Prologis Inc (PLD) 2022 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Greetings, and welcome to the Prologis Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) Please note that this conference will be recorded. I will now turn the conference over to our host, Jill Sawyer, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

您好，歡迎來到 Prologis 2022 年第四季度收益電話會議。 （操作員說明）請注意，此會議將被錄製。我現在將會議轉交給我們的主持人，投資者關係副總裁吉爾索耶。謝謝你。你可以開始了。

Thanks, Diego, and good morning, and welcome to our fourth 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 fourth 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. I'd like to welcome Tim Arndt, our CFO, who will cover results, real-time market conditions and items; Hamid Moghadam, our CEO and our entire executive team are also with us today.

謝謝，迭戈，早上好，歡迎來到我們 2022 年第四季度的收益電話會議。補充文件可在我們網站 prologis.com 的投資者關係下獲取。我想聲明，本次電話會議將包含聯邦證券法規定的前瞻性陳述。這些陳述基於當前對市場和 Prologis 經營所在行業的預期、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到多種因素的影響。有關這些因素的列表，請參閱我們的 10-K 或其他 SEC 文件中的前瞻性聲明通知。此外，我們的第四季度業績新聞稿和補充文件確實包含非 GAAP 措施的財務措施，例如 FFO 和 EBITDA。根據 Reg G，我們已經對這些措施進行了調整。我想歡迎我們的首席財務官 Tim Arndt，他將介紹結果、實時市場狀況和項目；我們的首席執行官 Hamid Moghadam 和我們的整個執行團隊今天也和我們在一起。

With that, I'll hand the call over to Tim.

有了這個，我會把電話交給蒂姆。

Thanks, Jill. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our fourth quarter earnings call. Let me begin by thanking our global team for delivering an excellent quarter and year. We've had outstanding results despite challenging headwinds from the capital markets and the overall economic backdrop. In the face of this, our focus has been to serve our customers and investors putting our heads down and executing on our long-term plan.

謝謝，吉爾。大家早上好，歡迎來到我們的第四季度財報電話會議。首先，我要感謝我們的全球團隊交付了出色的季度和年度業績。儘管資本市場和整體經濟背景充滿挑戰，但我們仍取得了出色的成績。面對這種情況，我們的重點一直是為我們的客戶和投資者提供服務，並埋頭執行我們的長期計劃。

As you see in our results, our portfolio is in excellent shape, driven by still strong demand and a continued lack of availability. This foundation for our business not only drove our nearly 13% increase in year-over-year core earnings, but it also sets up the company for sustainable growth for years to come. Turning to results, core FFO, excluding promotes, was $4.61 per share and including promotes was $5.16 per share, ahead of our forecast.

正如您在我們的結果中看到的那樣，在仍然強勁的需求和持續缺乏可用性的推動下，我們的產品組合狀況良好。我們業務的這一基礎不僅推動我們的核心收益同比增長近 13%，而且還為公司未來幾年的可持續增長奠定了基礎。談到業績，核心 FFO（不包括促銷）為每股 4.61 美元，包括促銷在內為每股 5.16 美元，高於我們的預期。

In the fourth quarter, our operating results, again, generated several new records. Occupancy increased to 98.2%, with retention of 82%. The Prologis portfolio, excluding Duke, added 30 of the 40-basis point increase over the quarter. While we tend to quote occupancy, it is notable that the portfolio is 98.6% leased, a record that underscores the tightness across our markets. Rent change for the quarter was 51% on a net effective basis. The step down from our third quarter rent change of 60% is a reflection of mix and not market rents.

第四季度，我們的經營業績再創多項新紀錄。入住率增至 98.2%，保留率為 82%。 Prologis 投資組合（不包括 Duke）在本季度增加了 40 個基點中的 30 個。雖然我們傾向於引用入住率，但值得注意的是，該投資組合的出租率為 98.6%，這一記錄凸顯了我們整個市場的緊張狀況。本季度的租金淨有效變化為 51%。我們第三季度租金變化 60% 的下降反映了混合而非市場租金。

In fact, market rent growth exceeded expectations during the quarter, increasing our lease mark-to-market to a record 67%. These results drove same-store growth to 7.7% on a net effective basis and 9.1% on cash. The Duke portfolio, having closed on October 3, is fully integrated in these results with the exception of same-store growth, which will not be reflected until the first quarter of 2024.

事實上，本季度市場租金增長超出預期，使我們的租賃按市值計價增至創紀錄的 67%。這些結果推動同店淨有效增長率達到 7.7%，現金增長率達到 9.1%。 Duke 產品組合於 10 月 3 日關閉，除同店增長外，已完全納入這些業績，同店增長要到 2024 年第一季度才能反映出來。

On the balance sheet, while access to the debt markets have remained challenging for many issuers, we successfully executed a number of transactions during the quarter, raising over $1.1 billion at an interest rate below 3%, including $700 million of new unsecured borrowings out of Japan and Canada. Our credit metrics continue to be excellent, and we've maintained over $4 billion of liquidity at year-end with borrowing capacity across Prologis and the open-ended funds of $20 billion, expanded significantly due to our balance sheet growth from the Duke acquisition.

在資產負債表上，雖然進入債務市場對許多發行人來說仍然具有挑戰性，但我們在本季度成功執行了多項交易，以低於 3% 的利率籌集了超過 11 億美元，其中包括 7 億美元的新無擔保借款日本和加拿大。我們的信用指標仍然非常出色，我們在年底保持了超過 40 億美元的流動性，普洛斯和開放式基金的借貸能力為 200 億美元，由於我們的資產負債表因收購杜克而增長，因此顯著擴大。

With regard to our markets and leasing activity, the bottom line is that conditions remain healthy and there is little we see across our results or proprietary metrics that point to a meaningful slowdown. We see a normalization of demand and when combined with low vacancy, it continues to translate to a meaningful increase in rents. Across our markets, rent growth was nearly 5% during the quarter, driving the full year to 28%.

關於我們的市場和租賃活動，底線是情況保持健康，我們的結果或專有指標幾乎看不到任何顯著放緩的跡象。我們看到需求正常化，再加上低空置率，它繼續轉化為租金的顯著增長。在我們的市場中，本季度租金增長近 5%，推動全年增長 28%。

Proposal activity for available space was consistent with our recent history and given persistent low vacancy, there is simply a very small number of units to even propose deals on. As evidenced, over 99% of our portfolio is either currently leased or in negotiation. Utilization remains high at 86%, near its all-time record. And deal gestation ticked up over the quarter, indicative of more careful consideration and time being taken in leasing decisions.

可用空間的提案活動與我們最近的歷史一致，並且鑑於持續的低空置率，甚至只有很少的單位可以提出交易。有證據表明，我們超過 99% 的投資組合目前處於租賃狀態或正在談判中。利用率保持在 86% 的高位，接近其歷史記錄。交易醞釀在本季度有所增加，表明在做出租賃決策時會進行更仔細的考慮和時間安排。

While we are watching e-commerce carefully, its share of overall retail sales have increased to 22%, which is 600 basis points above its pre-pandemic level. Putting the nuance of mix, timing and other factors aside, as measured by retention, occupancy or rent change, it is clear that customers need to commit to space to market conditions, which offer them very little choice. In terms of supply, the development pipeline across our market stands at 565 million square feet, and our expectation for the year is that the pipeline will decline.

在我們密切關注電子商務的同時，其在整體零售額中的份額已增至 22%，比大流行前水平高出 600 個基點。撇開混合、時間和其他因素的細微差別，以保留率、入住率或租金變化來衡量，很明顯，客戶需要根據市場條件承諾空間，這為他們提供了很少的選擇。在供應方面，我們市場的開發管道為 5.65 億平方英尺，我們對今年的預期是管道將下降。

Deliveries will put modest upward pressure on vacancies from 3.3% today towards 4% later in the year. However, new development starts are slowing in response to the market environment, which will reduce vacancies in late '23 or '24. In Europe, we expect deliveries to outpace absorption by approximately 30 million square feet, expanding the current 2.6% vacancy rate to approximately 3.5%.

交付將適度增加空置率，從今天的 3.3% 升至今年晚些時候的 4%。然而，為響應市場環境，新開發項目的開工正在放緩，這將減少 23 世紀末或 24 世紀末的空置率。在歐洲，我們預計交付量將超過吸納量約 3000 萬平方英尺，將目前 2.6% 的空置率擴大至約 3.5%。

Finally, and as expected, our true months of supply metric grew to 25 months in the U.S. from 22 months last quarter. As a reminder, this metric has averaged roughly 36 months over the last 10 years. In Capital Markets, transactions continue to be slow in the fourth quarter, making price discovery challenging. That said, return requirements are trending to the low to mid-7% range. This expansion further affected appraised values in our funds, although continued rent growth has mitigated some of the effect.

最後，正如預期的那樣，我們在美國的真實供應月數指標從上一季度的 22 個月增加到 25 個月。提醒一下，該指標在過去 10 年中的平均使用時間約為 36 個月。在資本市場，交易在第四季度繼續放緩，使得價格發現具有挑戰性。也就是說，退貨要求正趨向於 7% 的低到中等範圍。這種擴張進一步影響了我們基金的評估價值，儘管持續的租金增長減輕了一些影響。

Our U.S. values, which were appraised by third parties every quarter, declined 6% this quarter and 7% over the entire second half. In Europe, values declined approximately 12% during the quarter and 16% over the half. Our open-end funds have received only modest redemption requests, less than 3% of net asset value during the quarter, totaling 5% across the second half. Our flagship funds have strong balance sheets with low leverage, largely undrawn credit facilities, cash on hand and undrawn equity commitments.

我們每季度由第三方評估的美國價值本季度下降了 6%，整個下半年下降了 7%。在歐洲，本季度價值下降了約 12%，上半年下降了 16%。我們的開放式基金僅收到適度的贖回請求，本季度不到資產淨值的 3%，下半年總計為 5%。我們的旗艦基金資產負債表強勁，槓桿率低，大部分未動用信貸額度、手頭現金和未動用股權承諾。

While we believe the value declines over the second half reflect market, investors are still adjusting to a new environment. Because we strive to be consistent in our actions and fair to all investors, we will redeem units call equity and resume asset contributions when price discovery has run its course. We expect that to be 1 to 2 quarters away likely sooner in Europe. This will ensure certainty, fairness and consistency to all of our investors.

