可用單位的提案在第三季度放緩至與 2019 年的步伐更一致的水平，表明在探索之前更新空間的緊迫性降低。

Inside our properties are metrics point of activity that is increasing with our IBI index at 63.8%, the 80th percentile and utilization up to 86.6%, the 95th percentile. Our certain customers have publicly announced a pause in CapEx spending, particularly those with more mature supply chains. But active dialogue with the majority of our customers confirms an overarching need to increase space as supply chain resiliency remains a top concern.

在我們的屬性中，活動指標點正在增加，我們的 IBI 指數為 63.8%，第 80 個百分位，利用率高達 86.6%，第 95 個百分位。我們的某些客戶已公開宣布暫停資本支出支出，尤其是那些擁有更成熟供應鏈的客戶。但與我們大多數客戶的積極對話證實了增加空間的首要需求，因為供應鏈彈性仍然是首要問題。

Shifting to supply. We're seeing initial signs of a deceleration in development activity across our markets as construction and capital costs continue to increase. We believe we could see a gap in deliveries emerge in late '23 or early '24. As for today, our true months of supply metrics sits at a healthy 22 months, up from 18 months last quarter. We've previously explained that we expect to see this metric climb into a low 30 months range, still at a level reflecting a strong operating environment.

轉向供應。隨著建設和資本成本的持續增加，我們看到整個市場的開發活動減速的初步跡象。我們相信我們可以看到在 23 年底或 24 年初出現交付缺口。至於今天，我們真正的供應指標月份為 22 個月，高於上一季度的 18 個月。我們之前已經解釋過，我們預計該指標將攀升至 30 個月的低位，仍處於反映強勁運營環境的水平。

It's important to acknowledge where supply is being delivered as our submarket location strategies minimize our exposure to new supply. For example, in our coastal U.S. markets where we generate over 50% of our global NOI, vacancies are just 1.7%. Geographically, we have an increased level of focus on Europe given the ongoing war and growing energy crisis. While we're reporting record results, including occupancy at 98.6% in a market with 2.4% vacancy, we are closely monitoring conditions. Customers are exercising caution in response to rising energy costs, which may create headwinds to near-term demand. That said, we also believe that new supply will now decline around 15% in 2023, which should support occupancy.

重要的是要確認供應的交付地點，因為我們的子市場定位策略最大限度地減少了我們對新供應的敞口。例如，在我們產生超過 50% 的全球 NOI 的美國沿海市場，空缺率僅為 1.7%。在地理上，鑑於持續的戰爭和日益嚴重的能源危機，我們對歐洲的關注程度有所提高。雖然我們正在報告創紀錄的結果，包括在一個空置率為 2.4% 的市場中的 98.6% 的入住率，但我們正在密切關注情況。客戶正在謹慎應對不斷上漲的能源成本，這可能會對近期需求造成不利影響。也就是說，我們還認為，到 2023 年，新供應現在將下降 15% 左右，這應該會支持入住率。

The U.S. remains strong, where we now generate 87% of our NOI with the addition of Duke. Our teams continue to see solid activity, although acknowledging a reduced number of prospects for space compared to what we saw during the frenzy of COVID. Rent change on signings during the quarter was 93%, demonstrating a continuation of favorable pricing dynamics.

美國仍然很強大，加上杜克大學，我們現在產生了 87% 的 NOI。我們的團隊繼續看到穩健的活動，儘管與我們在 COVID 狂熱期間看到的相比，我們承認太空前景的數量有所減少。本季度簽約的租金變化為 93%，表明繼續保持有利的定價動態。

In Latin America, both Mexico and Brazil are performing well, with very high occupancy over 98% and rent change across the region of 24%. And in Asia, construction costs in Japan are rising most acutely from the weakness in the yen, as well as from competition for key materials to complete construction. Market vacancies have increased, but this constraint on new supply, particularly out to '23 and '24, should provide an offset. The combined picture was positive to third quarter market rent growth, exceeding our expectations and driving a 300 basis point increase of our '22 global forecast to 26%, with the U.S. at 28%, significantly up from the 10% and 11%, respectively, in our initial guidance.

在拉丁美洲，墨西哥和巴西都表現良好，入住率非常高，超過 98%，整個地區的租金變化為 24%。而在亞洲，由於日元疲軟以及為完成建設而對關鍵材料的競爭，日本的建築成本上升最為劇烈。市場空置率有所增加，但這種對新供應的限制，特別是到 23 年和 24 年，應該會起到抵消作用。綜合情況對第三季度市場租金增長是積極的，超出了我們的預期，推動我們 22 年全球預測增長 300 個基點至 26%，美國為 28%，分別顯著高於 10% 和 11% ，在我們的初步指導中。

It's difficult to fully know the impact of this market rent growth on values given the limited transaction volume in the market. But our view is that the increase in return requirements is more than offsetting rent growth and indeed pressuring values. Based on prior cycles, we can safely assume it will take few quarters for full price discovery to be made as markets stabilize and transaction volumes build.

鑑於市場交易量有限，很難完全了解這種市場租金增長對價值的影響。但我們的觀點是，回報要求的增加不僅抵消了租金增長，而且確實對價值造成了壓力。根據之前的周期，我們可以有把握地假設隨著市場穩定和交易量的增加，需要幾個季度才能發現全價。

With all this in mind, we're carefully managing the business and approaching our markets with a sense of caution much as we did at the onset of the pandemic. In leasing, despite the very strong spot environment, we are carefully watching for softening demand and will assume that there will be further macro deterioration. In some markets, this will have us managing more for occupancy than rent growth, but in many others, we believe pricing will remain favorable given very low availability. This is an environment where our revenue management capabilities will be the most useful and allow us to manage such decisions lease-by-lease.

考慮到這一切，我們正在謹慎地管理業務並以謹慎的態度接近我們的市場，就像我們在大流行開始時所做的那樣。在租賃方面，儘管現貨環境非常強勁，但我們正在密切關注需求疲軟情況，並假設宏觀形勢將進一步惡化。在某些市場，這將使我們管理更多的入住率而不是租金增長，但在許多其他市場，我們相信由於可用性非常低，定價將保持有利。在這種環境下，我們的收入管理能力將發揮最大作用，讓我們能夠逐個租賃管理此類決策。

With deployment, we are reducing our starts guidance to a range of $4.2 billion to $4.6 billion, and we expect our fourth quarter starts will be 60% build-to-suit, reflecting a more cautious approach to deployment in the coming months, aiming to be very selective in new projects. And in terms of strategic capital, we previously mentioned that we expect to see an increase in redemption activity. While we did have inflows from numerous investors, redemptions grew by $1.3 billion, which, for context, is just 3% of our open-end third-party AUM. Our funds have sufficient equity queues to address this activity. In combination with equity called during the quarter, we now sit at net neutral queues. The open-ended funds have ample investment capacity based on overall low leverage, and we are optimistic about the long-term growth of the business.

通過部署，我們將開工指導降低至 42 億至 46 億美元的範圍，我們預計第四季度開工率為 60%，以適應未來幾個月的部署，旨在在新項目中非常有選擇性。在戰略資本方面，我們之前提到我們預計贖回活動會增加。雖然我們確實有眾多投資者的流入，但贖回增加了 13 億美元，就上下文而言，這僅占我們開放式第三方 AUM 的 3%。我們的基金有足夠的股票隊列來處理這項活動。結合本季度調用的股權，我們現在處於網絡中立隊列。開放式基金在整體槓桿率較低的情況下，投資能力充裕，我們看好業務的長期增長。

In the near-term, we will be prudent as we evaluate further capital deployment, including a pause on contributions in the short-term.

在短期內，我們將謹慎評估進一步的資本部署，包括在短期內暫停捐款。

Turning to guidance, which includes Duke portfolio for the fourth quarter. We are maintaining our guidance for average occupancy, while increasing our net effective same-store guidance to 7.5% to 7.75%, and our cash same-store guidance to 8.5% to 8.75%. We expect to see our lease mark-to-market around 65% at the end of the year. We now expect acquisitions to range between $1.9 billion to $2.1 billion, which increased due to our acquisition activity in Europe during the quarter, and contributions and dispositions to range between $2.1 billion to $2.3 billion.

轉向指導，其中包括杜克第四季度的投資組合。我們維持對平均入住率的指導，同時將淨有效同店指導提高至 7.5% 至 7.75%，將現金同店指導提高至 8.5% 至 8.75%。我們預計到年底我們的租賃按市值計價率將達到 65% 左右。我們現在預計收購將在 19 億美元至 21 億美元之間，由於我們在本季度在歐洲的收購活動而增加，貢獻和處置在 21 億美元至 23 億美元之間。

Finally, we are increasing core FFO, excluding Promotes, to $4.60 to $4.62 per share, which includes approximately $0.05 of accretion related to the acquisition of Duke. We are guiding core FFO with Promotes to be $5.12 to $5.14 per share, which incorporates a lower Promote guidance of $0.52, reflective of the higher share count resulting from the Duke transaction.

最後，我們將核心 FFO（不包括促銷）增加到每股 4.60 美元至 4.62 美元，其中包括與收購杜克有關的大約 0.05 美元的增值。我們將核心 FFO 與 Promotions 指導為每股 5.12 美元至 5.14 美元，其中包含較低的 Promotion 指導價 0.52 美元，這反映了 Duke 交易導致的更高股票數量。

I'd like to point out that our earnings have been unimpacted by FX over this extremely volatile year due to our capital strategy and approach to hedging. The same is true for our equity base, which has very minimal exposure outside of the U.S. dollar despite our global footprint. We will continue to protect both proactively and programmatically.

我想指出，由於我們的資本策略和對沖方法，在這個極其動蕩的一年裡，我們的收益沒有受到外彙的影響。我們的股票基礎也是如此，儘管我們的足跡遍布全球，但在美元之外的敞口非常小。我們將繼續以主動和程序化的方式進行保護。

To close, we're proud of how we've positioned the business and are optimistic about the organic growth ahead. We own hard assets with contractual revenues, significant embedded mark-to-market and have meaningful secular drivers that continue to play out. As an organization, we have long had an entrepreneurial and growth mindset. Today, adding new business lines and cash flow streams that are synergistic with our already unique model.

