© 2024 Alpha Spread Limited. All Rights Reserved.
www.alphaspread.com is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on www.alphaspread.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. In no event shall Alpha Spread Limited be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any content or other material published or available on www.alphaspread.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, www.alphaspread.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the fourth quarter 2017 Independence Realty Trust conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session and instructions will follow at that time. If anyone should require operator assistance at any time, please press star then zero on your touchtone telephone. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded.
I would now like to turn the conference over to Lauren Tarola, Investor Relations representative. Ma’am, you may begin.
Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us today to review Independence Realty Trust’s fourth quarter and full year 2017 financial results. On the call with me are Scott Schaeffer, our Chief Executive Officer; Jim Sebra, our Chief Financial Officer, and Farrell Ender, President of IRT. Today’s call is being webcast on our IR website at www.irtliving.com. There will be a replay of the call available via webcast and telephonically beginning at approximately 12:00 pm Eastern time.
Before I turn the call over to Scott, I’d like to remind everyone that there may be forward-looking statements made during this call. These forward-looking statements reflect IRT’s current views with respect to future events and financial performance. Actual results could differ substantially and materially from what IRT has projected. Such statements are made in good faith pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Please refer to IRT’s press release, supplemental information and SEC filings for factors that could affect the accuracy of our expectations or cause our future results to differ materially from those expectations.
Participants may discuss non-GAAP financial measures during this call. Within IRT’s press release, supplemental information and SEC filings, we include a reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. IRT does not undertake responsibility to update forward-looking statements in this call or with respect to matters described herein except as may be required by law.
With that, I’d like to turn the call over to Scot Schaeffer.
Thank you for joining us this morning. This past year was transformational for IRT. First, I’ll address our operations, second, our capital recycling and value-add initiatives, and lastly our outlook for the future.
First, our operational growth continued to surpass the majority of our multi-family peers with 2017 same store NOI growth of 4.8%, demonstrating our ability to continue to increase rents while maintaining strong occupancy levels and keeping expenses under control. For 2017, average occupancy grew 80 basis points to 94.6%. We continue to be focused on managing our operating expenses and increasing our NOI margin, which was 60.1% during 2017. We are confident that the fundamental drivers of our non-gateway markets, both population and job growth, will outperform the national averages and provide the ability to increase rents that will drive shareholder value.
Looking at the year in review, we completed several transformational investments and dispositions which strengthened our portfolio and positioned us for long term growth. First on November 28, we completed the final disposition of our 201 7capital recycling initiative. The strategic asset sales and subsequent acquisitions allowed us to upgrade our portfolio by selling legacy Class C properties while adding scale in our target markets through the purchase of core Class B assets. In aggregate, the four properties we sold had an average monthly rent of $802 while the three newly purchased communities generate monthly rent of $1,048. The recycling of properties will continue in 2018 as we look to pair our individual market exposure while adding additional assets in our core markets.
Next, on January 3 we closed on the final two properties of our previously announced acquisition of a nine-community portfolio. This was the first transformational acquisition under our internalized management team and clearly shows our commitment to the long term strategy. This accretive acquisition increases our presence in markets where we already have existing operations and aligns with our focus of owning middle market communities across non-gateway MSAs that offer attractive supply-demand dynamics, enabling long term, sustainable portfolio growth. We also see an opportunity to further grow NOI in this recently acquired portfolio through select value-add projects over the next year.
As a reminder, we raised equity in September to help fund this acquisition. Due to the timing and the close of the nine properties, with two happening subsequent to year-end, this equity raise impacted our quarter over quarter core FFO comparison as the proceeds were not fully invested until January 3, 2018. Additionally, subsequent to year end we purchased a 312-unit community in Columbus, Ohio, further adding scale to one of our core target markets.
In the fourth quarter, we began to execute on our value-add initiative. Overall, we expect to see incremental returns in 2018, though the majority of the benefit will be recognized in 2019 and beyond with a target cash-on-cash return on investment of approximately 20%. In aggregate, we believe that the $8.5 million of incremental annual NOI created by our value-add initiative will add significant value to the portfolio.