雖然我們認為下半年的價值下降反映了市場，但投資者仍在適應新環境。因為我們力求在我們的行動中保持一致並對所有投資者公平，所以我們將贖回單位股本並在價格發現過程結束時恢復資產貢獻。我們預計歐洲可能會提前 1 到 2 個季度。這將確保我們所有投資者的確定性、公平性和一致性。

Turning to our outlook for 2023. While our macro forecast assumes a moderate recession, which may put headwinds on demand, our business is driven by secular forces and long-term planning by our customers that should limit the impact unless such a downturn becomes significant and protracted. As mentioned earlier, we believe vacancy will build in the market and our portfolio, both of which are unsustainably low. Putting this sentiment together with our outlook on supply and demand, our '23 rent forecast calls for approximately 10% growth in the U.S. and 9% globally.

談到我們對 2023 年的展望。雖然我們的宏觀預測假設溫和衰退，這可能會對需求造成不利影響，但我們的業務受到長期力量和客戶長期規劃的推動，這應該會限制影響，除非這種衰退變得嚴重並且曠日持久。如前所述，我們認為市場和我們的投資組合中將出現空置率，兩者都處於不可持續的低水平。將這種情緒與我們對供需的展望結合起來，我們的 23 年租金預測要求美國增長約 10%，全球增長 9%。

We acknowledge that our rent forecasts have proven conservative in recent years, but we are comfortable with this starting point given the environment. Specific to our portfolio and on our share basis, we expect average occupancy to range between 96.5% and 97.5%, roughly 50 basis points lower than the '22 midpoint. Combined with rent change, we forecast to generate net effective same-store growth of approximately 8% to 9% with casting store growth between 8.5% and 9.5%.

我們承認我們的租金預測近年來被證明是保守的，但考慮到環境，我們對這個起點感到滿意。具體到我們的投資組合和我們的份額基礎上，我們預計平均入住率在 96.5% 和 97.5% 之間，比 22 世紀中點低大約 50 個基點。結合租金變化，我們預計將產生約 8% 至 9% 的淨有效同店增長，其中鑄造店增長在 8.5% 至 9.5% 之間。

Given these assumptions, we believe our lease mark-to-market will be sustained or even increased over '23, ending the year between 65% and 70% and providing visibility to an incremental $2.9 billion of NOI after the more than $300 million that will become realized over the course of this year. We expect G&A to range between $370 million and $385 million, reflecting not only inflation in wages and other corporate costs, but also additional investments we are making in our Essentials business particularly in the energy teams.

鑑於這些假設，我們相信我們的租賃按市值計價將在 23 年保持甚至增加，到年底將在 65% 到 70% 之間，並提供在超過 3 億美元之後增加 29 億美元的 NOI 的可見性在今年的過程中成為現實。我們預計 G&A 將在 3.7 億美元至 3.85 億美元之間，這不僅反映了工資和其他公司成本的通脹，還反映了我們對 Essentials 業務尤其是能源團隊的額外投資。

In that regard, we expect the contribution to FFO from Essentials to range between $0.07 and $0.09 this year. This reflects 70% growth in revenues and tax credits from '22, but offset in the near term by our higher Duke related share count and the G&A investments just mentioned. In terms of operational metrics for the business, we expect to add 115 megawatts of solar power over the year driving the portfolio to approximately 540 megawatts by year-end. It's worth noting that we closed 2022 as the second largest on-site power producer in the U.S., a position we will build upon with our plan for 1 gigawatt of production and storage by 2025. We also forecast to have over 20 EV charging clusters installed and operational by year-end.

在這方面，我們預計今年 Essentials 對 FFO 的貢獻將在 0.07 美元至 0.09 美元之間。這反映了 22 年以來收入和稅收抵免增長了 70%，但在短期內被我們更高的 Duke 相關股票數量和剛剛提到的 G&A 投資所抵消。就業務的運營指標而言，我們預計今年將增加 115 兆瓦的太陽能，到年底將投資組合推至約 540 兆瓦。值得注意的是，到 2022 年，我們將成為美國第二大現場電力生產商，我們計劃在 2025 年之前實現 1 吉瓦的生產和存儲，以此鞏固這一地位。我們還預計將安裝 20 多個 EV 充電集群並在年底前投入運營。

In deployment, we will continue to be disciplined in our approach to new starts. We have over $39 billion of opportunities to select from in our land bank and between our expectations for build-to-suits and logical markets prospect, we see an active year of starts initially to range between $2.5 billion and $3 billion with a real opportunity to grow as conditions warrant. As mentioned earlier, we plan for redemptions to be cleared out over the year and private fundraising to resume. Accordingly, we forecast contribution activity to occur primarily in the second half and resulting in combined contribution and disposition guidance of $2 billion to $3 billion. Finally, in strategic capital, we forecast revenues, excluding promotes, to range between $500 million and $525 million, which is impacted by valuation write-downs across '22 and the first half of '23.

在部署中，我們將繼續遵守新起點的紀律。我們有超過 390 億美元的土地儲備機會可供選擇，在我們對定制建築的預期和合理的市場前景之間，我們看到一個活躍的開工年份最初在 25 億美元到 30 億美元之間，有真正的機會在條件允許的情況下成長。如前所述，我們計劃在年內清算贖回並恢復私募籌款。因此，我們預測貢獻活動將主要發生在下半年，並導致 20 億至 30 億美元的合併貢獻和處置指導。最後，在戰略資本方面，我們預測收入（不包括促銷）在 5 億美元至 5.25 億美元之間，這受到 22 年和 23 年上半年估值減記的影響。

We are forecasting net promote income of $0.40 based on an assumption that you -- that values in USLF, primary source of '23, promotes will decline further from values at year-end. Every 1% change in asset value equates to slightly less than $0.02 of net promote income. Putting this all together, we expect core FFO, excluding promotes, to range between $5 and $5.10 per share. At the midpoint of our guidance, this represents approximately 9.5% growth over 2022. We're guiding core FFO, including promotes, to range between $5.40 and $5.50 per share.

我們預測淨促銷收入為 0.40 美元，基於這樣的假設 - USLF 的價值，'23 的主要來源，促銷將在年底進一步下降。資產價值每 1% 的變化相當於略低於 0.02 美元的淨促銷收入。綜上所述，我們預計核心 FFO（不包括促銷）將在每股 5 美元至 5.10 美元之間。在我們指導的中點，這比 2022 年增長約 9.5%。我們指導核心 FFO（包括促銷）在每股 5.40 美元至 5.50 美元之間。

In closing, this guidance builds upon an exceptional 3-year period of sector-leading earnings growth. At our 2019 Investor Day, we presented a 3-year plan, targeting 8.5% annual growth, we achieved nearly 14% over this period, 550 basis points of annual outperformance. We expect 2023 to be a year where headlines continue to be disconnected from our business and ability to deliver strong growth and value creation.

最後，本指南建立在行業領先的盈利增長的 3 年特殊時期之上。在我們的 2019 年投資者日，我們提出了一個 3 年計劃，目標是每年增長 8.5%，在此期間我們實現了近 14%，年度跑贏 550 個基點。我們預計 2023 年將是頭條新聞繼續與我們的業務以及實現強勁增長和價值創造的能力脫節的一年。

While there are many unknowns generally, there are more knowns in our business that are clear, such as our lease mark-to-market; significant and visible opportunity in our land bank; a need for excitement -- a need and excitement for a new generation of sustainable energy solutions; and a dedicated team that is the best in the business and laser-focused on delivering leading results.

雖然一般來說有很多未知數，但我們的業務中有更多已知信息，例如我們的租賃按市值計價；我們土地儲備中的重要和可見機會；對興奮的需求——對新一代可持續能源解決方案的需求和興奮；以及一支業內最優秀的敬業團隊，專注於提供領先的成果。

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

我們現在將把電話轉給接線員來回答您的問題。

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore.

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

Tim, I just wanted to clarify, in your kind of going through your guidance, you throw out a lot of numbers. I just want to make sure on the mark-to-market, numbers that are embedded in your same-store NOI growth of 8% to 9% GAAP and 8.5% to 9.5% cash. Just -- what are you expecting for cash and GAAP leasing spreads? And I just want to make sure that's different than the kind of overall portfolio mark-to-market, you talked about 65% to 70%?

蒂姆，我只是想澄清一下，在你的指導過程中，你拋出了很多數字。我只想確保按市值計算，您的同店 NOI 增長 8% 至 9% GAAP 和 8.5% 至 9.5% 現金。只是 - 您對現金和 GAAP 租賃利差有何期望？我只是想確保這與按市值計價的整體投資組合不同，你說的是 65% 到 70%？

Yes, they're going to be stronger. As you think about the lease mark-to-market, it's all of the leases. So it represents old leases and leases just done. So clearly, everything that will roll next year is going to be above the 67% reporting today. It's a little bit flatter than you might expect as we've looked at it. I think leasing spreads next year are going to be in the high 70s to low 80s on a net effective basis. And then as we know that the cash basis of that has trended towards about 1,500 basis points or so inside of that.

是的，他們會變得更強大。當您考慮按市值計價的租賃時，它就是所有的租賃。所以它代表舊的租約和剛剛完成的租約。很明顯，明年推出的所有產品都將高於今天報告的 67%。當我們看到它時，它比您預期的要平坦一些。我認為明年的淨有效租賃利差將處於 70 至 80 的高位。然後我們知道，其現金基礎已趨向於其中約 1,500 個基點左右。

Our next question comes from Craig Mailman with Citi.

我們的下一個問題來自 Citi 的 Craig Mailman。

I just want to hit on the capital deployment side of things, maybe a 2-parter here. Just first on the stabilization, just the kind of the -- what you guys have stabilized the $2.8 billion at your share, can you just bridge that gap versus the $5.5 billion that you have on Page 20 of expected deliveries or completions in 2023? And maybe just give us some sense of timing on that. I know I think about 30% of those are build-to-suits. So also how you're thinking about where the pre-leasing is on the balance of that as well and kind of how that layers into your occupancy assumption?