最後，我們為我們如何定位業務感到自豪，並對未來的有機增長持樂觀態度。我們擁有具有合同收入的硬資產、大量嵌入的按市值計價的資產，並擁有持續發揮作用的有意義的長期驅動因素。作為一個組織，我們長期以來一直具有創業和成長的心態。今天，增加了與我們已經獨特的模型協同工作的新業務線和現金流。

We have built the company to thrive across cycles, including uncertain environments like today, where we can seize opportunities and continue to set our business and portfolio apart.

我們建立了公司以跨越週期蓬勃發展，包括像今天這樣的不確定環境，我們可以抓住機會並繼續使我們的業務和投資組合與眾不同。

We'll now turn the call over to the operator for your questions.

我們現在將把電話轉給接線員來解答您的問題。

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.

（操作員說明）我們的第一個問題來自於 Evercore ISI 的 Steve Sakwa。

I don't know, Tim or Hamid, I guess what I'm trying to sort of circle up here is that, I understand why development starts would come down in light of what's going on globally, but yet stabilizations are up but the contributions are down. And I guess what I'm trying to really square up is if the funds still have capacity and they're still interested in deploying money, I'm trying to just really circle up why contributions into funds would be down, which is also impacting development gains? So is it a pricing issue? Is it a lack of leasing on the assets? I guess, I'm just trying to get a little more color on why that contribution number is down. And I guess I can understand why dispositions would be down in this uncertain capital markets environment, but I'm just trying to get a little bit better handle on the contribution side.

我不知道，蒂姆還是哈米德，我想我想在這里圈出的是，我理解為什麼鑑於全球正在發生的事情，開發開始會下降，但穩定在上升，但貢獻下來了。而且我想我真正想要弄清楚的是，如果資金仍然有能力並且他們仍然對部署資金感興趣，我正在嘗試真正圈出為什麼對基金的貢獻會下降，這也會影響發展收益？那麼這是定價問題嗎？是否缺乏資產租賃？我想，我只是想了解一下為什麼這個貢獻數字會下降。而且我想我可以理解為什麼在這種不確定的資本市場環境下配置會下降，但我只是想在貢獻方面更好地處理。

Yes, Steve, good question. It's actually none of those reasons. The reason the contributions are down is that I made a decision that we are going to stop contributions until we have much better clarity on valuations, because one of the lessons that we and the former Prologis learned in the last cycle is that it's really, really important not to force any issues when there is the least bit of hesitancy around values. And as much as we have ideas about what values are and where they're going, we don't have absolute certainty about that.

是的，史蒂夫，好問題。其實這些都不是原因。貢獻下降的原因是我做出了一個決定，我們將停止貢獻，直到我們對估值有更清晰的了解，因為我們和前 Prologis 在上一個週期中學到的一個教訓是，它真的，真的重要的是，當對價值觀有絲毫猶豫時，不要強加任何問題。儘管我們對價值觀是什麼以及它們的去向有很多想法，但我們對此並沒有絕對的把握。

So it was completely a voluntary decision. Our leasing of our development business is actually ahead of what the way we underwrote the properties, and there is no external constraint on us, including capacity of which the funds continue to have some. They're getting some redemptions, but they have plenty of leverage capacity, and we continue to raise money even in the same environment, not as much as we did before, but we continue to do that.

所以這完全是一個自願的決定。我們的開發業務的租賃實際上領先於我們承銷物業的方式，並且我們沒有外部約束，包括資金繼續擁有的能力。他們得到了一些贖回，但他們有足夠的槓桿能力，即使在相同的環境下，我們也會繼續籌集資金，雖然不像以前那樣多，但我們會繼續這樣做。

I would just add, Steve, in relation to your comment on gains in next year, I would just point out that the value creation is occurring regardless of that monetization event. If we hold the development assets on our balance sheet, it's still there at a very attractive yield. And we believe many of those assets will still find their way to the fund. It's just a time, a pause right now.

我只想補充一點，史蒂夫，關於你對明年收益的評論，我只想指出，無論貨幣化事件如何，價值創造都在發生。如果我們在資產負債表上持有開發資產，它仍然以非常有吸引力的收益率存在。我們相信，其中許多資產仍會流向該基金。現在只是一個時間，一個暫停。

Our next question comes from the line of Craig Mailman with Citi.

我們的下一個問題來自花旗銀行的 Craig Mailman。

I just want to go back, Tim, to your commentary, there was, I think, an overarching message that fundamentals are still very strong. And the way it looks to me, you could still have accelerating core growth into next year. But at the same time, you clearly mentioned that some markets you guys would have to be kind of revenue [managing] here. I just kind of would like a little bit of color on maybe the percentage of those markets or how we should think about what's really at risk from a fundamental perspective?

蒂姆，我只想回到你的評論中，我認為有一個總體信息，即基本面仍然非常強勁。在我看來，你仍然可以在明年加速核心增長。但與此同時，你明確提到，你們必須在這裡負責一些市場的收入[管理]。我只是想了解一下這些市場的百分比，或者我們應該如何從基本面的角度思考真正面臨風險的東西？

And then also, just as it relates to Duke, clearly, debt rates have moved against you a little bit. And so relative to your initial accretion, there's probably a little bit of a headwind there. And I'm just curious, too, as you guys kind of start to bid and kind of coming down a bit this year, where is your updated accretion number for Duke for the first 12 months?

然後，正如它與杜克有關，很明顯，債務利率對你不利。所以相對於你最初的積累，那裡可能有一點逆風。我也很好奇，因為你們今年開始出價並且有點下降，你對杜克大學前 12 個月的最新增長數字在哪裡？

That was a couple of questions and 1 big question. So let me take parts of it, and I'm sure Tim and Dan will have a follow-up on this. In terms of fundamentals, what we're saying is that if a normal range of market outcomes is kind of 0 to 10, we were operating in an environment that was maybe at 12 for the last 18 months, and that's coming down to sort of a 9, 9.5 today. And that's why we shared with you the percentiles of utilization and occupancy and business activity that are part of our proprietary data that we survey customers around.

這是幾個問題和一個大問題。所以讓我參與其中，我相信蒂姆和丹會對此進行跟進。就基本面而言，我們所說的是，如果市場結果的正常範圍是 0 到 10，那麼我們在過去 18 個月中可能處於 12 的環境中運營，而這將歸結為一個9，今天9.5。這就是為什麼我們與您分享利用率和占用率以及業務活動的百分比，這些百分比是我們調查客戶的專有數據的一部分。

So by any measure, other than the last 18 months, I would say, we're in very strong market conditions. And during those periods of sort of 9, 9.5, there are always a couple of markets that are weaker than others. The key markets are exceptionally strong. I mean, L.A., basically L.A. and Inland Empire, there's no vacancy in New Jersey, there's no vacancy and so on and so forth. But there are markets where vacancy rates are in the 5%, 6% range. That's by historical standards. It's a very low level of vacancy. So I would say -- I would characterize the fundamentals as being very, very strong. They're just not off the charts given what's happened in the last 18 months.

因此，無論以何種標準衡量，除了過去 18 個月，我想說的是，我們處於非常強勁的市場環境中。在 9、9.5 的那些時期，總是有幾個市場比其他市場更弱。主要市場異常強勁。我的意思是，洛杉磯，基本上是洛杉磯和內陸帝國，新澤西沒有空缺，沒有空缺等等。但有些市場的空置率在 5% 到 6% 的範圍內。這是按照歷史標準。這是一個非常低的職位空缺。所以我會說 - 我會將基本面描述為非常非常強大。考慮到過去 18 個月發生的事情，它們並沒有脫離圖表。

With respect to the Duke portfolio and margins and the like, Dan can elaborate on this, but we've never underwritten the exit cap rates to what the peak has been in the last 12 to 18 months. We've always taken -- added the premium for the forward risk and just the fact that, basically, these were unprecedented times. And a lot of the margins that you saw in prior quarters from us reflected that level of conservatism.

關於杜克的投資組合和利潤率等，Dan 可以詳細說明這一點，但我們從未將退出上限利率承保到過去 12 到 18 個月的峰值水平。我們一直採取 - 增加了遠期風險的溢價，而事實上，基本上，這是前所未有的時代。您在前幾個季度從我們那裡看到的很多利潤都反映了這種保守主義水平。

And rents are still going up. I mean, we started 2022 thinking rents are going to be up 11%. They're up 28%. So yes, cap rates have gone up, but the rents that are being capped are significantly higher. So bottom line, margins, if you really stress test everything, okay, and you say rental growth stops, cap rates go up, et cetera, et cetera, construction costs go up, our development pipeline goes from mid-40s margins to high 20s margin type of thing. So we're still double what we underwrite to, which we usually underwrite to mid-teens. So extremely strong operating environment, and we are just being cautious on the capital market environment as we have to be. It would be imprudent if we weren't.

而且租金還在上漲。我的意思是，我們從 2022 年開始認為租金將上漲 11%。他們上漲了 28%。所以，是的，封頂率上升了，但是封頂的租金要高得多。所以底線，利潤率，如果你真的對所有事情進行壓力測試，好吧，你說租金增長停止，上限利率上升等等，等等，建設成本上升，我們的開發管道從 40 年代中期到 20 年代高保證金類型的東西。所以我們仍然是我們承保的兩倍，我們通常承保到十幾歲。如此強勁的經營環境，我們只是對資本市場環境保持謹慎，這是我們必須的。如果我們不這樣做，那就太輕率了。

And Craig, I'll just pick up your question on the debt in Duke. You're right. Since we announced the transaction in June, depending where you're on the curve, we're 100 to 200 basis points higher in interest rates. So that does hit the debt mark-to-market piece of things. I think if we were redoing the entire accretion on the year, we'd be still in the range, but at the lower end of that original $0.20 to $0.25 today.

還有克雷格，我會回答你關於杜克債務的問題。你是對的。自從我們在 6 月宣布交易以來，根據您在曲線上的位置，我們的利率高出 100 到 200 個基點。所以這確實打擊了債務按市值計價的部分。我認為，如果我們在今年重做整個增長，我們仍然在這個範圍內，但在今天原來的 0.20 美元到 0.25 美元的低端。

Yes. But I would also say on the fundamentals of the real estate, we're ahead of where we underwrote. So I think that far outweighs a mark-to-market on the debt. I mean, both Duke and us were very low levels of leverage. So the mark-to-market is just not a big deal in our calculus.

