Federal Realty Investment Trust
NYSE:FRT
Federal Realty Investment Trust
NYSE:FRT
Price:
110.9
USD
0.26%
Market Closed
Market Cap:
$9.6B
Add Note
Add Target
Capture your thoughts and set a target
Decide at what price you'd be comfortable buying and we'll help you stay ready.
Based on
Margin of Safety
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Your Price Target
Linked to
current price
· In Buy Zone
Loading
Note attached
Choose the stock you wish to monitor with a price target
Popular Picks
|
Johnson & Johnson
NYSE:JNJ
|
US |
|
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
NYSE:BRK.A
|
US |
|
Bank of America Corp
NYSE:BAC
|
US |
|
Mastercard Inc
NYSE:MA
|
US |
|
UnitedHealth Group Inc
NYSE:UNH
|
US |
|
Exxon Mobil Corp
NYSE:XOM
|
US |
|
Pfizer Inc
NYSE:PFE
|
US |
|
Nike Inc
NYSE:NKE
|
US |
|
Visa Inc
NYSE:V
|
US |
|
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
NYSE:BABA
|
CN |
|
JPMorgan Chase & Co
NYSE:JPM
|
US |
|
Coca-Cola Co
NYSE:KO
|
US |
|
Verizon Communications Inc
NYSE:VZ
|
US |
|
Chevron Corp
NYSE:CVX
|
US |
|
Walt Disney Co
NYSE:DIS
|
US |
|
PayPal Holdings Inc
NASDAQ:PYPL
|
US |
Good evening, and welcome to the Federal Realty Investment Trust Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this event is being recorded.
I would now like to turn the conference over to Leah Brady. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today for Federal Realty's Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Joining me on the call are Don Wood, Federal's Chief Executive Officer; Dan G., Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Jan Sweetnam, Executive Vice President, Chief Investment Officer; and Wendy Seher, Executive Vice President, Eastern Region President and Chief Operating Officer; as well as other members of our executive team that are available to take your questions at the conclusion of our prepared remarks.
A reminder that certain matters discussed on this call may be deemed to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include any annualized or projected information as well as statements referring to expected or anticipated events or results, including guidance. Although Federal Realty believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, Federal Realty's future operations and its actual performance may differ materially from the information in our forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that these expectations can be attained.
The earnings release and supplemental reporting package that we issued tonight, our annual report filed on Form 10-K and our other financial disclosure documents provide a more in-depth discussion of risk factors that may affect our financial condition and results of operations. Given the number of participants on the call, we kindly ask that you limit yourself to one question during the Q&A portion of the call. If you have additional questions, please requeue.
And with that, I will turn the call over to Don Wood to begin our discussion of our fourth quarter results. Don?
Thank you, Leah, and good afternoon, everyone. Lots of records were shattered in both the fourth quarter and 2024 that bode well for 2025 and beyond. Let's starts with leasing. 100 comparable deals in the quarter for 649,000 square feet at 10% more cash rent, 21% more straight-line rent than the previous lease. Nearly 2.4 million square feet of comparable space for calendar 2024 at 11% more cash rent, 22% more straight-line rent than the previous lease. Both the quarter and the full year set all-time records for us and not by a little bit. Volume in the fourth quarter and total year beat the previous high watermark set in COVID boosted 2021 by 9% and 14%, respectively. Occupancy touched 96.2% on a leased basis and 94.1% on an occupied basis at year-end, the strongest in nearly a decade.
Dividends per share were raised to $4.40 per share for the record-setting 57th consecutive year. Total revenue surpassed $300 million in the quarter and $1.2 billion for the year for the first time ever and grew at 7% and 6% over the respective prior periods. And FFO per share at $1.73 in the quarter and $6.77 for the year set all-time records even with a onetime $0.04 charge for Jeff Berkes leaving the company. Without it, FFO per share of $1.77 in the quarter and $6.81 for the year grew at 7.9% and 4%, respectively.
2024 was a very good year. The retail real estate market remains strong, driven by favorable supply-demand dynamics and continued consumer spending. Our diverse portfolio spanning various property types and anchored by strong resilient operators positions us well for sustained success. The struggling retailers making headlines today have minimal impact on our portfolio. Nowhere is the quality of this portfolio more evident than the continued improvement in occupancy that you see in the fourth quarter over the third quarter and the expectation for even higher occupancy by the end of next year.
While a new administration in Washington is certainly shaking things up on so many fronts across the broader economy, our outlook remains positive. The bottom line is that we expect to grow faster at both the comparable property level and the bottom line earnings level in 2025 than we did in 2024.