我只想談一談資本部署方面的問題，也許這裡有 2 個合作夥伴。首先是穩定，就是那種——你們已經穩定了 28 億美元的份額，你們能否彌補這一差距與第 20 頁上 2023 年預期交付或完工的 55 億美元之間的差距？也許只是給我們一些時間感。我知道我認為其中大約 30% 是定制的。那麼，您還如何考慮預租的平衡點以及它如何融入您的入住率假設？

Yes, I'll take -- Craig, it's Tim. I'll take the first half and Dan can help with the second. This is really a date issue, I would say, not even an issue, but just a function of the date. We have a large amount of that group of stabilization, we believe will occur in the first quarter of '24. And I think there is a very real possibility that if we improve some of the leasing timing by just a month or 2, we could see a decent amount of that actually fall back into '23. So it's just a function of crossing over a calendar year, the lay -- the mix of all of our projects is landing.

是的，我會——克雷格，我是蒂姆。我負責上半場，丹可以幫忙做下半場。這確實是一個日期問題，我想說，甚至不是一個問題，而只是日期的一個函數。我們有大量穩定的群體，我們相信將在 24 年第一季度發生。而且我認為，如果我們將一些租賃時間縮短一兩個月，那麼很有可能會看到相當一部分實際回到 23 年。所以這只是一個跨越日曆年的功能，外行 - 我們所有項目的組合正在著陸。

And this is Dan. I'll just pile on there. The pre-leasing in that portfolio, as you see, there's 29% of that, that's in there as a build-to-suit. The pre-leasing is better than that 29%, and I would say on track with historical averages, even on a bigger data set here. So we feel really good about delivering our stabilization at this year-end and next.

這是丹。我就堆在那裡。如您所見，該投資組合中的預租佔其中的 29%，是按需定制的。預租比 29% 好，我想說符合歷史平均水平，即使在這裡使用更大的數據集也是如此。因此，我們對在今年年底和明年實現穩定感到非常高興。

Our next question comes from Ki Bin Kim with Truist.

我們的下一個問題來自 Ki Bin Kim 和 Truist。

I was curious about the investment capacity that you show in your supplemental of $1.5 billion is down from $4.2 billion. I just want to understand what that actually represents? And tying that to your comments about contributions perhaps picking back up if conditions settle out, how does that comment compared to the $1.5 billion capacity? And how much rigor room do you ultimately have an increase on that capacity?

我很好奇你在 15 億美元的補充中顯示的投資能力低於 42 億美元。我只想了解這實際上代表什麼？並將其與您關於捐款的評論聯繫起來，如果條件穩定下來，捐款可能會回升，與 15 億美元的容量相比，該評論如何？你最終有多少空間可以增加這種能力？

So what I would do with regard to investment capacity is relying more on the way I'm describing it in our prepared remarks, the $20 billion and $4 billion or $5 billion across the funds. The number that's presented in the sub, which is what I think you're referring to is a bit technical about the current amount of equity that can be drawn in the funds, and then that number is levered slightly. So that's why it's a bit understated. The number we supplemented with in prepared remarks is looking at the overall leverage of the fund and how much more capacity sits beyond just that of committed equity post leverage. So for example, our USLF venture is very low leverage, just about 10%. And that creates an incredible amount of debt capacity, as you can imagine. And I think that one is addressing your second question, which is the liquidity in the funds for contributions, there's a lot there for us to tap over time.

因此，關於投資能力，我將更多地依賴於我在準備好的發言中描述的方式，即 200 億美元、40 億美元或 50 億美元的資金。子項中顯示的數字，我認為你指的是關於當前可從基金中提取的股權數量的技術性信息，然後該數字略有槓桿作用。所以這就是為什麼它有點低調。我們在準備好的評論中補充的數字正在研究基金的整體槓桿率，以及超出槓桿後承諾股權的能力還有多少。因此，例如，我們的 USLF 風險投資的槓桿率非常低，只有 10% 左右。正如您可以想像的那樣，這會產生令人難以置信的債務能力。我認為這是在解決你的第二個問題，即捐款基金的流動性，隨著時間的推移，我們可以利用很多。

Our next question comes from Derek Johnston with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行的 Derek Johnston。

Can you give us an update on the markets in Europe, the mark-to-market there? Any leasing trends? I think you touched briefly on the private market transaction backdrop. We definitely see the U.S. mark-to-market getting wider. I guess how do you view demand in Europe and the differences between the U.S. and Europe unfolding in '23?

你能給我們介紹一下歐洲市場的最新情況嗎？那裡的市值是多少？有什麼租賃趨勢嗎？我想你簡要地談到了私募市場交易的背景。我們肯定會看到美國按市值計價的範圍越來越廣。我想您如何看待歐洲的需求以及 23 世紀美國和歐洲之間的差異？

Yes. Let me start with some general comments. Europe is generally a mild and more muted version of the U.S., both on the way up and on the way down. And the market is -- has a lower vacancy rate than the U.S., if you can believe it. So that's a general backdrop. That's very consistent with the way Europe has behaved in the last kind of 15years. As to the specifics on mark-to-market and the like.

是的。讓我先談談一些一般性評論。歐洲總體上是美國的溫和和更安靜的版本，無論是在上升還是下降的過程中。如果您相信的話，市場的空置率低於美國。這就是一般背景。這與歐洲過去 15 年的行為方式非常一致。至於按市值計價之類的細節。

Dan, do you want to cover that?

丹，你想報導嗎？

Yes, sure. mark-to-market -- lease mark-to-market in Europe is about 28%. And I would say just overall, we feel very good about the leasing demand in Europe right now. We talked about at the -- in the remarks about an expansion in the vacancy. But overall, we feel really good about where it's headed.

是的，當然。按市值計價——歐洲的租賃按市價計價約為 28%。我想說的是，總的來說，我們現在對歐洲的租賃需求感覺非常好。我們在關於擴大空缺的評論中談到過。但總的來說，我們對它的發展方向感覺非常好。

And you might ask what about the U.K. because that's the one you hear about all the time. And actually, that's really strong, too, so far. So we've actually been surprised on the positive side with the U.K. The other place that is really held up well is actually Germany, which you would have guessed with energy issues would be softer, it hasn't been. And there's virtually no vacancy in Germany and some of the manufacturing coming back, particularly autos, et cetera, are really strengthening Central and Eastern Europe, the markets particularly in Poland, where there's this perennial vacancy. It's sort of tightening up.

您可能會問英國呢，因為您一直都在談論英國。實際上，到目前為止，這也非常強大。所以我們實際上對英國的積極方面感到驚訝。另一個真正表現良好的地方實際上是德國，你可能會猜到在能源問題上它會更軟，但事實並非如此。德國幾乎沒有空缺，一些製造業的回歸，尤其是汽車等，確實在加強中歐和東歐市場，尤其是波蘭的市場，那里長期存在空缺。有點收緊了。

Our next question comes from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.

我們的下一個問題來自豐業銀行的 Nick Yulico。

I want to dig in a little bit to the sectors that you're seeing driving leasing demand, let's say, in the fourth quarter and so far this year. Whether you've seen any changes in types of customers taking space versus a year ago? And then I guess when we think about the broader retailer bucket, where you did see some retailers reporting year-over-year sales declines in the back half of last year. Wondering if any pieces of that category are you seeing less demand?

我想深入探討一下你看到的推動租賃需求的行業，比方說，在第四季度和今年到目前為止。與一年前相比，您是否發現租用空間的客戶類型有任何變化？然後我想當我們考慮更廣泛的零售商時，你確實看到一些零售商報告去年下半年銷售額同比下降。想知道您是否看到該類別的任何部分需求減少？

Yes. The only category that is significantly below the trend and is likely to be that way is housing because the starts are slowing. But with respect to other detail, Chris, do you want to take that?

是的。唯一明顯低於趨勢並且可能是這樣的類別是住房，因為開工正在放緩。但關於其他細節，克里斯，你想接受嗎？

Yes, it's absolutely right. Generally, Nick, it was diverse. So whether we look at consumer products, whether we look at apparel, food and beverage customers. We have a diverse range of customers leasing space from us beyond the housing categories, which would include construction, it could include home goods and the like.

是的，完全正確。一般來說，尼克，它是多種多樣的。因此，無論我們看消費品，還是看服裝、食品和飲料客戶。除了住房類別，我們還有各種各樣的客戶向我們租賃空間，其中包括建築，可能包括家居用品等。

Yes. And retail sales on a real basis, notwithstanding the weaker prints in December and November are good. I think it's between 2.5% and 3% up compared to the year before. So yes, you do hear the headlines of the weaker retailers, but I think if you look at it overall, it's actually pretty positive. It's more positive than the headlines. I wouldn't say it's super positive, but it's much better than the headlines.

是的。儘管 12 月和 11 月的數據疲軟，但實際零售額還是不錯的。我認為與前一年相比增長了 2.5% 到 3%。所以是的，你確實聽到了較弱零售商的頭條新聞，但我認為如果你從整體上看，它實際上是非常積極的。它比頭條新聞更積極。我不會說它是超級積極的，但它比頭條新聞要好得多。

Our next question comes from Michael Goldsmith with UBS.

我們的下一個問題來自瑞銀的 Michael Goldsmith。

You clearly laid out the building blocks of your same store NOI growth of 8.5% to 9.5% in 2023, where you have a high level of visibility. Obviously, a lot of macro uncertainty out there. Can you provide the specific assumptions you've used for your initial 2023 outlook? And then just where and how a change in the macro environment could provide upside or downside to your initial guidance?