是的。但我還要說，在房地產的基本面方面，我們領先於我們承保的地方。所以我認為這遠遠超過了按市值計價的債務。我的意思是，杜克和我們的槓桿率都非常低。因此，按市值計價在我們的計算中並不是什麼大問題。

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。

Just touching on European occupancy. You certainly had a positive bump to 98.6% and clearly pushed NOI. But can you expand on which geographies led really the sustainability of EU demand, what you guys are seeing on the ground and any additional leasing comments?

剛剛談到歐洲的入住率。你肯定有一個積極的提高到 98.6% 並且明顯推動了 NOI。但是，您能否詳細說明哪些地區真正引領了歐盟需求的可持續性，你們在當地看到了什麼以及任何其他租賃評論？

Some of the weaker markets in Europe have strengthened, like Spain would come to mind or France would come to mind. The perennial strong markets in Europe were the U.K. and Germany, historically, Northern Europe. And they remain strong, but we wouldn't be surprised if Germany weakened a bit and the U.K. weakened a bit.

歐洲一些較弱的市場已經走強，例如西班牙或法國。歐洲長期強勁的市場是英國和德國，歷史上是北歐。他們仍然很強大，但如果德國稍微弱一點，而英國稍微弱一點，我們也不會感到驚訝。

In terms of weak markets in Europe, I would say, if you really force me to name one, I would say it's Hungary, which is a very, very small part of our overall business. Poland is actually, too much to our surprise, pretty strong. It must be because of the migration of a lot of Ukrainians into Poland and the additional consumption that they drive. But markets in Europe are tighter than they are in the U.S. in aggregate, and that's why vacancy rates are lower. But there's no question that Europe will have lower growth or more if we go into a recession, a bigger recession than the U.S., but by no means is it weak. Quite to the contrary, pretty strong.

就歐洲疲軟的市場而言，我想說，如果你真的強迫我說出一個，我會說是匈牙利，它在我們整體業務中只佔非常非常小的一部分。實際上，出乎我們意料的是，波蘭非常強大。這一定是因為許多烏克蘭人遷移到波蘭以及他們推動的額外消費。但總體而言，歐洲市場比美國更緊張，這就是空置率較低的原因。但毫無疑問，如果我們陷入衰退，歐洲的增長將更低或更高，比美國更大的衰退，但絕不是疲軟。恰恰相反，很強。

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

我們的下一個問題來自 Scotiabank 的 Nick Yulico。

I just wanted to touch on sort of thinking about as we are heading into a weaker economic environment, most people think there's a global recession coming. If you could give us some context of how to think about potential occupancy impact to the portfolio. I mean, I think most of the third-party brokerage firms are citing something like 100 basis points of U.S. vacancy increase next year because of slowing absorption, some supply picking up. I guess, I'm curious what you thought about that.

我只是想談一談，當我們進入一個疲軟的經濟環境時，大多數人認為全球經濟衰退即將到來。如果您能給我們一些關於如何考慮對投資組合的潛在入住率影響的背景信息。我的意思是，我認為大多數第三方經紀公司都引用了明年美國空置率增加 100 個基點的理由，因為吸收放緩，一些供應回升。我想，我很好奇你是怎麼想的。

And then also from a credit loss standpoint, how we should think about the portfolio in sort of a historical context, kind of framing out where you have sort of a credit watch list today and potential occupancy impact on top of just an overall market occupancy impact from a credit loss standpoint in the portfolio if we are heading into a recession.

然後從信用損失的角度來看，我們應該如何在歷史背景下考慮投資組合，在某種程度上確定你今天在哪裡有信用觀察名單，以及在整體市場入住率影響之上的潛在入住率影響如果我們正步入衰退，從投資組合的信用損失的角度來看。

Sure. On credit loss, the average over 10, 15 years has been about 15 basis points. We underwrite a lot higher than that, but that's where we've averaged during the most acute times of COVID in the first quarter or 2 when nobody -- when there was all that lots of jobs and everybody was scared. That went up to 55 basis points. But we collected on all that credit reserve that we had set up because eventually everybody paid.

當然。在信用損失方面，10 年、15 年的平均損失約為 15 個基點。我們的承保額遠高於此，但這是我們在第一季度或第二季度 COVID 最嚴重時期的平均水平，當時沒有人——當時有那麼多工作，每個人都害怕。上漲了55個基點。但是我們收集了我們建立的所有信用儲備，因為最終每個人都付了錢。

So I don't know where we ended up with, but we essentially ended up at 0, or maybe in line with the 15 basis points of historical numbers. I don't think we're going to see it anywhere near that. I think there is a fair amount of demand today that is not being satisfied in the market because of lack of supply. Our vacancy rate, just to pick a round number of 4%, even if they were to go up 100 basis points, which I don't believe they will, it would be at 5% which we would all do cartwheels for at any time in the 42 years that we've been in this business. So I'm -- I mean, just do the math on the numbers, assuming that the development pipeline has a 0 more leasing. I don't mean for Prologis, I mean for the marketplace. And demand falls off significantly. That's how you get to the 100 basis points. And I just don't think it's going to be that acute given what we're seeing in terms of customer interest in our spaces on a real-time basis.

所以我不知道我們最終在哪裡結束，但我們基本上以 0 結束，或者可能與歷史數字的 15 個基點一致。我認為我們不會在附近看到它。我認為今天有相當數量的需求由於供應不足而在市場上沒有得到滿足。我們的空置率，只是選擇一個 4% 的整數，即使他們要上升 100 個基點，我不相信他們會，它會是 5%，我們隨時都會做側手翻在我們從事這項業務的 42 年中。所以我 - 我的意思是，只要對數字進行數學計算，假設開發管道還有 0 個租賃。我不是說 Prologis，我是說市場。需求顯著下降。這就是你如何達到 100 個基點。鑑於我們在客戶對我們空間的實時興趣方面所看到的情況，我只是認為這不會那麼嚴重。

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS.

我們的下一個問題來自瑞銀的邁克爾戈德史密斯。

My question is on the Promote. I think heading into the year, we talked about 2020 to 2023 Promote being similar or higher than where it was going to be in 2022, just given where valuations have changed and the different dynamics at play, how should we be thinking about the dynamics at play for next year on the Promote side?

我的問題是關於推廣的。我認為進入這一年，我們談到了 2020 年至 2023 年的推廣與 2022 年的水平相似或更高，只是考慮到估值發生了變化以及不同的動態在起作用，我們應該如何考慮動態明年在推廣方面玩？

Promote levels are very sensitive to exit cap rates that you assumed. So that's a pretty tough question to answer. But if we stress test our numbers from the last time we spoke, the Promote for USLF next year is going to be on par with what it is this year for PELF. But that number can move in either direction by a significant amount, depending to what happens to exit cap rates. And by the way, both of those years, '22 and '23, will be record Promotes by a factor of 2 or 3.

提升水平對您假設的退出上限率非常敏感。所以這是一個很難回答的問題。但是，如果我們對上次發言時的數據進行壓力測試，明年 USLF 的推廣將與今年 PELF 的情況相提並論。但這個數字可能會在任何一個方向上大幅移動，這取決於退出上限利率會發生什麼。順便說一句，這兩年，'22 和 '23，將被記錄提升 2 或 3 倍。

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

我們的下一個問題來自 Ki Bin Kim 和 Truist 的台詞。

I just want to go back to the question about contributions and your fund business. Can you remind us what the pricing mechanism is for your funds for you to contribute assets? If I remember correctly, that was a broker pref, but obviously, you don't want to force anything into your fund investors. So I'm just curious, what is causing the pause or temporary pause in contributions? Is it just an agreement or agreed upon price that you can't come to or is it something different?

我只想回到關於捐款和您的基金業務的問題。您能否提醒我們您的資金用於貢獻資產的定價機制是什麼？如果我沒記錯的話，那是經紀人的偏好，但顯然，你不想強迫你的基金投資者做任何事情。所以我很好奇，是什麼導致貢獻暫停或暫時暫停？只是您無法達成的協議或商定的價格，還是有所不同？

And second question, Hamid, if I think about the business bigger picture, if we didn't have this market volatility, I would have expected your company to contribute an increasing level of assets to your fund business because you have to kind of keep up with the development pipeline. But given that that's probably not going to happen, how should we think about the company taking on more assets on the balance sheet, better for our earnings but also higher leverage? I'm just trying to better understand that dynamic going forward.

第二個問題，哈米德，如果我考慮更大的業務圖景，如果我們沒有這種市場波動，我會期望貴公司為您的基金業務貢獻越來越多的資產，因為您必須跟上與開發管道。但鑑於這可能不會發生，我們應該如何看待公司在資產負債表上承擔更多資產，對我們的收益更好，同時也提高槓桿率？我只是想更好地理解未來的動態。

Yes. On the fund contribution question, we would be happy to continue to contribute the deals. If there were not for our care in managing the long-term value of the franchise in our private capital business. We haven't even tried, and we will not even try to contribute these assets that are being completed because we just don't think it's the right thing to do. It's got nothing to do with the appraised values or capacity or any of that stuff, as I explained before. We just think until there is real clarity, that will take some time and there have to be some comps and some transactions. Then when there is clarity, we'll start contributions again.

是的。關於基金出資問題，我們很樂意繼續為交易做出貢獻。如果沒有我們在私人資本業務中管理特許經營權的長期價值的謹慎。我們甚至沒有嘗試過，我們甚至不會嘗試貢獻這些正在完成的資產，因為我們認為這不是正確的做法。正如我之前解釋的那樣，這與評估的價值或能力或任何其他東西無關。我們只是認為，在真正明確之前，這將需要一些時間，並且必須有一些補償和一些交易。然後，當清楚時，我們將再次開始貢獻。

As you know, unlike the last cycle, the contributions today are not must put, must take. They are totally voluntary by us to offer those properties to the investors or not to offer those properties to the investors. We're just not going to force that issue. It's not like they've turned us down or we think the values are too low. The values are great. We would still have significant 40% margins if we contributed. It's purely voluntary. And I think it's the right decision for the company in the long-term.