Our outlook for the future is bright - low unemployment along with rising wages is a positive for the economy and multi-family owners, as it will increase discretionary income and will afford us the opportunity to continue to increase rents, which ultimately is a hedge against any corresponding inflation. While there is volatility in the capital markets, we want to stress the fundamentals in our portfolio remain strong with ample liquidity to fund our business needs, and our investment opportunities remain unchanged. As we move through 2018, we’ll remain focused on improving our portfolio while opportunistically growing our presence in our core asset class and markets.
Now I’ll turn the call over to Farrell for an in-depth discussion of our markets, capital recycling transactions, and value-add projects, and then onto Jim to review our financial results, capital structure, and 2018 guidance. Farrell?
Thanks Scott. We continue to see stable rent growth and high occupancy across the majority of our portfolio in the fourth quarter. Our same store revenues increased by 3.5% and operating expenses were up 2.1%, generating net operating income growth of 4.3%. Same store revenue was elevated across a number of our markets, exceeding 5% in seven of our 20 markets. Columbus grew revenue at 6%, St. Louis grew by 5.8%, suburban Chicago was up 5.7%, and Indianapolis was up 5.2%.
Our one community in Charlotte experienced the largest revenue growth of 13%. This was primarily due to a 390 basis point increase in occupancy and the elimination of concessions that were necessary to compete with new supply in 2016. Additionally, Orlando and Atlanta saw some of the strongest revenue growth of 7.2% and 7.4% respectively as both markets continue to impress with strong job and population growth.
Our one community in Orlando is a Class A midrise property in the Millennia submarket. It has faced significant new supply but has always managed to stay well occupied with the ability to continue to increase rents. A new community adjacent to ours will begin lease-up over the next months, and accordingly we may see some softness in late 2018. Orlando and more specifically the Millennia submarket has historically absorbed new supply given its strong job and population growth.
Atlanta’s outperformance highlights the strength in the growing areas outside of the city as well as the ability to drive rents in the more mature suburban markets closer to the city center. The first property in our three community same store portfolio is located in Alpharetta, 30 miles north of the city in an area known as the tech hub of the south. With several technology companies operating there and providing skilled high wage jobs, this Class A community experienced revenue growth of 4.9% and had an average rent of $1,386. The other two communities are located in Sandy Spring and Smyrna, which are two mature suburban submarkets with high barriers of entry. The combined revenue growth for these communities was 9.2%, reinforcing the ability to push rents in supply constrained infill suburban locations with significant job and employment growth.
Touching briefly on one of our larger markets, in Louisville where much of our exposure is concentrated around the city’s inner beltway, revenue was up 2.7% in the quarter. We continue to believe Louisville will provide stable, consistent revenue growth with 2 to 3% growth expected over the next year. The city has benefited from both public and private investment. The recently completed $2 billion Ohio River Bridge project, which consisted of building two new bridges, will further increase the city’s reputation as a logistics hub and home to UPS’ Worldport. Additionally, 1,500 hotel rooms have been delivered in the past year to support the burgeoning tourism industry and the $200 million expansion of the Kentucky International Convention Center.
Our Greenville and Charleston markets continue to be challenging. Greenville’s revenue was down 4% and Charleston’s revenue was flat during 2017. Our properties in these markets are Class A and compete directly with new construction. In 2017, Greenville added 1,242 units or 6% of its total inventory and is projected to add another 3% in 2018. Charleston added 3,000 units or 6% of its total inventory in 2017 and is projected to add another 6% in 2018. Because of the pressure from this new inventory, we are projecting revenue growth in 2018 in both of these markets to be 1.5%.
Oklahoma City, which now represents only 5% of our gross assets, is slowing improving, as we mentioned on our last call. Revenue growth was 2.8% during the fourth quarter with occupancy of 92.5%. For 2018, we are forecasting similar revenue growth.
As Scott mentioned, we also completed the acquisition of the nine-community portfolio we announced on September 5 with three properties closing in the fourth quarter and the remaining two closing on January 3. At this point, all the communities have been successfully integrated onto our platform with the properties fully staffed and employees trained on our procedures. We have installed our revenue management process, implemented our management practices, and raised the rental criteria which will generate improved tenant base. In addition, over the next six months we will begin a value-add program at five of the properties with a total cost of $9.7 million. With our hands-on active management, we believe the portfolio will generate outsized revenue growth with lower operating expenses. We expect the portfolio to generate an additional $2 million of NOI once our best practices are fully implemented and the value-add is complete.