Our product is very much in demand, and that includes the office component of our mixed-use communities in San Jose, Boston and Bethesda. After years of uncertainty on the part of employers as to their future office space requirements, the back-to-office movement in the country is real, and it's fully underway.
The recognition on the part of many employers that they need more and better space, coupled with our Class A offering of modern and fully amenitized, and I do mean fully amenitized office environments, it's no surprise that we're seeing a significant uptick in interest in tours and LOIs and in executed leases. We're especially seeing it at Santana West and 915 Meeting Street at Pike & Rose, where nearly 150,000 square feet of deals have been executed or put under heavily negotiated LOIs in the last 90 days. Santana West and 915 Meeting Street are currently 82% and 91% committed under such arrangements at this point, respectively. And we're optimistic that both buildings will be nearly fully leased in this calendar year. It's really good news. And while the 2025 P&L won't be the beneficiary since rent hasn't commenced from the majority of those tenants, that's just timing and should provide a nice bump to '26 and '27.
On the development front, things are picking up, too. Not only is our $90 million residential over retail project at Bala Cynwyd Shopping Center firing along on budget and a bit ahead of schedule, but we've approved two other developments that you can see in our Form 8-K this quarter. The first is the new build of 45 residential units of top 10,000 feet of ground floor retail in Hoboken, New Jersey. 301 Washington Street, Hoboken's main commercial thoroughfare houses a vacant Capital One Bank pad and commensurate surface parking. The opportunity to densify this amazing piece of corner real estate works economically to a 6% to 7% unlevered yield on $45 million and a 9% IRR, thanks to more favorable construction pricing, strong retail rents and growing residential rents in this densely populated New York City suburb. We expect to break ground in a few months.
Secondly, Andorra Shopping Center in Philadelphia is gearing up for a transformational redevelopment that will include a state-of-the-art giant supermarket along with a fully renovated LA Fitness health club, new shop space with upgraded service and restaurant tenants and greatly improved placemaking and parking. This $32 million investment will kick off this spring and yield an incremental 7% to 8% unlevered yield. More to come on the development front later in this year, too.
We remain very active on the acquisition front with prospects being studied and negotiated in both our existing markets, along with a few new ones, and we expect to close on a great shopping center in Northern California in a few weeks. That $123.5 million purchase with a very productive Whole Foods' anchor and a cadre of lifestyle-oriented tenants will complement our West Coast portfolio beautifully and will be managed from our Santana Row headquarters. We expect to be able to talk more about that one by the end of the month.
I also wanted to use the opportunity to introduce three newly promoted Vice Presidents to our executive ranks, underscoring our focus on continually developing a deep bench of professionals, all of whom are expected to play a key strategic role in our long-term future. Congratulations to Sarah Forde Rogers as VP of Development, working out of our Assembly Row office to Bob Franz as VP of Acquisitions, representing our West Coast and Arizona territories; and to Vanessa Mendoza as VP of Leasing, working out of our headquarters in North Bethesda. Congratulations also to Mr. Porter Bellew, who has been promoted to Senior Vice President of our Information Technology Group.
Each of these executives have been highly respected members of our team for years, and it brings me great pleasure to be able to recognize the real estate talents with promotions that expand their influence and responsibility within our organization. I love being able to do that.
That's all I wanted to cover in prepared remarks this afternoon, and so I'll turn it over to Dan to provide more granularity before opening it up to your questions.
Thank you, Don, and hello, everyone. Our reported NAREIT FFO per share of $6.77 for the year and $1.73 for the fourth quarter reflect the $0.04 onetime charge for Jeff's departure. Excluding the charge, our FFO growth was 4% and roughly 8% for the full year and fourth quarter, respectively. POI was up 5.4% for the full year and 6.8% for the fourth quarter. We finished 2024 with momentum.
Primary drivers for the solid performance in '24. First, POI growth in our comparable portfolio with the primary catalyst being occupancy increases through continued strength in tenant demand as both leased and occupied metrics increased 200 and 190 basis points, respectively, over year-end 2023 levels as well as solid rollover of 11% on a cash basis and sector-leading contractual rent bumps of roughly 2.5% blended anchor and small shop.
Second, contributions from our redevelopment and expansion pipeline with Huntington, Darien Commons, 915 Meeting Street and Lawrence Park approaching stabilization over the year, driving an incremental $12 million of POI, the upper end of our range; and strong performance by the $1.4 billion of gross assets we've acquired since mid-2022, where performance almost across the board has exceeded underwriting, but in particular, at the Shops at Pembroke Gardens in Florida and Kingstowne Towne Center in Virginia. This was primarily offset by upward pressure on property level expense margins and higher interest expense relative to 2023.