如您所知，與上一個週期不同，今天的貢獻不是必須投入的，而是必須採取的。我們完全自願向投資者提供這些房產或不向投資者提供這些房產。我們只是不會強迫這個問題。並不是他們拒絕了我們，或者我們認為價值太低了。價值觀很棒。如果我們做出貢獻，我們仍然會有 40% 的可觀利潤率。這純粹是自願的。我認為從長遠來看，這對公司來說是正確的決定。

In terms of its impact on leverage, obviously, if we decide to hold more assets, our leverage is going to go up. But the reason we built this balance sheet is exactly for situations like this, is to be able to, A, be able to hold more of our assets that we're developing. They're perfectly good assets that at some point in the future will contribute. And we're happy to hold those. And the other purpose for the balance sheet is to take advantage of investment opportunities as they emerge.

就其對槓桿的影響而言，顯然，如果我們決定持有更多資產，我們的槓桿就會上升。但是我們建立這個資產負債表的原因正是針對這種情況，是為了能夠，A，能夠持有我們正在開發的更多資產。它們是非常好的資產，在未來的某個時候會有所貢獻。我們很高興持有這些。資產負債表的另一個目的是利用出現的投資機會。

It's still too early because I think the valuations will settle out somewhere lower than where the appraisers probably think today. But I don't know that for sure. And we -- by the way, we've been -- don't listen to a word I'm saying with respect to valuations, because for 5 years, we've been saying the cap rates are going to go back up, and they finally did, I guess. But we've been really wrong and, frankly, too high in cap rates for all this time.

現在還為時過早，因為我認為估值將穩定在低於評估師今天可能認為的水平。但我不確定。而且我們 - 順便說一句，我們一直 - 不要聽我說的關於估值的話，因為 5 年來，我們一直在說上限利率會回升，我猜他們終於做到了。但我們真的錯了，坦率地說，一直以來的上限率都太高了。

One other thing that's important, I should have mentioned this. We had never written up our portfolio so the peak cap rates are underwritten any of our developments to the peak cap rates that we were seeing in the marketplace. We were always assuming exit cap rates that had a premium built into them. I think I mentioned that before, but that premium was anywhere between [5,000 to 7,500] basis points. So a lot of what you're seeing and are yet likely to see in values is already reflected in the way we looked at our margins, and we further stress test those numbers. And I think I shared the results of that with you earlier.

還有一件事很重要，我應該提到這一點。我們從未編寫過我們的投資組合，因此最高上限利率為我們在市場上看到的最高上限利率的任何發展提供擔保。我們一直假設退出上限利率內置溢價。我想我之前提到過，但溢價在 [5,000 到 7,500] 個基點之間。因此，您在價值中看到和可能看到的很多東西已經反映在我們查看利潤率的方式中，我們會進一步對這些數字進行壓力測試。我想我之前已經和你們分享了結果。

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

我們的下一個問題來自 BTIG 的 Tom Catherwood。

Hamid, you mentioned tenants with more mature supply chains have slowed their CapEx spending. Obviously, we've seen that in the headlines as well. Are you seeing, though, any givebacks or nonrenewals from those tenants, whether it's FedEx or Amazon or others? And specifically, what are the tenants or industries that are backfilling this gap in demand?

哈米德，您提到擁有更成熟供應鏈的租戶已經放緩了資本支出。顯然，我們也在頭條新聞中看到了這一點。但是，您是否看到這些租戶（無論是聯邦快遞、亞馬遜還是其他）的任何回饋或不續約？具體來說，哪些租戶或行業正在填補這一需求缺口？

I'm going to let Mike give you a broader view of demand other than the customers you asked about. But let me hit those 2. We have 0 givebacks on Amazon. Zero. We thought we were going to have 2 out of like 160, we have 0. And they continue to take new space from us. So I don't know what all this excitement is all about, but we haven't seen it in the marketplace. They were on a tear in 2020 and '21, and they probably overcommitted to space, and they just reeled that back a bit. But they talked about 30 million feet coming online. We don't think it's even going to be 10 million feet and none of it is in the spaces that we have. So that's Amazon.

除了您詢問的客戶之外，我將讓邁克為您提供更廣泛的需求視圖。但是讓我打那兩個。我們在亞馬遜上有 0 個回饋。零。我們認為我們將在 160 個中獲得 2 個，我們有 0 個。他們繼續從我們這裡佔據新的空間。所以我不知道所有這些興奮是怎麼回事，但我們還沒有在市場上看到它。他們在 2020 年和 21 年經歷了一場撕裂，他們可能過度致力於太空，他們只是稍微退縮了一點。但他們談到了 3000 萬英尺即將上線。我們認為它甚至不會達到 1000 萬英尺，而且在我們擁有的空間中也沒有。這就是亞馬遜。

FedEx is consolidating some of its ground operations with airport operations. We're going to be a beneficiary of that. And we're not going to lose any FedEx business as a result of that. And we're in regular conversation with these people. So those 2 customers specifically, no issue, and we have vetted this about as best as anybody can. With respect to the broader customer picture, Mike?

聯邦快遞正在將其部分地面業務與機場業務合併。我們將成為其中的受益者。我們不會因此而失去任何联邦快遞業務。我們經常與這些人交談。所以這兩個客戶，沒有問題，我們已經盡最大努力審查了這一點。關於更廣泛的客戶情況，邁克？

Yes, I would just add a finer point to that. We're going to see other headlines coming down the pike. I'd encourage you to really look through the headlines and understand the numerator versus the denominator in play here. And we're talking, just to pile on Hamid's comments, FedEx mentioned order of magnitude of 100 projects they're pausing in the future. That's set against 15,000 spaces they already have. Amazon, to put a finer point on that, [even if] there -- they have 550 million square foot portfolio. So we're talking 1% churn kind of numbers here, which is a very normal churn we see for our larger customers that have thousands of spaces. I think it's important when you see the next headline to look beyond along those headlines.

是的，我只想添加一個更好的點。我們將看到其他頭條新聞。我鼓勵你仔細閱讀頭條新聞，了解這裡的分子與分母。我們正在談論，只是為了補充哈米德的評論，聯邦快遞提到了他們在未來暫停的 100 個數量級的項目。這與他們已經擁有的 15,000 個空間相比。亞馬遜，更準確地說，[即使]在那裡——他們擁有 5.5 億平方英尺的投資組合。所以我們在這裡談論的是 1% 的流失率，對於擁有數千個空間的大客戶來說，這是一個非常正常的流失率。我認為當你看到下一個標題時，沿著這些標題往外看是很重要的。

In terms of where the other activity is, and Chris can pile on as well here, too, but e-commerce clearly is the big driver. And we're seeing e-commerce levels in our own portfolio just ahead of where we were pre-COVID. The big difference is Amazon is not a part of that this quarter. They're temporarily pausing, and we're seeing 122 other customers, not named Amazon, driving e-commerce leasing at levels we saw pre-pandemic. I think that's the big driver, the big takeaway for the segments that are supporting this backfill.

至於其他活動在哪裡，克里斯也可以在這裡繼續前進，但電子商務顯然是最大的推動力。而且，我們在自己的投資組合中看到的電子商務水平就在我們之前的 COVID 之前。最大的不同是亞馬遜本季度不參與其中。他們暫時暫停，我們看到其他 122 名客戶（未命名為亞馬遜）推動電子商務租賃達到我們在大流行前看到的水平。我認為這是最大的驅動力，是支持這種回填的細分市場的最大收穫。

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。

You increased your market rent growth forecast in the U.S. to 28% this year. How much of that growth has already been achieved through the end of the third quarter? I'd like to hear just how much you think market rents can continue to grow in the current environment.

您將今年美國市場租金增長預測提高到 28%。到第三季度末已經實現了多少增長？我想听聽您認為在當前環境下市場租金可以繼續增長多少。

Vince, yes, the increase is exclusively based on the outperformance in the third quarter. We thought in the present landscape, it would not be appropriate to make an increase. But as we look into next year, I think it's appropriate to expect mid- to high single digits. As Hamid mentioned, we opened this year with a similar level of caution and have seen subsequent increases. We monitor this on a real-time basis although reporting out on a quarterly basis. And some of the things that go into that is the ongoing significant momentum, right? So rents were up 6% in the quarter against ultra-low vacancies, healthy demand, healthy leading indicators, but set against the macro uncertainty that we've described.

文斯，是的，增長完全基於第三季度的出色表現。我們認為在目前的情況下，不宜增加。但當我們展望明年時，我認為預期中高個位數是合適的。正如哈米德所提到的，我們今年開盤時也持類似的謹慎態度，並且隨後出現了增長。儘管每季度報告一次，但我們會實時監控這一點。其中一些事情是持續的重要勢頭，對嗎？因此，在超低空置率、健康需求、健康領先指標的情況下，本季度租金上漲了 6%，但與我們所描述的宏觀不確定性形成對比。

So 75% to 80% of the 28% has already occurred, and we expect the balance to occur in the balance of the year. And by the way, we're only a couple of weeks into the quarter. But again, every time we make a deal, we know what the effect of rent is compared to the way we underwrote it. And we call it spear, I won't get into the details of it here. But those indications are up, both in terms of comparison to underwriting or the way we had pro forma those spaces. And also in terms of duration of leases, they're slightly longer than we thought.

所以 28% 中的 75% 到 80% 已經發生，我們預計餘額將在今年的餘額中發生。順便說一句，我們距離這個季度只有幾週的時間。但同樣，每次我們達成交易時，我們都知道租金的影響與我們承保的方式相比有何不同。我們稱之為矛，我不會在這裡詳細介紹它。但無論是在與承保的比較方面，還是在我們備考這些空間的方式方面，這些跡像都在上升。而且就租賃期限而言，它們比我們想像的要長一些。

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。

I wanted to follow up on Duke. Tim, thanks for the update around the $0.20 to $0.25 of year 1 core FFO accretion. But I'm curious, Hamid, your comments suggest that Duke is running ahead of your initial underwriting. So I'm curious if there's been any change to your underwriting such that the year 1 AFFO impacts changed at all relative to your initial expectations.