您清楚地列出了 2023 年同店 NOI 增長 8.5% 至 9.5% 的基石，您在這方面具有很高的知名度。顯然，存在很多宏觀不確定性。您能否提供您對 2023 年初步展望所使用的具體假設？那麼宏觀環境的變化會在何處以及如何為您的初始指導帶來上行或下行？

So let me just start that and Tim will take you through the specifics. Actually, the assumptions about the macro environment other than, call it, defaults or something that has an immediate effect, are not going to drive the numbers big time in 2023 because a lot of the leasing that needs to take place in 2023 is already in progress or been dealt with. We're dealing with very high occupancy levels to start with. There is not a whole lot of space to lease. And the real driver of those same-store numbers is the huge mark-to-market in the portfolio that already exists. So that's -- so don't expect -- even if we change the assumptions by a lot, the numbers for 2023 are not going to move that much. They will, obviously, move as you get further along into the future. So that's one comment I would make. The second comment I would make is that in every year in the last 3 or 4 years, we started the year with rental assumptions that we have exceeded sometimes by a factor of 3 to 4x. So I'm not saying that's going to happen this year, but there is absolutely no reason in the world to go crazy on our assumptions with respect to rental rates, particularly they don't have an effect in 2023 anyway. So we'll see how it plays. And if we see evidence of stronger rental growth and my bet would be a surprise on the upside of our assumptions, not the other way around. Then we'll let you know, and you can adjust the numbers accordingly. Tim?

所以讓我開始吧，蒂姆會帶你了解細節。實際上，關於宏觀環境的假設，除了所謂的違約或具有立竿見影效果的東西之外，不會在 2023 年大幅推動這些數字，因為許多需要在 2023 年進行的租賃已經在進展或已處理。我們正在處理非常高的入住率。沒有太多的空間可以租用。而這些同店數量的真正驅動力是已經存在的投資組合中巨大的按市值計價。所以這就是——所以不要指望——即使我們將假設改變很多，2023 年的數字也不會發生太大變化。很明顯，它們會隨著你在未來的發展而移動。這就是我要發表的評論。我要說的第二個評論是，在過去 3 或 4 年的每一年裡，我們在年初的租金假設有時都會超過 3 到 4 倍。所以我並不是說今年會發生這種情況，但世界上絕對沒有理由對我們關於租金的假設發瘋，尤其是它們在 2023 年不會產生影響。所以我們將看看它是如何發揮作用的。如果我們看到租金增長強勁的證據，我的賭注將是我們假設的上行，而不是相反。然後我們會通知您，您可以相應地調整數字。蒂姆？

Yes, just building on that, Michael, if you -- within the supplemental, you can see our lease expiration schedule. Out of that, you'll see we have about 13% rolling, and that's a mix of what is stated as expiring, which is another 9%, but also things that we've already addressed ahead of entering the year here. So the footnotes will tell you that. You get to 13% there. SME said, start with the 67% lease mark-to-market. You've got 10% market rent growth for the year. You assume we'll get that halfway through the year. One thing we see people get wrong is that will take you to a certain amount of rent change. You actually get half that rent change this year, you get half of '22's rent change as well. That's a mathematic thing that you need to be mindful of given the quantum of rent change we're talking about lately. That will all get you to close to 9%. And then we backed off an assumption on occupancy loss, which we couldn't point to right now, but just feels prudent in the environment. So we've taken our guidance down there.

是的，在此基礎上，邁克爾，如果你 - 在補充中，你可以看到我們的租約到期時間表。除此之外，你會看到我們有大約 13% 的滾動，這是所謂的到期的混合，這是另外 9%，但也有我們在進入今年之前已經解決的問題。所以腳註會告訴你這一點。你在那里達到 13%。 SME 表示，從 67% 的租金按市值計價開始。您今年的市場租金增長了 10%。你假設我們會在今年中途得到它。我們看到人們弄錯的一件事是，這會讓您進行一定數量的租金變動。實際上，今年您可以獲得一半的租金變動，您也可以獲得 22 年租金變動的一半。考慮到我們最近談論的租金變化量，這是一個你需要注意的數學問題。這將使您接近 9%。然後我們放棄了對入住率損失的假設，我們現在無法指出這一點，但在環境中感覺很謹慎。所以我們已經把我們的指導帶到了那裡。

Our next question comes from Vince Tibone with Green Street.

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

How should we think about the organic same-store NOI growth for the legacy Duke portfolio in '23, given them that's outside of guidance? Is it lower than guidance for the legacy PLD portfolio in the same ballpark? Just given the size of the Duke deal, any color you could share would be helpful.

鑑於它們超出了指導範圍，我們應該如何考慮 23 年遺留 Duke 投資組合的有機同店 NOI 增長？它是否低於同一球場中遺留 PLD 產品組合的指導？考慮到 Duke 交易的規模，您可以分享的任何顏色都會有所幫助。

Well, it will be lower for one reason anyway, which is that they started at a higher level of occupancy. So putting even rent aside on a same-store basis, there's less opportunity. They generally had longer-term leases because they generally have bigger spaces. So that affects the mix, but Tim?

好吧，不管怎樣，它會因為一個原因而降低，那就是他們開始時的入住率更高。因此，即使將租金放在同店的基礎上，機會也會減少。他們通常有長期租約，因為他們通常有更大的空間。所以這會影響混音，但是蒂姆？

Well, I think an important thing to remember here, and we've seen some people not have this entirely correct in modeling is just understanding that on a GAAP basis, there will be very little same-store. There's potential for some, but because we mark the leases up to market now at the close, on a net effective basis, there will be very little same-store growth, and that's contemplated in our guidance. On a cash basis, I expect it would look quite similar to Prologis.

好吧，我認為這裡要記住一件重要的事情，我們已經看到一些人在建模方面並不完全正確，只是理解在 GAAP 基礎上，同店將非常少。有些人有潛力，但由於我們在收盤時將租賃標記為市場，在淨有效基礎上，同店增長將非常小，這在我們的指導中有所考慮。在現金基礎上，我預計它看起來與 Prologis 非常相似。

By the way, if I can continue that. One thing that you didn't ask, but it's important in this context, and Dan can elaborate is that the rental performance of the Duke portfolio on the few spaces that have come up for re-leasing or were in progress during the time we were doing the transaction are trending significantly higher than what we had underwritten. Dan, can you quantify that?

順便說一句，如果我能繼續的話。有一件事你沒有問，但在這種情況下很重要，Dan 可以詳細說明，Duke 投資組合在我們租賃期間已經提出重新租賃或正在進行的少數空間的租金表現進行交易的趨勢明顯高於我們承保的水平。丹，你能量化嗎？

Yes. I actually go as far as saying we expect to outperform the operating portfolio to 11% to 13%, call it. Now 8% of that is going to come from market rent growth. So really 3% to 5% of that comes from just operating that portfolio in the Prologis platform.

是的。實際上，我什至會說我們希望將運營組合的表現提高到 11% 到 13%，稱之為。現在，其中 8% 將來自市場租金增長。因此，實際上有 3% 到 5% 來自僅在 Prologis 平台上運營該產品組合。

Next question comes from Tom Catherwood with BTIG.

下一個問題來自 BTIG 的 Tom Catherwood。

Tim, you mentioned in your prepared remarks that the outlook for '23 assumes a recession. And if we look back to previous recessionary cycles, usually, we get declines in consumption which drives lower demand for industrial space. But we've also never started a cycle with kind of persistently low vacancy like we have right now or tailwinds from e-commerce and supply gain reconfiguration. So kind of -- within that backdrop of assuming a recession, how do you think it could be different this time? And kind of what do you have baked into your numbers for that for '23?

蒂姆，你在準備好的發言中提到，23 年的前景假設經濟衰退。如果我們回顧之前的經濟衰退週期，通常會發現消費下降，從而導致對工業空間的需求下降。但我們也從來沒有像現在這樣開始一個持續低空置率的周期，或者電子商務和供應增益重新配置的順風。那麼——在假設經濟衰退的背景下，你認為這次會有什麼不同？你在 23 年的數字中考慮了什麼？

So given that Tim was in kindergarten when cycle started. Tim and I are a little bit different than our recession outlook, but I don't think it matters. I think Tim would tell you that if there's a recession, there's a very mild recession and my bet would be that we wouldn't have a recession, but it would be close to 0 GDP growth for a while. So call it recession or no recession, but the same outcome. I think what's different about other cycles, and I say that with a lot of dislike for the phrase that's different this time is that there were really two situations where we had negative absorption in the U.S., which is where we have data. One was on the helop.com and there you had a high vacancy rate. On top of it, you had a very low utilization rate because there was a lot of capital for these dotcom, particularly e-commerce retailers, and they were taking space way ahead of demand. So there was a lot of shadow space too. So when you add those two, it was a very, very high vacancy type of market during that time. So 2000, 2001 time frame. The next time you had a pretty significant negative absorption with 2008, 2009, and we all know the reasons for that. And there, you also started with a significantly higher vacant rate. I think it was 7% or 8% before the music stopped.

所以考慮到蒂姆在周期開始時正在上幼兒園。蒂姆和我對經濟衰退的看法略有不同，但我認為這並不重要。我想蒂姆會告訴你，如果出現經濟衰退，就會出現非常溫和的衰退，我敢打賭我們不會出現經濟衰退，但 GDP 增長將在一段時間內接近於 0。所以稱它為衰退或沒有衰退，但結果相同。我認為其他週期的不同之處在於，我很不喜歡這次不同的說法是，在美國有兩種情況我們有負面吸收，這是我們有數據的地方。一個在 helop.com 上，那裡的空缺率很高。最重要的是，您的利用率非常低，因為這些網絡公司（尤其是電子商務零售商）擁有大量資金，而且他們佔用的空間遠遠超過需求。所以也有很多陰影空間。因此，當您將這兩個相加時，那段時間市場的空置率非常非常高。所以 2000 年、2001 年的時間範圍。下一次你對 2008 年、2009 年產生了相當大的負面影響，我們都知道其中的原因。在那裡，您還以明顯更高的空置率開始。我認為音樂停止之前是 7% 或 8%。

And all I can tell you is that Prologis -- the old Prologis with the fund alone had 52 million square feet of vacant spec space that they had to lease. I think AMB at the time have like 8 million or 9 million square feet. So nothing like you're talking about here, particularly given the different scale of the company and how lease we're starting out. Now even in that situation where we're normally at about 95% occupancy, we went down to about 91% in both cases. So I don't see anything near that. I mean it's mathematically impossible. Even if absorption goes to 0 right now, we don't lease any more of the under-development spec space and absorption goes to 0. I mean, you will be under 5% vacancy, which used to be considered a great strong market. And the capital up, we didn't have this kind of mark-to-market. I mean the mark-to-markets in those days were in the mid-single-digit range, and now we're talking about 70% almost. So a very different picture.