Comparable POI growth, excluding prior period rent and term fees, came in at 4.2% during the fourth quarter and averaged 3.4% for the year. Comparable min rents grew 4% in the fourth quarter and 3.4% for the year.
Our residential portfolio was a source of strength in 2024. Same-store residential POI growth was 5%. And when including Darien Commons, which continues to outperform, it was 7%. The value proposition of providing a premium residential offering on top of an attractive retail amenity base is driving outperformance across our targeted residential portfolio. Additionally, in 2024, we opportunistically acquired almost $300 million in high-quality retail assets during the year at a blended initial yields in the low to mid-7s and unlevered IRRs in the mid- to high 8s. When you include the asset that we put under contract during the fourth quarter, that's over $400 million. Hopefully, more to discuss as the year progresses as we continue to seek new under-managed and undercapitalized properties to add to the portfolio.
On the development -- redevelopment and expansion front, with the stabilization of a number of redevelopment projects to close out the year, including Darien Commons in Connecticut and Lawrence Park in Philly, our in-process pipeline now stands at approximately $785 million with just $230 million remaining to spend. With the addition of a residential over retail project in Hoboken and the retail redevelopment at Andorra in Philly, we continue to mine opportunities across our portfolio and deploy capital accretively on an external basis to drive future FFO growth. Additional opportunities are under consideration, which likely will be added to the pipeline over the course of '25 and into '26.
Now to the balance sheet and an update on our liquidity position. Our financial flexibility continues to expand as improvement in our leverage metrics accelerated over the course of 2024. Leaning on opportunistic equity issuance on our ATM program to fund accretive acquisitions, targeted asset sales and a growing free cash flow component, which has allowed us to improve our leverage metrics meaningfully.
Fourth quarter annualized adjusted net debt to EBITDA stands at 5.5x, down from 6x as reported on this call last year. At that time, we forecasted this metric to hit our targeted level of 5.5x in 2025. We've been able to get it done in 2024.
Fixed charge coverage now stands at 3.8x, up from 3.5x at this time last year. We expect this metric to continue to improve toward our 4x target over the course of the balance -- over the course of '25.
Our liquidity stood north of $1.4 billion at year-end with an undrawn $1.25 billion unsecured credit facility and $178 million of combined cash and undrawn forward equity. Plus, we have no material debt maturities this year.
Now on to guidance. For 2025, we are introducing an FFO per share forecast of $7.10 to $7.22 per share. This represents about 5.8% growth at the midpoint of $7.16 and roughly 5% and 7% at the low and high ends of the range. This is driven by comparable POI growth of 3% to 4%, 3.5% at the midpoint. Add an additional 40 basis points to that range when you exclude COVID era prior period rents and term fees. This assumes occupancy levels continue to grow from the current level of 94.1% at 12/31, up towards 95% by year-end 2025, although expect a step back in the first quarter due to the typical seasonality pullback post holidays.
We will have net drag of roughly $0.10 to $0.11 from One Santana West as we cease capitalization of interest expense at the property in the second quarter. This is simply a timing delay. The full benefit of $0.12 to $0.14 from this currently 82% committed building is expected to flow directly to the bottom line, but not meaningfully until 2026 as we begin to then recognize rents.
Having said that, we do expect $0.14 to $0.15 of benefit from revenues earned through new market tax credits associated with our Freedom Plaza Shopping Center. The combination of these tax credit revenues at plus $0.14 to $0.15 with net timing drag in '25 from Santana West of minus $0.10 to $0.11 and the wind down of COVID era prior period rents of minus $0.03 to $0.04 fully offset each other, which normalizes our 2025 NAREIT-defined FFO growth, and we expect positive FFO growth off this base into 2026.
Other assumptions to our 2025 guidance include: one, incremental POI contributions from our development and expansion pipeline of 3.5 -- $3 million to $5 million and capitalized interest for 2025 estimated at $12 million to $14 million, down from $20 million in 2024. Both of these two assumptions reflect the aforementioned timing impact from Santana West. We forecast $175 million to $225 million of spend this year on redevelopment and expansions at our existing properties. G&A is forecast in the $45 million to $48 million range for the year. Term fees will be $4 million to $5 million, largely in line with 2024 and the aforementioned $3 million of lower prior period collections as we expect a de minimis amount in 2025.