我想跟進杜克。蒂姆，感謝關於第一年核心 FFO 增長的 0.20 美元到 0.25 美元的更新。但我很好奇，哈米德，你的評論表明杜克領先於你最初的承保。所以我很好奇你的承保是否有任何變化，以至於第一年的 AFFO 影響相對於你最初的預期發生了變化。

And then just secondly, regarding the core FFO guidance, excluding net promote income, can you just help us bridge that 1.1% increase at the midpoint from the prior guidance now that Duke's closed and just discuss the drivers of that increase a little bit? It sounded like the quarter came in ahead of budget or plan, which I suspect contributed, but the increase of $0.05 at the midpoint, I think you attributed solely to Duke. Was there anything else that was an offset in the quarter to the stronger growth?

其次，關於核心 FFO 指導，不包括淨促銷收入，您能否幫助我們在杜克大學關閉後將之前指導的中點增長 1.1% 縮小，並稍微討論一下增長的驅動因素？聽起來這個季度比預算或計劃提前了，我懷疑這是貢獻的，但中點增加了 0.05 美元，我認為你完全歸因於杜克。是否還有其他因素可以抵消本季度的強勁增長？

Yes. Just I remember, Duke's leases were longer than ours. So the average turnover based on the average duration of the Duke leases is like 10%, 12% a year. I don't remember what it is exactly in the next 12 months that your question was on. And we think we're a couple of points ahead. But a couple of points ahead affecting 10% to 12% of the portfolio for an average of 6 months is what we're talking about in terms of its impact on the next year. So it will be a small impact. I think the bigger impact will be what we can do once we get our hands on the rest of the portfolio rolling over through revenue management.

是的。我記得，杜克的租約比我們的要長。因此，基於杜克租約的平均期限，平均營業額約為每年 10% 到 12%。我不記得你的問題在接下來的 12 個月裡到底是什麼。我們認為我們領先幾分。但就其對明年的影響而言，我們所說的影響投資組合 10% 到 12% 的平均 6 個月的領先因素。所以影響會很小。我認為更大的影響將是一旦我們通過收入管理掌握了其餘的投資組合，我們可以做些什麼。

And we think overall, maybe that could be 2% or 3% above underwriting. I also think there will be a couple of hundred basis points pickup in terms of folding essential sales on top of that. But it will take a little while for us to sort of build those relationships with those customers in those locations and all that.

我們認為總體而言，這可能比承保高出 2% 或 3%。我還認為，除此之外，基本銷售額還會增加幾百個基點。但是我們需要一段時間才能與那些地點的客戶建立這些關係。

On the second part of your question, Tim will address that.

在你問題的第二部分，蒂姆將解決這個問題。

Yes, you're right that the quarter was strong. We're probably $0.01 ahead there, and that would be reflected really in the same-store guidance overall that we took up. We would see an uptick on the year from that uplift as well as we would get a little bit out of this slowdown in contributions in the short-term. Offsetting each of those, putting the group to about 0 would be a little bit higher interest expense. We've got short-term rates have really ticked up.

是的，你說得對，這個季度很強勁。我們在那裡可能領先 0.01 美元，這將真正反映在我們採用的整體同店指導中。我們會看到這一年的上升，並且我們會在短期內從這種貢獻放緩中得到一點好處。抵消其中的每一個，將組設置為大約 0 將是更高的利息費用。我們的短期利率確實上升了。

And then the write-down of asset values in the funds does hit asset management fees. So that would be another take. So that's all coming up to about 0, leaving really the entirety of the accretion to the Duke transaction.

然後，基金中資產價值的減記確實會影響資產管理費用。所以這將是另一種選擇。所以這一切都接近於 0，把所有的增長都留給了杜克交易。

Our next question comes from the line of Blaine Heck with Wells Fargo.

我們的下一個問題來自富國銀行的 Blaine Heck。

Hamid, can you expand on your thoughts on the broader economy? I think your remarks in the earnings release indicated that you're preparing for an economic slowdown. Does that include a U.S. and/or a global recession? And how should we think about your development starts in 2023 given that you've now added capacity through the Duke transaction but seem to be more cautious here today given macro concerns?

哈米德，你能談談你對更廣泛經濟的看法嗎？我認為你在財報中的言論表明你正在為經濟放緩做準備。這是否包括美國和/或全球經濟衰退？鑑於您現在已經通過杜克交易增加了產能，但鑑於宏觀擔憂，今天在這裡似乎更加謹慎，我們應該如何看待您在 2023 年開始的開發？

Yes. My view of the economy is that the Fed was behind the 8 ball, and they are now really running hard to catch up and they're going to overshoot in their reaction. And everybody expects these things to have an immediate effect. Look, I'm not as smart as the guys running the Fed, but these things typically have a 2-year lag. So I think we're going to whipsaw this economy. And there is no reason this economy should be in a recession other than just wanting to wring out this inflation.

是的。我對經濟的看法是，美聯儲落後於 8 球，他們現在真的很努力追趕，他們的反應將會過度。每個人都希望這些事情會立即產生影響。聽著，我不像管理美聯儲的人那麼聰明，但這些事情通常會有 2 年的滯後。所以我認為我們將攪動這種經濟。除了想消除這種通貨膨脹外，沒有任何理由讓這個經濟體陷入衰退。

And this is a personal editorial. This is not a company position, but I believe more -- based on what I'm seeing, more of the inflation is actually affected by not that systemic wage price push that we saw in other times of high inflation. By the way, I was there. When I started my career, the 10-year bond was 14% and prime rate was 22%. But that was a psychology that was built into the marketplace. I think -- and it look bulker in October of '79 to [bring] that out. But the market had gone 6 or 7 years with that becoming the norm. This is very different. We were just talking about 2% inflation a year ago, and it just spiked up.

這是一篇個人社論。這不是公司的立場，但我相信更多——根據我所看到的，更多的通脹實際上不是受到我們在其他高通脹時期看到的系統性工資價格推動的影響。順便說一句，我在那裡。當我開始我的職業生涯時，10 年期債券的利率為 14%，最優惠利率為 22%。但這是一種融入市場的心理。我認為——在 79 年 10 月，它看起來更笨重。但隨著這成為常態，市場已經過去了 6 或 7 年。這是非常不同的。一年前我們只是在談論 2% 的通貨膨脹，它剛剛飆升。

So a lot of that, I think, is going to dissipate as things normalize and trade flows and the like normalize, but that's a personal point of view. So I am concerned about inflation. I think the Fed is all going to overdo it. Whether we have a recession or not, I don't know why people are so focused on this recession question. To me, a 0.25% growth rate in the GDP when the potential is 2%, 2.5% for the U.S. and 1.5% for Europe is a bad thing. Now whether technically a bunch of smoke will come out of the pipe, that says we officially have a recession, that's less important, but we are definitely under kind of underperform the capacity of this industry. The consumer is in great shape. The consumer balance sheets are in great shape. So I see a lot of reasons for optimism.

因此，我認為，隨著事情正常化和貿易流動等正常化，其中很多都會消散，但這是個人觀點。所以我擔心通貨膨脹。我認為美聯儲會做得過火。無論我們是否有經濟衰退，我不知道為什麼人們如此關注這個衰退問題。對我來說，在潛力為 2%、美國為 2.5%、歐洲為 1.5% 的情況下，GDP 增長率為 0.25% 是一件壞事。現在，從技術上講，是否會冒出一堆煙霧，這表明我們正式陷入衰退，這不那麼重要，但我們的表現肯定低於這個行業的能力。消費者狀況良好。消費者資產負債表狀況良好。所以我看到了很多樂觀的理由。

I mean, look at all these calls that we were all having a quarter ago. I think the psychology has changed dramatically because of all this aggressive Fed action. So I've done a good job of not answering the question. If you had to ask me last quarter what's the probability of a recession in the next year, I would have told you 90-10. Today, I would go 60-40 or maybe 50-50. I think we're much closer in the U.S. I think in Europe, we will go into a very slight shallow recession.

我的意思是，看看我們一個季度前的所有這些電話。我認為，由於美聯儲采取了所有這些激進的行動，人們的心理已經發生了巨大變化。所以我做得很好，沒有回答這個問題。如果你不得不在上個季度問我明年經濟衰退的可能性有多大，我會告訴你 90-10。今天，我會去60-40或者50-50。我認為我們在美國更接近。我認為在歐洲，我們將進入非常輕微的淺度衰退。

With respect to its impact on development starts, I think the market is undersupplied with space. But we don't have to make that decision today. We don't. Every start decision is made deal-by-deal, and we will have the benefit of up-to-minute information and actually some information about the future because we're talking to prospects. So if we think the prospects are there to lease it up, we'll build the building. And if not, I don't really care about guidance. We try to give you the best guidance we can, but we don't run our business according to guidance. We could be lower or we could be higher. I think we're going to surprise people on the upside. But let's wait and see. We don't have to make that decision today.

關於它對開發啟動的影響，我認為市場空間供應不足。但我們今天不必做出那個決定。我們沒有。每個開始決定都是逐筆交易做出的，我們將受益於最新信息，實際上是一些關於未來的信息，因為我們正在與潛在客戶交談。因此，如果我們認為有出租它的前景，我們將建造這座建築物。如果不是，我真的不在乎指導。我們盡力為您提供最好的指導，但我們不會根據指導開展業務。我們可以更低，也可以更高。我認為我們會給人們帶來驚喜。但讓我們拭目以待。我們今天不必做出那個決定。

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

我們的下一個問題來自摩根士丹利的 Ronald Kamdem。

Just going back to the lease signing of 84% during the quarter. It sort of suggests that the commenced leases should be accelerating as well. But how do I marry that with the full year same-store NOI guidance where you're guiding for 8.625 for the year, but year-to-date it's 8.7, so suggesting a little bit of deceleration? Just trying to understand what could be driving that? Is it occupancy of the comp versus the lease signing that's accelerating?