我只能告訴你的是，Prologis——僅擁有該基金的舊 Prologis 就擁有 5200 萬平方英尺的空置規格空間，他們必須租賃這些空間。我認為 AMB 當時大約有 800 萬或 900 萬平方英尺。所以沒有什麼像你在這裡談論的那樣，特別是考慮到公司的不同規模以及我們開始的租賃方式。現在，即使在我們通常佔用率約為 95% 的情況下，我們在這兩種情況下都下降到了大約 91%。所以我看不到任何東西。我的意思是這在數學上是不可能的。即使現在吸收率變為 0，我們也不再出租任何未開發的規格空間，吸收率變為 0。我的意思是，你的空置率將低於 5%，這曾經被認為是一個強大的市場。而資本上漲，我們沒有這種按市值計價的方法。我的意思是，當時按市值計價處於中等個位數範圍內，而現在我們談論的幾乎是 70%。所以一個非常不同的畫面。

Our next question comes from Todd Thomas with KeyBanc.

我們的下一個問題來自 Todd Thomas 和 KeyBanc。

I just had a question about market rents actually. So the 10% market rent forecast in the U.S. Can you just discuss that or break it out a little bit for us in terms of coastal versus non-coastal in terms of your expectations just in the context of supply growth that you're seeing and the demand backdrop in general?

實際上，我只是有一個關於市場租金的問題。因此，美國 10% 的市場租金預測。您能否就您所看到的供應增長背景下的預期，就沿海與非沿海地區的預期進行討論，或者為我們稍微分解一下？一般的需求背景？

Yes, it's Chris Caton. So indeed, we expect 10% in the U.S. that's going to vary. Typical spread between coastal, non-coastal is 300 to 500 basis points, at least that's where it was running, say, pre-pandemic, and we expect a wider spread in the current environment. So whether you look at vacancy, whether you look at the under-construction pipeline, whether you look at the momentum in pricing in the back half of last year, including fourth quarter that leads you to conclude on the coastal outperformance continuing at a greater than historical average in 2023.

是的，是克里斯·卡頓。所以實際上，我們預計美國的 10% 會有所不同。沿海和非沿海地區之間的典型利差是 300 到 500 個基點，至少這是大流行前的情況，我們預計在當前環境下利差會更大。因此，無論您查看空置率，是否查看在建管道，是否查看去年下半年的定價勢頭，包括第四季度，這導致您得出結論，沿海地區的表現繼續高於2023年的歷史平均水平。

Our next question comes from Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根士丹利的 Ronald Kamdem。

I just want to go back to some of the comments on the third-party management. I think you talked about valuations being down 7% in the back half of last year and potentially continuing into this year and the redemptions potentially ending in the first 2 quarters of the year. I just want to get a sense; any more color how are you thinking about that? Is it because the valuations have been repriced that you expect sort of the redemptions to stop? What should we be looking for to get more confidence in that?

我只想回到對第三方管理的一些評論。我想你談到去年下半年估值下降 7%，並可能持續到今年，贖回可能在今年前兩個季度結束。我只是想了解一下；還有更多的顏色你怎麼想的？是因為估值已經重新定價，你預計贖回會停止嗎？我們應該尋找什麼來獲得更多信心？

Yes. There are two things that usually drive redemption requests. One is sort of the denominator effect and people needing; and two is some folks want to arbitrage the lag between the -- how quickly the public markets adjust and the backward-looking appraisal process. In our experience in past downturns, the second has taken about 3 quarters to be fully reflected in appraisals. So we really don't want to disadvantage one group of investors. By the way, the vast majority of our investors, 95% of them, because a couple of points of people want to arbitrage that difference. So we want to make sure the valuations are right before those things transact. We think Europe has actually adjusted quicker than the U.S. And that's why we think there's maybe another quarter to go before Europe fully adjust. So we're committed to taking care of those redemptions in the next quarter. And we think the U.S. may take another quarter to adjust, and we'll take care of those in the second quarter.

是的。通常有兩件事會推動贖回請求。一種是分母效應和人們的需求；二是有些人想套利之間的滯後——公開市場調整的速度和回顧性評估過程之間的差距。根據我們過去經濟低迷的經驗，第二次衰退需要大約 3 個季度才能完全反映在評估中。所以我們真的不想讓一群投資者處於不利地位。順便說一下，我們的絕大多數投資者，其中 95%，是因為有幾個人想套利這種差異。所以我們想確保在這些東西交易之前估值是正確的。我們認為歐洲實際上比美國調整得更快，這就是為什麼我們認為歐洲可能還需要一個季度才能完全調整。因此，我們致力於在下一季度處理這些贖回。我們認為美國可能需要另一個季度來調整，我們將在第二季度處理這些問題。

Here is what's important, and people don't get about the structure of our funds. First of all, our leverage is in the low 20% range on these funds. So there's oodles of liquidity in these funds to basically be able to handle any redemption requests -- any reasonable redemption request. And secondly, we started with the Q, and we started with some cash on hand. So again, there are lots of sources for addressing those redemption requests. I think you should assume that redemptions that have been effective as of the end of this quarter, will, by and large, be taken care of by the middle of the year and sooner in Europe. So you can model that math beyond that.

重要的是，人們不了解我們基金的結構。首先，我們對這些基金的槓桿率在 20% 的低範圍內。因此，這些基金中有大量流動性，基本上能夠處理任何贖回請求——任何合理的贖回請求。其次，我們從 Q 開始，手頭有一些現金。同樣，有很多資源可以解決這些贖回請求。我認為你應該假設截至本季度末有效的贖回，大體上將在今年年中得到解決，在歐洲會更快。所以你可以對數學進行建模。

Now I'll tell you one other thing, which is kind of interesting. Prologis could be a buyer up in these fronts. And in fact, even in the global financial crisis, where the old AMB was in a tighter spot with respect to leverage, we actually stepped up and bought on very attractive terms with adjusted values, a couple of hundred million dollars of real estate. And we actually offered it to our outside investors first, and then we stepped in and bought it. And you know what, the next quarter, all the redemptions went away because people realized that the people who know the most about this portfolio are buyers at these prices. So it's really about getting the values, right? And we started writing down these portfolios a quarter or 2 ago. And our appraisal process is independent. We have nothing to do about it. And that's very, very different than some of the redemption situations that we've all been reading about.

現在我要告訴你另一件事，這很有趣。 Prologis 可能是這些方面的買家。事實上，即使在全球金融危機期間，舊的 AMB 在槓桿方面處於更緊的位置，我們實際上加緊購買並以非常有吸引力的條件和調整後的價值購買了幾億美元的房地產。我們實際上是先把它提供給我們的外部投資者，然後我們介入併購買了它。你知道嗎，下個季度，所有的贖回都消失了，因為人們意識到最了解這個投資組合的人是這些價格的買家。所以這真的是關於獲得價值，對吧？我們在一兩個季度前開始減記這些投資組合。我們的評估過程是獨立的。我們對此無能為力。這與我們一直在閱讀的一些救贖情況非常非常不同。

Our next question comes from [Camille Bonnel] with Bank of America.

我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 [Camille Bonnel]。

On your development guidance, can you give us some color on how much conservatism is built into your development starts? And also, you're expecting another year of strong stabilization. What assumptions are you making in terms of timing of these projects? And is any of the increase in guidance driven by projects from last year taking longer to complete due to longer construction time lines?

關於您的開髮指南，您能否給我們一些顏色，說明您的開發開始時有多少保守主義？而且，你期待又一年的強勁穩定。您對這些項目的時間安排有何假設？由於施工時間延長，去年項目推動的指導增加是否需要更長時間才能完成？

This is Dan. Let me start with this year's development start guidance. We're coming off our largest year of starts ever. And just given the macro headlines, we decided to take a little bit more balanced approach where we slowed our starts at the end of last year. We don't expect to start up in earnest until the last half of this year. We think the build-to-suit business will pick up at the same time. So call it conservatism, I call it discipline. And just feel really good about our approach, given the volumes over the last year or 2. And then stabilization next year, stabilization this year. Tim mentioned it earlier, we think we can outperform. What we have in the books right now, demand continues to be strong. We talked about the development starts plummeting in the marketplace in the fourth quarter. We think they're going to be slower in the first half of the year. And we think that bodes well for absorption in the last half of this year into next year. So we feel very good about our guidance.

這是丹。讓我從今年的開發啟動指南開始。我們即將迎來有史以來最大的開局之年。鑑於宏觀頭條新聞，我們決定採取更平衡的方法，我們在去年年底放慢了開工速度。我們預計要到今年下半年才能真正啟動。我們認為定制業務將同時回升。所以稱之為保守主義，我稱之為紀律。考慮到過去一兩年的數量，我們對我們的方法感覺非常好。然後明年穩定，今年穩定。 Tim 之前提到過，我們認為我們可以跑贏大盤。我們現在所擁有的，需求繼續強勁。我們談到了第四季度市場的發展開始直線下降。我們認為他們將在今年上半年放緩。我們認為這預示著今年下半年吸收到明年。所以我們對我們的指導感覺很好。

Yes. There has not been a material delay in any of our construction project, if you look at them on an aggregated basis. So that is not -- that has not shifted stabilizations from '22 to '23 or anything like that. Yes, I can't even think of an example that comes close. And even on the cost side, because we've been thoughtful about procurement and securing some of these type supplies ahead of time, that's been actually something that we use as a competitive advantage in marketing to build-to-suits because we've got a bunch of steel and we've got a bunch of air conditioning units and electric panels and things that are insured supply are already sitting in our warehouse waiting to be deployed into our land bank. So no, there's nothing funny going on about that. And by the way, the stabilizations are not just a function of completion of construction, but also leasing being stabilized at 90% or more. And that factor hasn't delayed stabilizations either. We've been leasing actually ahead of plan to this day. And I think we'll -- I expect to continue to do that.