We have assumed a total credit reserve of roughly 75 to 100 basis points in '25, given limited exposure to bankrupt tenants, but more in line with historical averages and a normalized cycle of tenant risk in the retailing sector. As is our custom, this guidance does not reflect any acquisitions or dispositions in 2025, except the $123.5 million Northern California acquisition under contract, which we expect to close later this month. We will adjust likely upwards for all other acquisitions and dispositions as we go. Please see a summary of this detailed guidance in our 8-K on Page 27 of our supplement.
With respect to quarterly FFO cadence for 2025, the first quarter will start with a range of $1.67 to $1.70, second quarter, $1.71 to $1.74, third quarter, $1.90 to $1.93 and the fourth quarter at $1.82 to $1.85. Cadence for comparable growth will start slow in the first quarter in the mid-2s and improve sequentially over the course of the year.
And with that, operator, please open the line for questions.
[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Juan Sanabria with BMO Capital Markets.
Just hoping you could talk a little bit about the tax credits, the first time, at least I remember hearing about it. And I guess why included in FFO? I think the 10-K mentions some offsetting incremental cost of $1.6 million. Is that being incorporated in the net number you talked about in the guidance page. Just hoping for a little bit more color in general around that.
Yes, that's fine. Yes. No, that reflects the net number. And so the net number that we report nets out those expenses. The tax credits, historically, the federal government has had programs to incentivize development in up-and-coming gentrifying communities. And Freedom Plaza, formerly known as Jordan Downs, but Freedom Plaza in East L.A. was one of those developments. That development qualified, and we earned those federal tax credits. We monetized those credits through the sale to a bank. We earned the revenues associated with that project in a series of extremely complex transactions.
And we expect to, I guess, fulfill all the required contingencies associated with them and be able to recognize the earned revenues later this year. And that's the approach we've taken. More detail on that is on Page F-31, you want to see it. It's been disclosed previously, but on F-31 in our 10-K.
The next question comes from Dori Kesten with Wells Fargo.
You've talked about the acceleration in transaction volume expected for the last few quarters. Are you seeing that uptick in what you're underwriting today?
And can you give us some current thoughts on funding for acquisitions near term just outside of the undrawn forward equity?
Sure. Do me favor, Dan start with how to fund it, and let's go to Jan after that with some market conversation.
Sure, sure. We've positioned the balance sheet. It's as good as it's been in the last 6 or 7 years pre-COVID with significant financial flexibility and capacity on our balance sheet, the undrawn line of credit plus access to the whole breadth of capital markets that we've availed ourselves to over our history. And I think that we're really, really well positioned to take on the opportunities we're seeing out there. And we'll use all the tools in our toolbox and arrows in our quiver in terms of allowing us to opportunistically and accretively finance the opportunities we see in the market.
Jan, can you pick it up?
Yes, you bet. Dori, it's Jan. Look, we've never been busier looking at underwriting acquisitions. And in fact, as soon as we get off this call, we'll be talking about some other ones. It just -- it has been so busy. There's a lot of product on the marketplace at this point at this time. on the one hand.
On the other hand, competition has gotten a little stiffer. There are more people looking at the larger type of assets that we've been pursuing. And again, we try to go after great locations, of course, but larger assets that matter in their markets and matter to us in terms of being sizable enough where we can really create some value with leasing, merchandising and if applicable, enhancing the sense of place, which we think the asset that Don had mentioned earlier in Northern California is a perfect example of that.
So we think there's a lot of activity that we're going to see. We're going to be bidding on all kinds of assets. But obviously, we don't know what price it's going to take and does it match our return hurdles and our ability to grow the earnings on the asset. And so we'll see. But we would expect it to be a pretty active year.
The next question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore.
Don, I guess with the portfolio over 96% leased, I'm just curious how the leasing discussions are changing kind of both internally and externally with the retailers? And how are you thinking about kind of pricing space as you move forward?
No, Steve, it's a good time to be in this business, man. And there's no doubt that for the property -- the spaces that are very desirable, it's very common to have more than one real opportunity or real tenant in there. We try to get it not only in the rent, which we obviously always do, we try to get it in the pumps, which is really important. And most important is in control. And so when you come down to those -- as we've talked about in the past, you're always -- it's always that fight for control of the shopping center effectively in terms of redevelopment opportunities, what we're able to do in terms of other uses, in terms of the lack of sales kickouts and things like that so that we have more control. We are having more success with that.
And so -- and you and I have talked about this for years, I guess, while I always think that our -- that these leases, our contracts are among the strongest in the space, and I have no way to determine that for sure. But I know we fight hard for not just the rent, but also those control provisions. And those are -- we're having more and more success with that because we are 96% leased.