只是回到本季度 84% 的租約簽署。這在某種程度上表明開始的租約也應該加速。但是，我如何將它與全年同店 NOI 指導相結合，你指導的年度為 8.625，但年初至今為 8.7，所以建議稍微減速？只是想了解是什麼推動了這一點？是comp 的佔用還是在加速簽訂租約？

Yes, Ron. Look, this is a good opportunity actually to distinguish the 2 metrics. So the commencements were 62%, and that's why we're actually calling out the 84% on signings because of the lag that sits between the two. The lease signings on what started this quarter generating the 62% were probably done in the first quarter. So all that means that the 84% we're signing today, we're really not going to see those commence until '23 outside of the same-store period in our guidance. So that's why we're actually focusing on signings. You'll probably hear a bit more of that going forward.

是的，羅恩。看，這實際上是區分這 2 個指標的好機會。所以開始率是 62%，這就是為什麼我們實際上呼籲簽約率 84%，因為兩者之間存在滯後。本季度開始產生 62% 的租賃合同可能在第一季度完成。所以這一切意味著我們今天簽署的 84%，我們真的不會看到那些在我們的指導中的同店期之外的 23 年開始。所以這就是為什麼我們實際上專注於簽約。未來你可能會聽到更多這樣的消息。

Our next question comes from the line of Camile (inaudible) with Bank of America.

我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 Camile（聽不清）。

We've seen the spread between market rent growth and lease escalations widened over the past 2 years. Can you talk to what percent of your leases have a fixed structure? What are the escalators you're achieving on new leases? And how sustainable these are throughout the duration of the lease?

我們已經看到過去 2 年市場租金增長和租賃升級之間的差距擴大了。您能談談您的租約中有多少百分比具有固定結構？您在新租約中實現的自動扶梯是什麼？這些在整個租賃期間的可持續性如何？

Virtually all leases have escalators. I would guess the average is 3.5-ish, maybe approaching 4%. And yes, 4%, I'm getting a lot of 4s, thumbs up here. And what was...

幾乎所有的租約都有自動扶梯。我猜平均是 3.5-ish，可能接近 4%。是的，4%，我得到了很多 4，在這裡豎起大拇指。什麼是...

I would just clarify that the installed base is probably the 3.5% you mentioned and then more recently 4%.

我只想澄清一下，安裝基數可能是你提到的 3.5%，然後是最近的 4%。

Yes. And I think that was it. Did you have a third part to your question?

是的。我認為就是這樣。你的問題有第三部分嗎？

Just wondering how sustainable these increases are throughout the duration of the lease.

只是想知道這些增長在整個租賃期間的可持續性如何。

Well, they're contractually obligated to increase. So it's not -- and they're contractual. They're not CPI-driven or anything like that. So I guess unless the tenant goes broke, there is no risk to that.

好吧，他們有合同義務增加。所以它不是 - 它們是合同性的。它們不是 CPI 驅動的或類似的東西。所以我想除非租戶破產，否則沒有風險。

Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.

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

I realize that the markets are very fluid, but I did want to ask about the 4.1% cap rate that you have stabilized on your development starts. I guess, industrial would be the 1 asset class that you could argue the most for negative leverage given the strong mark-to-market that you have, but new developments are signed basically at market. So it doesn't have its same mark-to-market potential. So can you make the argument or couldn't you make the argument that new development should be at a higher cap rate, which I know was counterintuitive to how it's been recently, but it's reflective of that market today?

我意識到市場非常不穩定，但我確實想問一下你們在開發開始時穩定的 4.1% 上限率。我想，鑑於您擁有強大的按市價計算，工業將是您認為負槓桿最多的資產類別，但新的發展基本上是在市場上簽署的。因此，它沒有相同的按市值計價的潛力。所以你能提出論點還是不能提出新的發展應該以更高的上限率提出論點，我知道這與最近的情況是違反直覺的，但它反映了今天的市場？

Yes. By the way, I don't think there is any negative leverage even today. Let's just go to basic principles. The reason interest rates are going up is because we have inflation. Real estate in a tighter market equilibrium situation, so there's pressure on real rents going up. If we continue in an inflationary environment where rates are up, we're going to get more rental growth, not rental growth because vacancy rates are very low.

是的。順便說一句，我認為即使在今天也沒有任何負槓桿。讓我們談談基本原則。利率上升的原因是因為我們有通貨膨脹。房地產市場均衡形勢趨緊，因此實際租金存在上漲壓力。如果我們繼續處於利率上升的通脹環境中，我們將獲得更多的租金增長，而不是租金增長，因為空置率非常低。

So really, in terms of IRR, we have positive inflation -- positive leverage. And that's the way it has been for 30 years of my 42-year career. Positive leverage on IRR, not necessarily positive on the going in cap rate or cash yield compared to interest rates. That's the way the business works. It's total return dependent. And total return in a high interest rate, high inflation environment is going to have a big growth component to it. Unless the market is 10%, 15% vacant, in which case, inflation doesn't matter, you don't have pricing power. But we expect to have pricing power for the foreseeable future even in a really, really conservative absorption scenario.

所以實際上，就內部收益率而言，我們有正通脹——正槓桿。這就是我 42 年職業生涯中 30 年的情況。內部收益率的正槓桿，與利率相比，不一定對上限利率或現金收益率產生積極影響。這就是商業運作的方式。它取決於總回報。在高利率、高通脹環境下的總回報將有很大的增長成分。除非市場有 10%、15% 空置，在這種情況下，通貨膨脹無關緊要，你沒有定價權。但即使在非常非常保守的吸收情景中，我們也希望在可預見的未來擁有定價權。

And I went through that before. I can't imagine a scenario anytime soon where vacancy rates would reach 5%. So I think we'll have pricing power, and I think we have positive leverage on an IRR basis. And by the way, short-term rates have moved up a lot more than the long-term rates. And really, real estate is an infinite life asset. So you got to compare its returns to 10-year or more longer debt. Tim?

我之前也經歷過。我無法想像很快就會出現空置率達到 5% 的情況。所以我認為我們將擁有定價權，並且我認為我們在內部收益率的基礎上具有積極的影響力。順便說一句，短期利率比長期利率上升的幅度要大得多。事實上，房地產是一種無限的生命資產。因此，您必須將其回報與 10 年或更長時間的債務進行比較。蒂姆？

I just want to clarify, John, maybe you see this, but I want to be sure you note that we have in the supplemental, both the exit cap and estimate on it and the development yield, I think you're quoting the exit cap. The development yields are 6%, 6.5% in the portfolio. So I want to be sure you understand that distinction.

我只是想澄清一下，約翰，也許你看到了這個，但我想確保你注意到我們在補充文件中，包括退出上限和估計以及開發收益，我認為你引用了退出上限.開發收益率為6%，投資組合中的6.5%。所以我想確保你理解這種區別。

Hence, the huge margins.

因此，巨大的利潤空間。

Our next question comes from the line of John Petersen with Jefferies.

我們的下一個問題來自 Jefferies 的 John Petersen。

I was looking at the sort of the Promote opportunity next year for the targeted U.S. logistics fund. I realize it's volatile and there's a ton of assumptions that go into this. So maybe you could help us and remind us what the hurdle rates are that you have to hit each year to be eligible for a Promote? Just kind of how that structure works, once you hit the hurdle, like what percent of the NOI you get, so we can all be dangerous and make our own assumptions. And then another question I have is on the land portfolio. I think you have it on the books at $2.7 billion. Any estimate on how we should think about the market value of that land portfolio today?

我正在為目標美國物流基金尋找明年的推廣機會。我意識到它是不穩定的，並且有很多假設。因此，也許您可以幫助我們並提醒我們您每年必須達到的最低門檻才能獲得晉升資格？只是那種結構是如何工作的，一旦你遇到障礙，比如你得到的 NOI 百分比，所以我們都可以變得危險並做出自己的假設。然後我的另一個問題是關於土地投資組合。我認為您的賬面價值為 27 億美元。關於我們今天應該如何看待該土地組合的市場價值的任何估計？

Yes. I think market value of land was double our book value. And my guess is, before this is all over, and not a single piece of land has not really traded in any scale so that I can give you an actual estimate, but I would guess land values before it's all over will decline by 30%, which would put them still significantly above our book value. So that's where we are. I think the Promote hurdles are 7, and it's a 20% part -- yes. And we have 2 hurdle promotes, actually 7 and 10 and 15 and 20 is the upside participation in those, and those are leveraged hurdle rates. So 15 over 7, 20 over a 10.

是的。我認為土地的市場價值是我們賬面價值的兩倍。而且我的猜測是，在這一切結束之前，沒有一塊土地沒有真正進行任何規模的交易，所以我可以給你一個實際的估計，但我猜在這一切結束之前，土地價值會下降30% ，這將使它們仍然大大高於我們的賬面價值。這就是我們所在的位置。我認為提升的障礙是 7，它是 20% 的一部分——是的。我們有 2 個跨欄促銷，實際上 7 和 10 以及 15 和 20 是其中的上行參與，這些是槓桿跨欄利率。所以 15 比 7，20 比 10。

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。

A question on acquisitions. Can you talk more about the CrossBay deal, what brought you to that transaction? I think you talked before about maybe more portfolio deals happening in Europe. Are there more news out there? And what's your, I guess, willingness to do more deals on the balance sheet given kind of the overall macro environment?

關於收購的問題。你能多談談 CrossBay 的交易嗎？是什麼讓你促成了這筆交易？我想你之前談到過歐洲可能會發生更多的投資組合交易。那裡有更多消息嗎？考慮到整體宏觀環境，我猜你願意在資產負債表上做更多交易嗎？

This is Dan. I'll take that question. So the CrossBay deal, closed last quarter, we, I think, first introduced that deal probably in February. We were able to -- when we first talked about this deal, the bid-ask was pretty far apart. But we're actually able to win that deal at a very favorable price. We actually got a couple of price reductions, and we really love the real estate. It's very complementary to PELF, and the team is very excited about bringing that on.

這是丹。我會回答這個問題。因此，上個季度完成的 CrossBay 交易，我認為，我們可能在 2 月首次推出該交易。我們能夠 - 當我們第一次談論這筆交易時，買賣雙方相差甚遠。但我們實際上能夠以非常優惠的價格贏得這筆交易。我們實際上有幾次降價，我們真的很喜歡房地產。它與 PELF 非常互補，團隊對實現這一點感到非常興奮。

As it relates to other portfolios, the way I think about deploying capital right now, I think about really disciplined, I think, about patience and I think about opportunity. We've always run a very disciplined deployment machine. And our team, boots on the ground, are calibrated for that and are excited about it. We're being patient right now because we do expect to see opportunities that come from -- as a matter of fact, we're making money today based on decisions that we made in the depths of the GFC. So really excited about what opportunities could come.