是的。如果您在匯總的基礎上查看它們，我們的任何建設項目都沒有重大延誤。所以那不是——這並沒有將穩定性從 22 年轉移到 23 年或類似的東西。是的，我什至想不出一個接近的例子。甚至在成本方面，因為我們一直在考慮提前採購和確保其中一些類型的供應，這實際上是我們在營銷中用作競爭優勢的東西，因為我們有一堆鋼材，我們有一堆空調機組和配電板，保證供應的東西已經放在我們的倉庫裡，等待部署到我們的土地儲備中。所以不，這沒什麼好笑的。順便說一下，穩定不僅僅是建築完成的功能，而且租賃也穩定在 90% 或更多。而且這個因素也沒有延遲穩定。直到今天，我們實際上一直在提前租賃。而且我認為我們會 - 我希望繼續這樣做。

Next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.

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

On the subject of fund redemptions, there are some unlisted funds or nontraded REITs with a different leverage profile than yours, different investor base that are seeing a significant amount of redemption requests. And I was wondering if you anticipate this will lead to increased asset sales on the block and potentially some more opportunities for you on the acquisition side.

關於基金贖回，有一些非上市基金或非交易 REITs 的槓桿率與您的不同，不同的投資者群體正在收到大量贖回請求。我想知道你是否預計這會導致區塊資產銷售增加，並可能在收購方面為你帶來更多機會。

I hope it does. I'm not optimistic that it will because if you look at even the denominator problem for most institutions, and the fact that they generally have to reduce their exposure to real estate, they're likely not going to want to reduce their exposure to industrial. So I think -- and with these -- most of the open-end funds, where their mix, they are different property types, the industrial is what's holding up their performance. So for them to disclose those would put them in even a more difficult situation. So I don't think there will be a lot of for sellers in industrial because to the extent that you're dealing with a leverage issue or a liquidity issue, if you sell your highest yielding assets, you keep tightening the coverage and noose around your neck. So as much as I'd like to, I don't think we'll see a lot of that. I think where we could see opportunities is actually within our own open-end fund availabilities. If the redemptions continue and we think the values are good, first, we'll offer that to all the third-party investors and then we'll step in and buy. And we like that real estate. We know it well, and we operate it and if it's priced right, we're all buyers, no problem.

我希望如此。我對此並不樂觀，因為如果你看一下大多數機構的分母問題，以及他們通常不得不減少對房地產的敞口這一事實，他們可能不想減少對工業的敞口.所以我認為——對於這些——大多數開放式基金，它們的組合，它們是不同的財產類型，工業是支撐它們表現的因素。因此，如果他們公開這些，會讓他們陷入更加困難的境地。所以我認為工業賣家不會有很多，因為在你處理槓桿問題或流動性問題的範圍內，如果你出售收益率最高的資產，你會不斷收緊覆蓋範圍和套索你的脖子。因此，儘管我很想，但我認為我們不會看到很多。我認為我們可以看到機會的地方實際上是在我們自己的開放式基金可用性範圍內。如果贖回繼續進行並且我們認為價值不錯，首先，我們會將其提供給所有第三方投資者，然後我們將介入併購買。我們喜歡那個房地產。我們很了解它，我們會經營它，如果定價合適，我們都是買家，沒問題。

Next question comes from Michael Carroll with RBC.

下一個問題來自 RBC 的 Michael Carroll。

I guess, Hamid, I understand that PLD in the industrial space in general are pretty well positioned in the current environment despite the uncertainty, but is there anything that you're watching out for any specific risks that you foresee for this space here in the next year plus or so?

我想，哈米德，我知道儘管存在不確定性，但總體而言，工業領域的 PLD 在當前環境中處於相當有利的位置，但是對於您在此處預見到的該領域的任何特定風險，您是否需要注意任何特定風險？明年加左右？

Yes. We are watching everything really carefully. I mean I'm not -- believe me, we've been through enough cycles and enough where things can happen that none of us predict that we want to be vigilant. That's why we're starting out the year with very conservative assumptions and things that we can deliver. I mean, I think even on this basis, we're going to, I think, put up unbelievably good numbers. I mean, who can think of almost whole digit kind of returns or growth off of such strong growth, 14% per year, earnings growth, consistently for the last 3 years. So I think the arrow is up. But, yes, I mean nobody predicted Putin going into Europe last year. It's usually the stuff that you don't -- you can't predict. I mean, am I worried about inflation really tanking our numbers? No. Am I really worried about recession tanking our numbers? No. Am I worried about e-commerce going out the window and people going back to shopping deals the way without that percentage going up? No, I'm not worried about those things. But I am worried about things that I don't even know what to worry about. You get my drip there? Anyway, so yes, there's always bad stuff that can happen that are out of the realm of normal projections.

是的。我們正在非常仔細地觀察一切。我的意思是我不是——相信我，我們已經經歷了足夠多的周期和足夠多的事情可能發生的地方，以至於我們都沒有預料到我們想要保持警惕。這就是為什麼我們以非常保守的假設和我們可以提供的東西開始新的一年。我的意思是，我認為即使在此基礎上，我們也會提供令人難以置信的好數字。我的意思是，誰能想到在過去 3 年裡，如此強勁的增長（每年 14%）的盈利增長會帶來近乎整數倍的回報或增長。所以我認為箭頭是向上的。但是，是的，我的意思是沒有人預料到普京去年會進入歐洲。它通常是你不知道的東西——你無法預測。我的意思是，我是否擔心通貨膨脹真的會影響我們的數字？不，我真的擔心經濟衰退會影響我們的數據嗎？不，我是否擔心電子商務會過時，人們會在這個百分比沒有上升的情況下回到購物交易的方式？不，我不擔心那些事情。但是我擔心一些我什至不知道該擔心什麼的事情。你在那兒打點滴？無論如何，是的，總會有超出正常預測範圍的壞事發生。

Our next question comes from Mike Mueller with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的 Mike Mueller。

What are the anticipated yields for your 2023 development starts?

您 2023 年開工的預期收益是多少？

Anticipated -- this is Dan. The anticipated yields are actually up slightly, but still in the low 6 and 6 1-ish, 6 2-ish.

預料之中——這是丹。預期收益率實際上略有上升，但仍處於低位 6 和 6 1-ish，6 2-ish。

Our next question comes from 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。

Question on utilization, which increased in the quarter. What drove that growth given all the headlines we see about port volumes were not declining? And how big of a driver of the higher utilization is for your outlook for this year given the strong outlook this year?

關於利用率的問題，該季度有所增加。鑑於我們看到的所有關於港口吞吐量的頭條新聞都沒有下降，是什麼推動了這種增長？鑑於今年的強勁前景，您對今年的前景有多大的推動因素？

Yes. I don't think utilization actually moved that much. I mean the peak utilization ever, all-time, was 87%. And I think that one point is well within the sampling bias that can take place because it's not a perfect data set. It's a sample of large data sets. So I don't think there's a meaningful trend in -- certainly not a decelerating trend in utilization. With respect to port volumes, I think port volumes are pretty meaningless in the last -- really since COVID started because there were so many fits and starts and play things being in the wrong place and all that. And yes, the West Coast ports have lower volumes today than they did before, but the East Coast and gulf ports are getting a lot more volume than they did before. So on an aggregate basis, port volumes are just fine. And if you look at the lag that it takes too many empty containers on one side of the ocean, and factories shutting down on the other side of the ocean and all that. I think until the market normalizes; you can't really draw any conclusions from port volumes. So I don't see either one of those two trends affecting demand. Chris, do you want to...

是的。我不認為利用率實際上移動了那麼多。我的意思是歷史上最高的利用率是 87%。而且我認為一點完全在可能發生的抽樣偏差範圍內，因為它不是一個完美的數據集。它是大型數據集的樣本。所以我不認為有一個有意義的趨勢 - 當然不是利用率的減速趨勢。關於端口量，我認為端口量在最後是毫無意義的——實際上是從 COVID 開始以來，因為有太多的適應和開始，並且在錯誤的地方玩東西等等。是的，今天西海岸港口的吞吐量比以前低，但東海岸和海灣港口的吞吐量比以前多得多。因此，總體而言，端口量還不錯。如果你看看滯後，它在大洋的一側需要太多的空容器，而在大洋的另一側關閉的工廠等等。我認為直到市場恢復正常；您不能真正從端口量中得出任何結論。因此，我認為這兩種趨勢中的任何一種都不會影響需求。克里斯，你想...

Yes. I'll just build on that by saying two things are also happening. One is market vacancies in the U.S. are 3.2%, 3.3% lower in Europe. That, in its own right, creates some pent-up demand. And so there's a need to push utilization within the facilities. And then second, look, inventories are up 15% on a year-on-year basis -- on a nominal basis and 9%, 10% on a real basis. So there is real structural demand, lifting new demand as well as in-place customers.

是的。我只是在此基礎上說兩件事也會發生。一是美國的市場空置率為 3.2%，歐洲低 3.3%。這本身就產生了一些被壓抑的需求。因此，有必要提高設施內的利用率。其次，你看，庫存同比增長 15%——名義上增長 9%，實際增長 10%。因此，存在真正的結構性需求，提升了新需求以及現有客戶。

Yes. Notwithstanding that increase in real inventories, we still think we're less than halfway towards equilibrium level of inventories about 45% of the way there. So we think there's a lot of tailwind behind inventories, too.

是的。儘管實際庫存有所增加，但我們仍然認為我們還不到庫存均衡水平的一半，大約是那裡的 45%。所以我們認為庫存背後也有很多順風。

Our next question comes from Blaine Heck with Wells Fargo.

我們的下一個問題來自富國銀行的 Blaine Heck。

Great. So related to that last question and Hamid your comments on that progress towards equilibrium inventory. Can you just talk about your recent conversations with customers? What's your sense for how they're balancing this investment need and CapEx spend against concerns about the economic slowdown or recession, and higher overall cost of capital?