Now having said that, I don't believe 100% leased in a portfolio is something that is attainable nor do I believe it's something that should be attainable because to the extent you're doing that, that you're probably leaving money on the table and all space is not created equal, some that's better and some that's worse.
But I still think, and Dan kind of put it to it pretty well before that at 94.1% on the occupied basis, I think it's pretty darn likely that we're going to be able to get up towards 95%. Things can always happen, obviously, but that, that can continue to go and the same with the 96% for a bit more. But you know me, and this company is about using all those arrows in the quiver.
So as important as that is, so is redevelopment, so is development, so is acquisitions, all parts of the business. So you should see -- in short, you should see strong contracts, stronger contracts as we go through this period of the cycle.
The next question comes from Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Great. If I can ask a follow-up on acquisitions. Jan, you talked about seeing more assets. And Don, when we saw you in November at NRE, you talked about your strategy, and I think you said possibly looking at more markets. So I'm just curious, is it -- you're seeing more opportunities because you are looking at more markets? And for example, I mean, an asset traded in Cleveland, Ohio today, is that -- I'm just curious, is that something that you even looked at? Like is that -- does that fit the new strategy?
Yes, go ahead, do you want to...
Yes, yes. So, Jeff, I think it's twofold. I think overall, there are simply more assets available on the marketplace today than there were 6 or 9 months ago. And I think with debt costs being higher for longer, I think there's just certain sellers that capitulated and just can't wait any longer. And certainly, we're looking at some assets where loans are now due in October or November and people need to transact.
And so overall, I just think there's simply a lot more available. And then you put on top of that, yes, there are certain assets that we would -- certain markets that we haven't gone to before. And so therefore, we're looking at assets in those as well. So between the two, it's just been really, really, really busy. And -- to answer your question on Cleveland, yes, we looked at that and for a set of reasons, it just didn't quite fit what we were looking for, but that would be a market that we wouldn't have looked at going to before, but we would now.
Yes, I don't have anything to add to that, Jan. That's what I would have said.
The next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Don, you mentioned and you were pretty forceful in your comments about the credit quality of the portfolio and a lot of the retail bankruptcies haven't impacted you guys. Just sort of curious your overall watch list and your confidence that your tenancy is in a good credit position. I know you have that range out there. But I don't know if that range is just a generic range or if there's some problem children, if you will, that range is there to solve or to be there for this year.
Yes. Good question, Alex. Look, the near-term concerns that are in the market with the Jo-Anns, the party cities, the big lots and so forth, we just don't have much exposure to. We have no big lots, one Party City, two Jo-Anns, soon they'll leave that's reflected in our forecast. Container Store, they affirmed every single one of their leases stayed in place for very little concession.
Look, most of the stuff we're concerned about is maybe longer term, more medium term. And look, things can get accelerated. So I think given the volatility of the economy and the environment, I think just having a normalized 75 to 100 basis point credit reserve is appropriate. We have nothing specific there and nothing that I can really kind of use a buildup to get to with regards to -- but I think it's a prudent level for us to have given the volatility that we see in the economy today.
The next question comes from Craig Mailman with Citi.
There are some bigger mixed-use deals in the market. Just kind of curious what the appetite or capacity is to do several hundred million dollar deal? And is now the right time to potentially look to JV some of the bigger high-profile assets that you guys own?
Yes, that's a good question, Craig. And let me do the easy part first. We do have the appetite, and we do have the capacity for -- it's not necessarily that it's -- these are big or bigger mixed-use assets. The question, just like a small asset, comes down to what's the IRR and what can you get to? And so there's really not a difference from my perspective, at least, in liking a particular format over and above the other as long as it's a retail-based asset because it really comes down to how has that previous owner managed it, how has he or she gotten to the rents?
How have they -- how much capital has been deferred and how much does it need, all the same things you look at in every project. I like them. And there's -- you know the couple that are in the market today. They're going for numbers that still have to make sense to us. And so we run through that underwriting process. If there's a big mixed-use asset out there, you can be sure we're looking at it. because we like that property type, but it still comes down to the individual property type with individual asset rather.
So with respect to joint venture partners, yes, on a big one, that could make some sense to be able to do that way. Always like to, as you would expect from us, take a balanced approach to how we manage that balance sheet. And there certainly seems to be joint venture money that's available out there to partner up. And that is -- so that's certainly a possibility on the bigger stuff. But the bigger thing is do the numbers work overall on that particular property that we're looking at.
The next question comes from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho.