因為它與其他投資組合有關，我現在考慮部署資本的方式，我認為我認為真的有紀律，我認為，關於耐心，我認為機會。我們一直在運行一個非常有紀律的部署機器。我們的團隊，地面上的靴子，為此進行了校準，並為此感到興奮。我們現在很耐心，因為我們確實希望看到來自的機會——事實上，我們今天正在根據我們在 GFC 深處做出的決定來賺錢。對可能出現的機會感到非常興奮。

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。

I wanted to touch on an earlier question to see if we can get a little bit more information regarding the larger users with more mature supply pipelines. I know you touched on a few examples. But in general, how big is this bucket of these larger users slowing down? I mean, is it mostly Amazon? And I believe you mentioned FedEx, there are like a few other outside of that or is that about it?

我想談談之前的一個問題，看看我們是否可以獲得更多關於擁有更成熟供應管道的大型用戶的信息。我知道你提到了幾個例子。但總的來說，這些大用戶的這一桶有多大的減速？我的意思是，它主要是亞馬遜嗎？我相信你提到了聯邦快遞，除此之外還有其他一些，或者是關於它的？

Everybody is running to catch up on their e-commerce supply chain because they're starting behind and they need to catch up. So the demand for e-comm space is broadening. But remember, e-com is just maybe 20% of the overall demand. At the same time that, that's going on, people are building resilience in their supply chain. So inventory levels have adjusted upwards like we predicted. We think half of that adjustment has already occurred, and there's another half of it to go. So I think you'll see all customers or virtually all customers building more resilience into their supply chain by taking up more space so that they don't get caught with the wrong inventory in the wrong place at the wrong time. But demand is definitely broadening. Mike, do you want to?

每個人都在追趕他們的電子商務供應鏈，因為他們落後了，他們需要趕上。因此對電子商務空間的需求正在擴大。但請記住，電子商務可能只佔整體需求的 20%。與此同時，人們正在他們的供應鏈中建立彈性。因此，庫存水平像我們預測的那樣向上調整。我們認為這種調整的一半已經發生，還有另一半要進行。因此，我認為您會看到所有客戶或幾乎所有客戶都會通過佔用更多空間來為他們的供應鏈建立更大的彈性，這樣他們就不會在錯誤的時間在錯誤的地點遇到錯誤的庫存。但需求肯定在擴大。邁克，你想要嗎？

Yes. And I think I could just give you a sense on all customers are being certainly more introspective and cautious these days. That's natural in times of uncertainty. But if you look at our build-to-suit list, for example, it's a narrower list. Amazon is currently pausing. But the customers that are on the list are still following through with long-term supply chain reconfigurations that have been in place for a long time, and they are following through with those with the same effort that we've seen before.

是的。而且我想我可以讓您了解所有客戶這些天肯定更加內省和謹慎。在不確定的時期，這是很自然的。但是，例如，如果您查看我們的定制列表，那麼它是一個更窄的列表。亞馬遜目前正在暫停。但名單上的客戶仍在繼續進行長期存在的供應鏈重新配置，並且他們正在以我們以前看到的相同努力繼續進行。

So I would say if you look at build-to-suits, it's a smaller, more active list of customers. And our competitive environment looks even better. There's fewer private competitors out there that are direct competition given the current market conditions. So I view that business as smaller but a deeper prospect list with a higher win rate possibility. So that's one perspective.

所以我想說，如果你看定制西裝，它是一個更小、更活躍的客戶列表。我們的競爭環境看起來更好。鑑於當前的市場狀況，直接競爭的私人競爭對手越來越少。因此，我認為該業務規模較小，但潛在客戶列表更深，勝率更高。這是一種觀點。

Yes, the point Mike just made about the competition on the private side is a really, really important one. I mean, these guys depend on leverage. Leverage is not available. It's not just a question of the cost of it to a lot of these people. So we've already seen certainly layoffs in Europe with respect to some of the very aggressive private guys, and I think we'll see some of that in the U.S., too. So again, another reason why we have a good balance sheet is to use it when the opportunities are there.

是的，邁克剛剛就私人方面的競爭提出的觀點非常非常重要。我的意思是，這些人依賴於槓桿。槓桿不可用。對於很多人來說，這不僅僅是成本的問題。所以我們已經在歐洲看到了一些非常激進的私人公司的裁員，我認為我們也會在美國看到一些裁員。同樣，我們擁有良好資產負債表的另一個原因是在有機會時使用它。

Our next question comes from the line of Michael Mueller with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的邁克爾·穆勒。

Is your 65% year-end lease mark-to-market expectation with or without Duke in it?

您的 65% 年終租賃市場預期是否包含杜克大學？

That's with Duke.

杜克就是這樣。

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

我們的下一個問題來自 Dave Rodgers 和 Baird。

Hamid, thanks for the details on tenant credit that you provided earlier. I wanted to go back, and maybe this is a draconian question, but when you go back to global financial crisis, I think PLD lost 600 basis points of occupancy top to bottom. Some of that might have been credit loss, but even though it's not credit loss, then some tenants may leave just due to the same factors that we're talking about. I guess, how does today differ? And I guess, I'm just a little worried about the convexity of noninvestment-grade now above 10%, those types of things. I guess how does your portfolio differ? How do you think the market differs?

Hamid，感謝您之前提供的有關租戶信用的詳細信息。我想回去，也許這是一個嚴厲的問題，但是當你回到全球金融危機時，我認為 PLD 從上到下損失了 600 個基點的入住率。其中一些可能是信用損失，但即使不是信用損失，一些租戶也可能會因為我們正在談論的相同因素而離開。我想，今天有什麼不同？我想，我只是有點擔心現在超過 10% 的非投資級的凸性，諸如此類的事情。我猜你的投資組合有什麼不同？您認為市場有何不同？

And then maybe a follow-up to Chris. Last quarter, you had suggested a 75 basis point increase in vacancy for '23 for the market as a whole. Has that number changed?

然後也許是克里斯的後續行動。上個季度，您曾建議 23 年整個市場的空置率增加 75 個基點。這個數字變了嗎？

Okay. I'm not sure I understood the second part. But the first part, first of all, I don't know about Prologis, but I think there was 52 million square feet of spec space that they had built at that time. And the company at that time was, I don't know, 400 million square feet or something. It was a huge part of the installed base, and most of it was spec. So you went into global financial crisis with a collapse in demand and you were starting off with a 7% or 8% vacancy rate even before going into the global financial crisis, so it was different at least in 3 respects. One, level of spec development; two, the starting level of vacancy; and three, the impact of that on a much, much smaller company than today.

好的。我不確定我是否理解第二部分。但第一部分，首先，我不了解 Prologis，但我認為他們當時建造了 5200 萬平方英尺的規格空間。當時的公司，我不知道，4億平方英尺什麼的。這是安裝基礎的很大一部分，其中大部分是規範。因此，您在需求暴跌的情況下進入了全球金融危機，甚至在進入全球金融危機之前，您的空置率就已經達到了 7% 或 8%，因此至少在 3 個方面有所不同。一、規範發展水平；二、起始水平空缺；第三，這對一家比今天小得多的公司的影響。

So very, very different situation. But the numbers for AMD were that we went from mid-95% occupancy to 91% occupancy. And by the way, the exact same thing happened in the dot-com collapse, which was people had overcommitted to space. The difference is that the shadow space in this market is very low. That's why we look track utilization. We have 90th percentile utilization in the buildings in terms of history. So occupancies are high, utilization is high, there's a lot of ongoing demand and we're starting off at the 98% occupancy.

非常非常不同的情況。但 AMD 的數字是我們從 95% 的中途入住率上升到 91% 的入住率。順便說一句，同樣的事情也發生在 dot-com 的崩潰中，那就是人們對太空的過度投入。不同的是，這個市場的影子空間非常低。這就是為什麼我們關注軌道利用率。就歷史而言，我們的建築物利用率為 90%。所以入住率很高，利用率很高，有很多持續的需求，我們從 98% 的入住率開始。

Even if the global financial crisis were going to repeat itself, we'll be at 94% occupancy. That's just fine. There's no problem with that. We can get rent growth at those kinds of numbers. So I don't even think of those draconian scenarios. Of course, somebody launches a nuclear war somewhere, all bets are off, but I'm not capable of making those.

即使全球金融危機重演，我們的入住率也將達到 94%。那很好。這沒有問題。我們可以在這些數字上獲得租金增長。所以我什至沒有想到那些嚴酷的場景。當然，有人在某個地方發動了一場核戰爭，所有的賭注都沒有了，但我沒有能力做這些。

Dave, as it relates to the forecast we shared you remember correctly but got the units wrong. So we had said we could see a supply demand gap of 50 million to 100 million square feet next year, which would only be 30 basis points of occupancy increase. Our latest view probably has it at the higher end of that range, say, 100 million square foot gap, which would lead to a high 3s or a 4% market vacancy, which again is below the low that prevailed during the decade before. And then also call out in Tim's script that based on the capital market landscape, we could have a gap in development starts that would ultimately translate to a gap in deliveries late next year and early '24.

戴夫，因為它與我們分享的預測有關，您記得正確，但單位錯誤。所以我們曾說過，明年我們可能會看到 5000 萬至 1 億平方英尺的供需缺口，這只會增加 30 個基點的入住率。我們的最新觀點可能將其置於該範圍的高端，例如 1 億平方英尺的差距，這將導致高 3 或 4% 的市場空置率，這再次低於十年前的低點。然後還在蒂姆的劇本中指出，根據資本市場格局，我們可能會在開發開始方面存在差距，最終將轉化為明年年底和 24 年初交付方面的差距。

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。

Two questions. First of all, any change in the lease-up time on new deliveries? And the second question is, you talked a lot about cap rates and cap rate increases over the last 6 or 7 months. I'm just wondering if you were to underwrite an acquisition today, how would that change to from where you were early this year? Let's say, how much how much do you think cap rates have gapped out on a like-for-like deal?