偉大的。與最後一個問題和哈米德有關，你對平衡庫存進展的評論。您能談談您最近與客戶的對話嗎？對於他們如何平衡這種投資需求和資本支出與對經濟放緩或衰退的擔憂以及更高的總體資本成本，您有何看法？

Yes. I'll pitch it to Mike for more detailed comments on this. So my sense is that customers are -- don't have quite as much FOMO as they did before. In other words, they're not in the hard mentality of let's go get this place because if we don't, somebody else will and all that. I think the market has rationalized with respect to pace of leasing demand and people are being more thoughtful about how they go about their -- taking space because forget about what they pay us in rent. I mean every time you open a new large warehouse, there's a lot of CapEx that goes into it and all that. Real estate is the least of your worries. It's all the other stuff that you have to put in. So I think people are cautious, but they also realize, particularly on the e-com side that this was a theoretical threat before the COVID. Now they see what really happened to their business during COVID. So they're very anxious to build out their full e-commerce supply chain, which is oftentimes a different one than their bricks-and-mortar supply chain. So I would say demand has broadened, it's much less all about Amazon. It's much broader than that. But it's pretty strong. Is it the strongest it's ever been? No, it's not as strong as 2021. But compared to any 10-year period you want to look at, it's -- we would consider this a very strong market. Mike?

是的。我會將其提交給 Mike，以獲得更詳細的評論。所以我的感覺是客戶 - 沒有像以前那樣多的 FOMO。換句話說，他們並沒有讓我們去得到這個地方的艱難心態，因為如果我們不這樣做，其他人就會這樣做。我認為市場在租賃需求的步伐方面已經合理化，人們正在更加考慮他們如何處理他們的 - 佔用空間因為忘記了他們付給我們的租金。我的意思是，每次你開設一個新的大型倉庫時，都會有大量的資本支出投入其中。房地產是您最不擔心的事情。這是你必須放入的所有其他東西。所以我認為人們很謹慎，但他們也意識到，特別是在電子商務方面，這在 COVID 之前是一個理論上的威脅。現在他們看到了 COVID 期間他們的業務真正發生了什麼。因此，他們非常渴望建立完整的電子商務供應鏈，這通常與他們的實體供應鏈不同。所以我想說需求已經擴大，這與亞馬遜無關。它比那更廣泛。但它非常強大。它是有史以來最強的嗎？不，它沒有 2021 年那麼強勁。但與你想看的任何 10 年期間相比，我們認為這是一個非常強勁的市場。麥克風？

Yes, I would just to pile on. I mean, on a net basis, the activity is still very strong. Decision time line is definitely have stretched out of people to be more cautious, but remember, these structural configurations we've been talking about for 2 or 3 years continue to march on perhaps at a bit of a slower rate, but ultimately, it comes down to the fear of not having the right space when you needed to hear from now is overwriting, taking space that's a little bit too early. So broadly, we feel pretty good about this overall activity.

是的，我只想繼續努力。我的意思是，在淨基礎上，活動仍然非常強勁。決策時間線肯定已經超出了人們的謹慎程度，但請記住，我們已經討論了 2 或 3 年的這些結構配置可能會以更慢的速度繼續前進，但最終，它會到來當你需要從現在開始聽到時，擔心沒有合適的空間是覆蓋，佔用空間有點太早了。總的來說，我們對這項整體活動感覺很好。

And our next question comes from Craig Mailman with Citi.

我們的下一個問題來自花旗的 Craig Mailman。

I just want to follow up on these demand discussions because this is a constant question I get from clients here. And maybe it's more of a Chris question, but Hamid, feel free to jump in, too. Just in terms of -- in this era of low vacancies were really not in the least, so net absorption is not necessarily the best leading indicator of demand. I mean what are you guys using at least to kind of use as your forward-looking indicator on demand destruction or something that the market could look to because it just seems like retentions are still high, availability is low, construction could fall off, but everyone is talking about inventories big higher, utilization will be higher, so people needing less of the space, but it's just from your commentary, it seems like this is not really filtering through what you guys are seeing? And just some thoughts there. Then related to that, Chris, I mean, what would it take for market rents to actually turn negative? Because that's a question I get a lot as well. And I'm just kind of curious in your modeling kind of what inputs would adopt really turn to get that from the positive 10% you're seeing to somewhere below 0?

我只想跟進這些需求討論，因為這是我從這裡的客戶那裡得到的一個不變的問題。也許這更像是克里斯的問題，但哈米德也可以隨意加入。就這一點而言——在這個低空置率的時代確實一點也沒有，所以淨吸納量不一定是最好的需求領先指標。我的意思是，你們至少使用什麼作為需求破壞的前瞻性指標或市場可能關注的東西，因為看起來保留率仍然很高，可用性很低，建設可能會下降，但是每個人都在談論庫存更高，利用率會更高，所以人們需要更少的空間，但這只是從你的評論來看，這似乎並沒有真正過濾掉你們所看到的？還有一些想法。然後與此相關，克里斯，我的意思是，市場租金實際上變成負值需要什麼？因為這也是我經常遇到的問題。而且我只是對您的建模有點好奇，什麼樣的輸入會真正轉變為從您看到的正 10% 到低於 0 的某個地方？

Okay. Let me start. I am sure Chris can give much more color. I would state this in 40 years ago on this, this is the biggest disconnect that I've seen between the macro economy and the prospects for our business. Usually, those two things are much more aligned. And this time around, they just appear to be completely disconnected for a variety of reasons that we talked about at nauseam. So I think where pricing goes away, vacancy is going to 7% to 8% and staying there. And if you do the math on that, you need another in the U.S., I don't know, 2 billion, 3 billion square feet of unleased construction coming online. And you can't do it overnight, maybe 1 billion something. We can do the math. But it's a big number. And you're not going to keep doing that space that -- if the first 100 million feet doesn't lease, you're not going to do that and by the way, this cycle, you have a couple of big players in the business that have much more to gain from the fundamentals of the business being stronger, rents being stronger than a few bucks they may make on additional development. So there is an economic incentive to be disciplined. In prior cycles, mostly driven by merchant builders and private developers, they don't really care what their rental market was. They just wanted to build the product and sell to somebody else and that will be their problem.

好的。讓我開始吧。我相信 Chris 可以提供更多的顏色。我會在 40 年前就此說明這一點，這是我所見過的宏觀經濟與我們業務前景之間最大的脫節。通常，這兩件事更加一致。而這一次，由於我們在 nauseam 談到的各種原因，它們似乎完全斷開了連接。所以我認為在定價消失的地方，空置率將達到 7% 到 8% 並保持在那裡。如果你對此進行數學計算，你需要在美國再建造一個，我不知道，20 億、30 億平方英尺的未出租建築上線。而且你不能在一夜之間完成，也許 10 億左右。我們可以算一下。但這是一個很大的數字。而且你不會繼續做那個空間 - 如果前 1 億英尺不出租，你就不會這樣做，順便說一句，這個週期，你有幾個大玩家從業務的基本面中獲得更多收益的業務更強大，租金比他們在額外開發中可能賺取的幾美元要高。因此，有一種經濟動機要求受到紀律處分。在之前的周期中，主要由商業建築商和私人開發商推動，他們並不真正關心他們的租賃市場是什麼。他們只是想製造產品並賣給其他人，這將是他們的問題。

Today, those two sites are connected to one another. So I think that the motivations are really different. And absent the nuclear work type of scenario, I just don't see vacancy rates going to a level that will lead to a reduction in rents. It's either going to be a demand collapse or a supply explosion and I don't see either one of them happening. The other thing I would say is that we are -- we leased 1 million square feet on a daily basis. Just -- let's get our heads around that, 1 million square feet on a daily basis. We throw these big numbers around without really fully appreciating what the scale of that is. I mean that is 10x the amount of space than anybody else in leases in any sector in real estate. So by watching these customers and their behavior, obviously, we'll figure out if some back stuff is about to happen and won't be waiting for the quarterly report to analyze that.

今天，這兩個站點相互連接。所以我認為動機真的不同。如果沒有核工作類型的情況，我只是認為空置率不會達到會導致租金下降的水平。這要么是需求崩潰，要么是供應爆炸，我認為兩者都不會發生。我要說的另一件事是——我們每天租用 100 萬平方英尺。只是——讓我們考慮一下，每天 100 萬平方英尺。我們在沒有真正完全理解其規模的情況下拋出這些大數字。我的意思是，這比任何房地產行業的租賃空間都多 10 倍。因此，通過觀察這些客戶和他們的行為，很明顯，我們會弄清楚是否會發生一些背後的事情，而不是等待季度報告來分析。

So Chris, do you have specifics?

克里斯，你有具體細節嗎？

Yes, a couple of specifics. I would lead with our proprietary data leads us to these conclusions. So for example, our sales force pipeline. If we look at the vacancy that we do have, 46% has deals working. That's in line or above the average that we've experienced through COVID to say nothing of the conversations that Mike and Scott and our customer-led solutions team have. In terms of public data, which I think I heard you ask about, Craig, we do publish our IBI survey and our utilization data. And so figures like 60, on our IVI, it's a diffusion index. So that's consistent with this good or great tone that the team has struck and 86% on utilization, which was discussed earlier are ways that you can see that in the marketplace. And then as it relates to what it would take for rents to fall, Hamid described it very specifically. And I'd add one piece of data that I don't see commonly discussed in the marketplace, but it's important to know, which is development starts rather than development completions. Starts in the U.S. We're off by 1/3 in the fourth quarter relative to their 2022 trend. And on the continent in Europe, they were off by 45%. So we're seeing a sharp marking to market at the capital market environment, the valuation environment and what those buildings might be worth for some of those other folks building buildings.

是的，一些細節。我會用我們的專有數據引導我們得出這些結論。例如，我們的銷售隊伍管道。如果我們看看我們確實有的空缺，46% 的交易有效。這與我們通過 COVID 經歷的平均水平一致或高於平均水平，更不用說 Mike 和 Scott 以及我們以客戶為主導的解決方案團隊進行的對話了。關於公共數據，克雷格，我想我聽到你問過，我們確實公佈了我們的 IBI 調查和我們的利用率數據。所以像 60 這樣的數字，在我們的 IVI 上，它是一個擴散指數。因此，這與團隊所發出的這種良好或良好的基調一致，並且 86% 的利用率是您可以在市場上看到的方式，這在前面已經討論過了。然後，當它涉及到租金下降所需的條件時，哈米德非常具體地描述了它。我要添加一條我在市場上不常討論的數據，但重要的是要知道，這是開發開始而不是開發完成。從美國開始。與 2022 年的趨勢相比，我們在第四季度下降了 1/3。在歐洲大陸，他們減少了 45%。因此，我們看到資本市場環境、估值環境以及這些建築物對其他一些建造建築物的人來說可能值多少錢。

By the way, banks are a lot more disciplined because now they have risk-based capital requirements. So putting out a lot of construction loans on buildings that don't lease like used to happen in prior cycles less likely to happen. So I think the market is generally smarter. There's a lot more data. Conversations like we're having today never used to take place 2 decades ago. So the cycles were much more amplified. I think it's pretty hard for that to happen. But something can come out of left field. I'm not discounting that possibility, something really bad to come out of left field and change all this, but I just can't think of what that thing would be. But none of it's predicted the pandemic, I don't think. So things can happen.