I wanted to ask about this talk about tariffs. I'm just curious how your conversations potentially with some of your tenants might be going. Thoughts on your upper end consumer seemingly a bit more insulated here, but just curious on the comment of tariffs and what you might be hearing from your tenants.
Yes. I'm going to start and Wendy, I know you and I have talked about it, so maybe add on if I miss anything on this. But the -- it's really interesting. The biggest thing from a tenant perspective that's different than necessarily you would think Haendel or I would think is that they're more non-plused by this. generally than the news because they've been dealing with the notion of tariffs, where it's gone, certainly in the first Trump administration, certainly in limited respects during COVID, et cetera.
Lots of retailers have diversified their sources of where they source goods from. So it's interesting. I don't -- maybe with respect to tenants that kind of serve the less affluent consumer buying stuff from China and are unable to pass it on, maybe the dollar concepts, that could possibly be something that it's harder because it always -- at the end of the day, it's a tax. And so when you sit and think about it, who pays the tax. And in better real estate, in the better areas, that tax to the extent it's there, gets -- is more likely to be able to be absorbed by the consumer. And that's harder to do, just like we've been talking about for the past couple of years with lower income properties and portfolios.
Aside from that, every single business has their own way to operate and to prepare and protect themselves. In the conversations we've been having, they certainly seem to be doing that.
Wendy, am I missing anything here?
No, I think you've hit all the major points. I would also say that since COVID, the retailers that are savvy have been really working to increase their margins, and they've been doing a good job of it. And as Don said, tariffs are not new to them, and they've figured out how to continue to navigate this. And I haven't heard -- and I've had several one-on-one conversations. I haven't heard anybody say that it was anything other than another challenge towards their business at times.
The next question comes from Michael Goldsmith with UBS.
Dan, comp POI in 2024 of 3.4%, you're guiding to 2025 of 3% to 4% with a headwind of 40 basis points from the collection of prior period rents. So it points to a fundamental acceleration. So am I thinking about that right? And what's driving that acceleration that you're expecting in the upcoming year?
Yes. I appreciate that. Good question, Michael. Yes. No, the 3% to 4% is after the headwind of prior period rents. So you could think about it as 3.4% to 4.4%. So yes, there is some acceleration. And it's really driven by -- largely by occupancy. And the strength of the occupancy we experienced over this year, in the past year in '24, where we see occupancy, where we see the puck going in 2025. And I think that that's really the biggest driver of continued acceleration in our comparable portfolio.
The next question comes from Mike Mueller with JPMorgan.
I guess with the two new development announcements, should we see this as a bit of a pivot at the margin back toward development compared to where the focus seemed to be last year?
I don't know if it's time yet to say there's a pivot. I would say that as I've talked about in past calls, the ability to make numbers work certainly is enhanced in places where we already own the land. And so the notion of having land that has little or no cost like the Bala Cynwyd asset that we're under construction with, I mean that helps a ton. Land cost is 15%, 20%, 23% or so of a total project. That's a heck of a head start.
The other thing clearly is, at least at this point in time in the markets we're looking at, most contractors, certainly GCs and subs are willing to take less of profit margins. And so -- and that's because there isn't as much business out there.
Now to the extent that changes, that changes. But right now, we're able to make a couple of these projects work. I think we're pretty close to a couple more of them that hopefully we get to later in the year. But it's not yet equilibrium, if you will, acquisitions versus development. But while a year or 2 ago, it was all acquisitions, if anything, and no development at all, certainly, there is a start, if you will, to the potential development cycle.
The next question comes from Greg McGinniss with Scotiabank.
I just wanted to clarify the commentary on Santana West. That $0.12 to $0.14 contribution is net of the capitalized interest burn off, correct? And it assumes a fully stabilized asset.
Yes. Look, it's a little bit of we're taking the hit in 2025 from shutting off capitalized interest and then getting the benefit of all the rent starts to mistiming.
So yes, it will be net of the capitalized interest that we see in 2025, having been burned off and then flows right to the bottom line, the $0.12 to $0.14 that we mentioned primarily in 2026.
The next question comes from Ki Bin Kim with Truist.
How far in advance do you try to lock up construction costs like lumber, steel and although the tariff situation isn't finalized, also just curious how that might impact development yields and what kind of compression you might see going forward?
Yes, Ki Bin, as soon as we are able to fully design a project, we certainly start with respect to moving toward a GMP. And certainly, that takes time. We are basically there on the Hoboken project that we just announced, by the way, that's a concrete building, don't expect any issues with respect to the cost there. We've got some other things coming up that will be more lumber for -- as the primary cost. You can't get it locked down until you have a completely designed project. And we're not effectively warehousing materials in order to lock down money early.