兩個問題。首先，新交付的租賃時間有什麼變化嗎？第二個問題是，您在過去 6 或 7 個月內談了很多關於上限利率和上限利率增加的問題。我只是想知道如果你今天要承銷一項收購，那麼從今年年初的情況來看，這將如何改變？比方說，您認為同類交易中的上限利率差距有多大？

I can start on the lease-up times, and I think Hamid made reference to this just that compared to underwriting. We've consistently beat underwriting, and that would remain the case today. Maybe there's a month lower there, but we're continuing to beat underwriting in new development leasing.

我可以從租賃時間開始，我認為哈米德提到了這一點，與承保相比。我們一直擊敗承保，今天仍然如此。也許那裡會低一個月，但我們在新開發租賃方面繼續擊敗承保。

I would say on the cap rate side, you see it in our development portfolio in the supplemental. We moved our exit cap rates from 4.1 to 4.7. So that's demonstrative of the change that we're looking at across the board going forward.

我會說在上限利率方面，您可以在我們的補充開發組合中看到它。我們將退出上限率從 4.1 提高到 4.7。因此，這表明我們正在全面關注未來的變化。

So if you -- I would say, for the last couple of years, we're looking at about a 6% unleveraged IRR in acquisitions, using about an average of a 3% growth rate on rents and that gap is 300 basis points. By the way, that's the most important number that you look at, that I look at anyway, and replacement costs. So if you believe inflation is going to be higher at 4%, rents will grow at least (inaudible) inflation given what's happening to replacement costs and given the tightness of the market. So you could expect with the 4% growth rate that the IRRs would be 7%, 7.5% going forward.

所以如果你——我想說，在過去的幾年裡，我們在收購中看到大約 6% 的非槓桿內部收益率，使用大約 3% 的平均租金增長率，這個差距是 300 個基點。順便說一句，這是您看到的最重要的數字，無論如何我都會看到，以及更換成本。因此，如果您認為通貨膨脹率將上升至 4%，考慮到重置成本的變化和市場的緊張，租金至少會增長（聽不清）通貨膨脹。因此，您可以預期，以 4% 的增長率，IRR 將為 7%，未來為 7.5%。

So the point I'm trying to make is that you just can't look at discount rate of those cash flows without considering the growth rate of those cash flows. And those 2 don't move perfectly in tandem, but generally move in line with one another in a market that has a vacancy rate below equilibrium.

所以我想說的是，你不能在不考慮這些現金流的增長率的情況下查看這些現金流的貼現率。而這兩者並沒有完美地同步移動，但通常在空置率低於均衡的市場中相互一致。

Our final question will come from the line of Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.

我們的最後一個問題將來自富國銀行的 Jamie Feldman。

We were just thinking about how should we think about FX and how that goes into your calculus when you're thinking about investment activity given how strong the U.S. dollar is and your unique global platform? And then secondly, if you could just give us some thoughts on when you think the mark-to-market stops expanding. I think it's been surprising to us how it just keeps going quarter-after-quarter. I'd love to get some thoughts on when that might moderate.

考慮到美元的強勢和您獨特的全球平台，當您考慮投資活動時，我們只是在考慮我們應該如何看待外匯以及如何將其納入您的計算？其次，如果您可以就您認為按市值計價停止擴張的時間給我們一些想法。我認為這讓我們感到驚訝，它是如何一個季度一個季度地持續下去的。我很想知道什麼時候可能會緩和。

Yes. So FX are -- I'll give you the big picture theory, and Tim can give you the details. We do 3 levels of FX management. Number one, we want to have a global platform to serve global customers, but we do not want to have our capital equally in every place because we're a U.S. dollar dividend payer. Therefore, we use a higher percentage of private capital in our foreign jurisdictions than we do in U.S. jurisdictions. So that's the first step that we take.

是的。所以 FX 是——我會給你大局理論，蒂姆可以給你細節。我們進行 3 個級別的外匯管理。第一，我們希望擁有一個服務全球客戶的全球平台，但我們不想讓我們的資本在每個地方都平等，因為我們是美元股息支付者。因此，我們在外國司法管轄區使用的私人資本比例高於美國司法管轄區。所以這是我們邁出的第一步。

Secondly, we have a disproportionately higher amount of debt in foreign currencies matched against our equity or our share of the equity in those assets so that we are neutralized in terms of asset and liability movements with respect to the movement of interest rates. In other words, $100 of equity and $100 of debt against it. By the way, the U.S. is much less [leveraged]. So our overall leverage is very good. So that's the second level that we manage the asset value, which is really the big dangerous thing in real estate.

其次，我們的外幣債務與我們的股權或我們在這些資產中的股權份額相匹配，因此我們在資產和負債變動方面與利率變動相抵消。換句話說，100 美元的股權和 100 美元的債務。順便說一句，美國的[槓桿]要少得多。所以我們的整體槓桿率非常好。所以這是我們管理資產價值的第二個層次，這在房地產中確實是一件大危險的事情。

So on those, we're perfectly hedged. Perfectly hedged. Not overhedged, not under hedged. Perfectly hedged. Then there is the issue of how do you manage earnings, FX on earnings, which is more of a flow management, and that is by buying hedges that go out and protect earnings for 2-ish kind of years.

因此，在這些方面，我們完全對沖。完美對沖。沒有過度對沖，也沒有對沖不足。完美對沖。然後是您如何管理收益的問題，收益外匯，這更像是一種流量管理，即通過購買對沖來保護兩年左右的收益。

Yes. And I would say even longer, we ladder into that strategy where the next few years are quite fully hedged, but we have hedges out to '26, '27 and the dollar cost average into it. I also think, Jamie, it sounded like underneath your question is how do we feel about sending dollars to Europe or to Japan. And frankly, that's not really how it works. In these other jurisdictions, we're typically recycling capital. That's when we're running the contribution model. Even at a time like this when the contributions at least in Europe are at a pause, we're funding that with debt in-country. So we don't really have the kind of issue, as I think you're trying to highlight there.

是的。而且我會說更長的時間，我們逐步進入那種未來幾年完全對沖的策略，但我們已經對沖到'26、'27和平均美元成本。我還認為，傑米，聽起來你的問題是我們對向歐洲或日本匯款的感覺如何。坦率地說，這並不是真正的工作方式。在這些其他司法管轄區，我們通常會回收資本。那是我們運行貢獻模型的時候。即使在這樣的時候，至少在歐洲的捐款處於暫停狀態，我們也在通過國內債務為其提供資金。所以我們真的沒有那種問題，因為我認為你正試圖強調那裡。

Your second question was on the lease mark-to-market, I think, and how does it fall down over time. And I know you appreciate that's going to be purely a function of what is market rent growth from here. If there are no market rent growth, it will come down more precipitously. And if there's a reasonable level, say, high single digits, that's probably going to be paired with our same store growth. And that would say the lease mark-to-market is going to be pretty constant for a while. So you have to make a bet on market rent growth to really answer that question, and we're not doing that today over the long-term, but it's got a very long tail to it, I think, is our view.

你的第二個問題是關於按市值計價的租賃，我認為，以及它如何隨著時間的推移而下降。我知道你很欣賞這將純粹是市場租金增長的函數。如果沒有市場租金增長，它將更加急劇地下降。如果有一個合理的水平，比如說，高個位數，那可能會與我們同店的增長相結合。也就是說，按市值計價的租賃將在一段時間內保持不變。因此，您必須押注市場租金增長才能真正回答這個問題，而我們今天並沒有長期這樣做，但我認為，這是我們的觀點。

By the way, I would also say that the FX rates being so favorable to the dollar, there will become a time where there will be compelling opportunities to deploy capital in Europe because you could catch the combination of good values in local currency and a great exchange rate. So we're not -- we don't expect to do that tomorrow or anything, but that's another consideration that we always keep in mind, which is the opportunistic side of all these changes that we're witnessing.

順便說一句，我還要說，匯率對美元如此有利，將成為一個在歐洲部署資本的令人信服的機會，因為你可以抓住當地貨幣的良好價值和一個偉大的匯率。所以我們不是 - 我們不希望明天或任何事情這樣做，但這是我們始終牢記的另一個考慮因素，這是我們正在目睹的所有這些變化的機會主義方面。

Before I let you go, however, I'd like to take a minute to highlight our Groundbreakers Conference, which happens next Tuesday at Hudson Yards in New York. It will also be streaming online. This is an annual thought leadership event, which will feature some of the most innovative voices in logistics today, including Dave Clark, formerly CEO of Worldwide Consumer at Amazon and now the new CEO of Flexport, which is actually one of our portfolio companies, plus a host of others that you won't want to miss. We'll dig into all the questions that you've been asking about in terms of macro trends. And I think it will be a very different event than yet another recumbence or something of that kind.

然而，在我讓你走之前，我想花一點時間重點介紹一下我們的開創者大會，該大會將於下週二在紐約哈德遜廣場舉行。它也將在線播放。這是一項年度思想領袖活動，將匯集當今物流領域一些最具創新性的聲音，包括亞馬遜全球消費者前首席執行官、現任 Flexport 新任首席執行官的 Dave Clark，這實際上是我們的投資組合公司之一，此外您不想錯過的許多其他人。我們將深入探討您在宏觀趨勢方面提出的所有問題。而且我認為這將是一個非常不同的事件，而不是另一個臥床或類似的東西。

So if you're really interested about logistics and when it's moving in the next couple of decades, these are the people that we brought together. So I look forward to seeing many of you there. We've had a tremendous response. And I think you'll get a lot out of it. So please come. Take care.

因此，如果您真的對物流感興趣，並且在未來幾十年內它正在發展，那麼這些人就是我們聚集在一起的人。所以我期待在那裡見到你們中的許多人。我們得到了巨大的反響。我認為你會從中得到很多。所以請來。小心。

Thank you. This does conclude today's teleconference. We appreciate your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Enjoy the rest of your day.

謝謝你。今天的電話會議到此結束。我們感謝您的參與。此時您可以斷開線路。享受你一天的剩餘時間。