順便說一句，銀行更加自律，因為現在它們有基於風險的資本要求。因此，像以前的周期那樣向不租賃的建築物發放大量建築貸款的可能性較小。所以我認為市場通常更聰明。還有更多的數據。像我們今天這樣的對話在 2 年前從未發生過。所以循環被放大了很多。我認為這很難發生。但是有些東西可以從左場出來。我不排除這種可能性，離開左場並改變這一切真的很糟糕，但我只是想不出那會是什麼。但我不認為，它們都沒有預測到大流行。所以事情可能會發生。

And our next question comes from Vince Tibone with Green Street.

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

I just want to get any color on recent market rent growth and how that may differ between suit size? Like are you seeing any differences in performance between bulk buildings and smaller more infill facilities?

我只想了解近期市場租金增長的任何顏色以及西裝尺寸之間的差異？就像您看到大型建築和更小的更多填充設施之間的性能差異一樣嗎？

I would generally tell you that the smaller spaces are having a tougher time to the extent of anybody having a tougher time, but Chris is looking up the specific. They're not radically different, but why don't we do this? Why don't we go to the next -- you got it? Okay.

我通常會告訴你，較小的空間正面臨更艱難的時期，就像任何人都經歷更艱難的時期一樣，但克里斯正在尋找具體情況。它們並沒有根本的不同，但我們為什麼不這樣做呢？為什麼我們不去下一個 - 你明白了嗎？好的。

No, glad to help you out here. First off, market rent growth had great momentum at the end of the year with 5% growth in the U.S., 3% in Europe. When we look at rent change, which is a great way to understand performance in suite size, it's strong across the board. But in fact, late in the year, we saw an improvement in those smaller units, which might be where you're your question is coming from. So it's diverse.

不，很高興在這裡幫助你。首先，市場租金在年底增長勢頭強勁，美國增長 5%，歐洲增長 3%。當我們查看租金變化時，這是了解套房大小表現的好方法，它在各個方面都很強勁。但事實上，在今年年底，我們看到那些較小的單位有所改善，這可能就是您的問題所在。所以它是多樣化的。

Okay. That's different than I would have guessed. And I bet you it's because there was more available space to absorb in those categories. Those categories were less leased. And by the way, we have them, too. I mean we have some smaller than 100,000 square foot unit. So I would say occupancy was a little bit lower, so there was more room to lease product at the higher end.

好的。這與我猜想的不同。我敢打賭，這是因為在這些類別中有更多可用空間來吸收。這些類別的租賃較少。順便說一句，我們也有。我的意思是我們有一些小於 100,000 平方英尺的單元。所以我想說入住率有點低，所以在高端有更多的空間來租賃產品。

If we flip it to submarkets and we look at, say, infill, which tend to have those smaller units, infill outperformed in the U.S. by 400 basis points last year, so say 34% in the U.S in the infill submarkets versus 30% for the whole of the United States.

如果我們把它轉向子市場，我們看看，比方說，infill，它往往有那些較小的單位，infill 去年在美國表現優於 400 個基點，所以說美國的 34% 在 infill 子市場，而 30%整個美國。

And our next question comes from Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.

我們的下一個問題來自富國銀行的 Jamie Feldman。

Just a quick follow-up from Blaine and myself. So where do you expect to make the most progress on the Essentials business in '23? And how does that factor into your guidance and earnings? And then also if you could just say where you think cap rates are today versus the peak of the cycle? How much they've moved?

只是布萊恩和我自己的快速跟進。那麼，您希望 23 年 Essentials 業務在哪些方面取得最大進展？這如何影響您的指導和收入？然後，如果你能說出你認為今天的資本化率與週期的峰值相比在哪裡？他們搬了多少？

So two things. I think the Essentials business, in terms of percentage growth, I think our mobility business would be the biggest because it's the smallest right now to start with. So any growth will be the biggest. But in terms of dollar contribution, I would say solar and storage are coming on the strongest today. And operations is to close second behind. I'll pitch it to Gary if he has any more to say about that after this. Second part of the question was -- oh, cap rate. So cap rates are really misleading. So we got to be careful about that. Cap rates at market, assuming that you had a building 1.5 years ago at market and you have a building at market today, I would guess it's 50 to 75 basis points, maybe 100 basis points, okay? It's -- call it, 50 to 100 basis points, but you've had all this rental growth in between. So the observed cap rates for the same building this year versus last year, with rents that are higher by, I don't know, 10%, 15% or something, would not have moved as much.

所以有兩件事。我認為 Essentials 業務，就百分比增長而言，我認為我們的移動業務將是最大的，因為它現在是最小的。所以任何增長都會是最大的。但就美元貢獻而言，我想說今天太陽能和儲能的表現最為強勁。而運營則是緊隨其後。如果在此之後他還有什麼要說的話，我會把它交給 Gary。問題的第二部分是——哦，資本化率。所以上限率確實具有誤導性。所以我們必須小心。市場資本化率，假設你 1.5 年前在市場上有一棟建築，而今天你在市場上有一棟建築，我猜它是 50 到 75 個基點，也許是 100 個基點，好嗎？它是 - 稱之為 50 到 100 個基點，但你已經在兩者之間獲得了所有這些租金增長。因此，今年觀察到的同一棟建築的資本化率與去年相比，租金高出 10%、15% 或更多，我不知道，不會有太大的變化。

So -- and if you get into weird situations, like some building that was leased 5 years ago when it comes on the market, and it's -- and the in-place rent is less than half of what market is. That building could have a lower cap rate than it would have had a year ago. IRR is what's really important based on reasonable assumptions and my guess is that if I were going to pick a number, I would say, low to -- low 7, 7.25-ish in the U.S. and maybe a little bit lower than that in Europe with growth of, say, 4-ish percent across a 10-year projection, something like that, approximately. Gary, anything on...

所以 - 如果你遇到奇怪的情況，比如 5 年前出租的某棟建築上市時，它是 - 就地租金不到市場的一半。該建築的資本化率可能低於一年前。 IRR 是基於合理假設的真正重要的東西，我的猜測是，如果我要選擇一個數字，我會說，低至 - 低至 - 7，美國的 7.25 左右，可能比歐洲低一點在 10 年的預測中大約增長 4% 左右。加里，有什麼...

I think you have exactly Hamid. In 2023, our mix is going to be about 50% operations and about 50% energy and mobility. The growth rate, obviously, mobility is going to be much higher because it's coming off of basically a 0 base. Where are we investing? We're investing in our energy and mobility businesses. And that's where we're doing the capability because actually see the most significant growth of '25 and beyond. But I mean, just to put a set of stake in this, we are very, very convicted about the potential for these businesses, we're on track to generate our $300 million in revenues and tax benefits by 2025, which we've talked about before. And that is going to deliver about $0.25 per share in FFO. And that would be a little bit above our -- that will be about 100 basis points of growth per year compared to our 2019 Investor Day estimates of about 50 basis points. So net-net, look, we are in great shape. That business is growing right on plan and we're going to continue to make investments in that business. And this year, it's going to be in mobility and energy.

我想你有哈米德。到 2023 年，我們的組合將是大約 50% 的運營和大約 50% 的能源和流動性。顯然，增長率會更高，因為它基本上是從 0 開始的。我們在哪裡投資？我們正在投資我們的能源和移動業務。這就是我們正在發揮作用的地方，因為實際上看到了 25 世紀及以後最顯著的增長。但我的意思是，只是為了在這方面投入一些股份，我們對這些業務的潛力非常、非常有信心，我們有望在 2025 年之前產生 3 億美元的收入和稅收優惠，我們已經談過了關於之前。這將帶來每股約 0.25 美元的 FFO。這將略高於我們 - 與我們 2019 年投資者日估計的約 50 個基點相比，每年增長約 100 個基點。所以 net-net，看，我們的狀態很好。該業務正在按計劃發展，我們將繼續對該業務進行投資。而今年，它將出現在流動性和能源領域。

By the way, that 2025 number that Gary just mentioned, it's going to be recapturing maybe 15%, 20% of the total opportunity within our portfolio. So there will be a huge runway for growth. And frankly, we're beginning to see more deals out of our own platform because customers are taking us to buildings that they lease from other people to do the same level of service to them in those other situations. So I can't even begin to quantify that out of platform opportunities. So we're really excited about our Essentials business.

順便說一下，加里剛才提到的 2025 年的數字，可能會重新奪回我們投資組合中總機會的 15%、20%。因此，將有一條巨大的增長跑道。坦率地說，我們開始看到更多來自我們自己平台的交易，因為客戶將我們帶到他們從其他人那裡租來的建築物，以便在其他情況下為他們提供相同水平的服務。所以我什至無法開始從平台機會中量化這一點。因此，我們對我們的 Essentials 業務感到非常興奮。

I think we're at the top of the hour. I know we have 1 more question, but maybe we can take that outside the call, Anthony, with our apologies. But thank you for your interest in the company, and we look forward to seeing you next quarter. Take care.

我認為我們正處於最重要的時刻。我知道我們還有 1 個問題，但也許我們可以在電話會議之外解決這個問題，安東尼，我們深表歉意。但感謝您對公司的關注，我們期待下個季度與您相見。小心。

Thank you. This concludes today's conference. All participants may disconnect. Have a great day.

謝謝你。今天的會議到此結束。所有參與者都可以斷開連接。祝你有美好的一天。