So as you're asking one of the questions that's tied to the whole last 3 weeks, if you will, of the Trump presidency and where that's going to lead. There's a lot on notes as to whether that's actually going to be impacting construction costs, deal costs and big tariff related. As the year goes on, as the years go on today, we're taking no risk, if you will, on the projects that we are starting that we've already announced with respect to cost, though, because they are locked in.
The next question comes from Floris Van Dijkum with Compass Point.
Don, you've built federal into the sort of the preeminent mixed-use owner developer in the shopping center sector. I think based on our numbers, you own the 3 most valuable mixed-use projects in the strip sector. I'm curious as to -- you talked a little bit about being on the war path. Capital allocation, would you prefer to buy another Assembly Row, for example? Or would you rather buy five Virginia Gateways, which would be similar kind of NOI contribution? If the returns are the same? Or how do you think about that? And how do you think about portfolio construction in 3 years' time? How many more of these dominant assets do you expect to have in the portfolio?
I love the question, actually, Floris, but I don't fall in love with properties. At the end of the day, it comes down to the IRR. It comes down with our belief. Now because we've got very good experience with mixed use, I think we can underwrite them probably better than most because we have, as you say, a lot of experience that way. That does, in our view, reduce the risk. It also, though, means there's just a certain amount that we're willing to pay to get it. And so you're not going to see us in order to have all the mixed-use big projects in the country, you're not going to see us stepping out of our shoes because the numbers don't work. And at the end of the day, we are allocating capital here as best we can to provide the greatest risk-adjusted return.
So when you sit and you think about that, -- the theoretical part of your question is theoretical if there were five of Virginia Gateways versus one Assembly Row, but there never are because that's not -- that's a false choice. It comes down to trying to work on the assets that are on our hit list to be able to get the sellers to transact and then underwrite them with the best knowledge.
The biggest advantage I think we have is that we underwrite well on that type of project because of our experience that way. And then the reputation of having being federal allows us, I think, to outperform on those type of assets because we deal with those tenants, we deal with that type of operation, we're good at it.
So I hope that helps. It's not an either/or. It is a best risk-adjusted capital allocation strategy that will lead federal wherever federal is. in the next 3 to 5 years.
The next question comes from Linda Tsai with Jefferies.
Maybe just a follow-up on the transaction environment. As you look across the different formats, are there certain regions or certain retail format types where you see better opportunities in your underwriting?
It's not really. Jan, what do you think about that question Linda has?
Yes, it's a good question and a little hard to answer, Linda. I don't know. We like -- again, we like larger centers. And generally, the yields have been pretty good across the board on those centers. I don't know if there's a particular type that is providing a better or worse yield. It really probably is case by case on the asset where it sits in the marketplace and what marketplace it's in. So I think it's hard to answer that one.
Yes. The answer is really not really, but in terms of preference.
The next question comes from Omotayo Okusanya with Deutsche Bank.
Quick question on your leases. Again, clearly, at 96% occupancy, you guys are driving rents up pretty nicely. But I wanted to talk a little bit about kind of from a qualitative perspective, other things you're doing with lease terms versus retailers to kind of help you guys build your business. If we just kind of talk a little bit about some of those initiatives and kind of results from them?
Sure. Let me -- this is Wendy. I'll jump in here. With our lease rate up so high, it really gives us the opportunity to continue to strategically focus on merchandising and growing sales. We've had a good history of if we can grow that quality of merchants together from a sales perspective, we can drive the rents better. As Don mentioned before, we are -- we've always been very diligent, I should say, on our contracts and making sure that we have the amount of opportunities and control that we need in those contracts.
I would say we're even more focused on sales volumes where we've had the opportunity to say, hey, we're only going to give you so much term. And if we give you an option on top of that, you need to have a certain sales performance before you can even exercise that option. So that will give you some examples of how we're able to kind of work and kind of fine-tune the overall production of our shopping centers.
We have a follow-up question from Juan Sanabria with BMO Capital Markets.
I guess I have a two-parter. One would be just on the guidance page, the $5 million of disposed properties from 2024 POI. Is that just the drag -- residual drag from assets you sold last year? And I guess what would be the offsetting acquisition benefit? I'm just a little confused about how I should interpret or use that information.
That's the POI that's no longer -- that we recognized in 2024. That's no longer in our portfolio for 2025. So we sold assets last year, Santana -- I mean, Santa Monica, that reflects -- that and others reflects the income that we saw in 2024 that's not in our 2025 guidance.
And isn't asking about acquisitions, too?
What was the second part of the question?
Yes, I guess what would be the offset on the acquisition side just to have both sides of the coin?
Well, I mean they're pretty straightforward. We acquired -- I don't have that off the top of my head, but Virginia Gateway was acquired. Let me follow up with you offline there. It's not something I need to do some calculations. I can't do it in my head right now.
We have a follow-up question from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Just going back to Jeff Spector's question on the Cleveland asset that you guys said that you took a look at and it was sort of a market that you wouldn't have thought about before, but it broadens your view. As you guys think -- consider new markets, just sort of curious if you're sort of rethinking your traditional type scenarios like high affluent infill -- not infill, but infill suburban or if the way that communities have changed, there's a new way that you're thinking about it.
And the second part of that is everyone wants to have meaningful concentration to allow a platform. I assume that's actually difficult to foresee given the limited deal flow to like see a path to acquiring enough assets or you can actually see that even in the limited deal flow that we have right now?
Well, you got a lot packed in there, buddy. And I love the question. It's going to be hard to just do that with one or two senses, but let me try. First of all, a couple of great assumptions in there. The notion of whether federal will go down quality in those other assets, the answer is no. We won't do that. Now because the markets -- some of the markets we're talking about are smaller than the big coastal cities, there are, to your other point, fewer great centers. And all we're going to be looking at is the best couple of centers in cities that are still large cities, but not as big as the coast.
So yes, it does become more difficult, if you will, to own 6 or 7 or 5 within a particular market, but it is not difficult to -- for us to get our heads around the best center or best 2 centers in a particular market and run them as -- run them separately, if you will, with a new organization that's aiming for that.
So your assumptions are generally really good. There are places that we have not looked at historically that we are comfortable that with the best asset or two in those large cities, but not as large as the coast, that we could take what we do for a living, which is merchandise well to the best retailers, retailers that will be -- will want to go where we're talking to, and we're spending an awful lot of time with those retailers, making sure we know where they want to go so that we can affect change there, that's the kind of stuff that we'll be going for. They will be the best one or two assets in the market. There will be affluence, there will be population density.
We have a follow-up question from Steve Sakwa with Evercore.
Dan, could you maybe just provide a little more color? I think when you gave those ranges by quarter, it kind of implies a drop sequentially from 4Q to 1Q and maybe there's a slower build into 2Q. I realize the tax credit might pop in all in the third quarter. But maybe just help us bridge kind of the weaker first half and obviously, the stronger second half.
Yes. Sure, sure. Good question. The guidance, [ 167 to 170 ] is roughly down 2.5% from the fourth quarter FFO we reported. A big chunk of that is really a number of seasonality related numbers. One is occupancy. First quarter, typically, we see tenant move-outs. We are, and I highlighted this, we will see a step down in occupancy into the mid- to upper 93% range by quarter end. Just -- we see that typically every year.
Expenses like snow are seasonal. It's been a rough first 40-some-odd days in the Northeast from a snow perspective. So I would expect that to weigh on us. Hotel income, it's small, but it has a seasonality component. parking and percentage rent, you've got cold weather impact on customer traffic as well as tenants hitting break points [Technical Difficulty]
The speaker line is back on.
Operator, can you hear us?
Yes.
Are we live on the line?
Yes, you are.
Okay. I ticked through most of the seasonality impact. That's a big impact. COVID era deferrals, they go away versus the fourth quarter to the first quarter, about $0.01. We did issue shares at the end of the year, and that is a couple of pennies. And those are really the big drivers that offset the -- obviously, the charge that we have. So that's really likely to be the big driver.
And then just ramping back up of occupancy in the second quarter shows the improvement of the trend. And so similarly, for our comparable growth will show steady improvement from the first quarter through the second and peak out in the fourth quarter.
We have a follow-up question from Floris Van Dijkum with Compass Point.
Dan, a follow-up for you. I want to talk about a different kind of SNO. Your SNO pipeline of 210 basis points, can you quantify the rental impact of that?
Yes. Total rent associated with our comparable SNO, which is just what's in the comparable pool is a little over $25 million. We also have leases signed in the noncomparable pool that take us up towards $42 million, call it, $41 million, $42 million. We would expect that of the $41 million, $42 million, 80% of that will be in 2025 with the balance in 2026, and that will be weighted more heavily towards the second half of the year with 55% of scheduled starts in the second half of the year and 25 points of the 80 points being in the first half.
This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Leah Brady for any closing remarks. Please go ahead.
Look forward to seeing everybody in the next few weeks. Thanks for joining us today.
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.