On January 4, we also purchased an additional community in Columbus, Ohio. The 312-unit property was acquired for $36.8 million, representing a 5.9% economic cap rate. Columbus has a growing population and is the 14th largest city in the United States. Furthermore, it has an expansive job market that spans a wide range of industries with several major companies having headquarters there, including Cardinal Health, Nationwide Insurance, L Brands, and Honda. Ohio State University, also located in Columbus, provides a steady flow of talent to the market. This combination of outsized population and job growth aligns perfectly with our investment strategy and are the driving factors to making Columbus a core market for long-term growth.
Lastly, I want to conclude with an update on our value-add projects. We have identified 14 communities totaling 4,137 units at a cost of approximately $46 million. We anticipate an average monthly rent premium of $171 which when coupled with anticipated expense savings will generate returns in excess of 20%. We are on target to deliver 2,500 units in 2018 and the balance in 2019.
With that, I’ll turn the call over to Jim for an update on the financials.
Thanks Farrell. First we’ll review earnings and operating performance for 2017, followed by a brief review of our balance sheet and capital structure, and ending with our 2018 guidance.
For the quarter, net income available to common shareholders was $6.3 million versus a loss of $41 million in the fourth quarter of 2016 due to the costs associated with our management internalization during 2016. Full-year 2017 net income available to common shareholders was $30.2 million as compared to a loss of $9.8 million in 2016. Remember during the fourth quarter of 2016, we completed a series of transactions to both internalize management and reduce our leverage. As such, the results for 2017 are not directly comparable to 2016.
Core FFO per share was $0.18 for the quarter ended December 31, up one penny year over year, representing consistent bottom line results amidst some portfolio transformation. Full year core FFO of $0.73 per share was down year-over-year from $0.79 per share in 2016 due to the dilution occurring in 2017 from the internalization and deleveraging transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2016. Fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA increased 17% year-over-year to $21.7 million while full-year adjusted EBITDA grew 9% to $81 million.
We reported same store NOI growth of 4.3% for the fourth quarter and 4.8% for the full year of 2017. Both were driven by the increase in rental rates and average occupancies during 2017. Same store total revenue grew 3.5% in the fourth quarter and 3.9% for the full year. Same store property level operating expenses grew 2.1% in the fourth quarter and 2.5% for the full year. We saw continued expansion in our same store NOI margin, which increased 50 basis points in the full year of 2017 to 60.1% as we continue to focus on managing our expenses and turning every available dollar of revenue into earnings.
On the G&A front, during 2017 we accomplished our goal of reducing G&A as compared to our historical run rate as an externally managed REIT. For 2017, our G&A excluding stock-based comp was $7.6 million or 50 basis points of our gross assets, significantly lower than all of our small cap apartment peers.
Turning to our balance sheet and capital structure, we finished 2017 with 52 properties aggregating total gross assets of $1.6 billion, up from $1.4 billion at year end 2016. During 2017, while our gross assets have increased 13%, we recycled out of all of our Class C properties and have increased our presence in several key markets, including Columbus and Indianapolis. Since both the number of properties we own and the gross assets increased in 2017, our total debt rose by 4.7% year-over-year to $778.4 million.
During 2017 our leverage, as measured by debt to gross assets, and net debt to EBITDA both improved. Our total debt to gross assets ratio declined 200 basis points from 54.3% at year-end 2016 to 52.4% on a pro forma basis at year-end 2017. Our fourth quarter net debt to EBITDA was reduced from 9.7 times for 2016 to 9.2 times on a pro forma basis for 2017. Because we had some additional acquisitions early in 2018, we’ve provided the leverage metrics on an actual and on a pro forma basis in our supplement. At year-end 2017, our debt is effectively 100% fixed rate through 2021 with no significant debt maturing until then.
During Q4, we completed a $100 million unsecured seven-year term loan with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus a spread based on our leverage. Today, that interest rate was equal to LIBOR plus 165 basis points, approximately 20 basis points inside the market for similar transactions. We effectively fixed the interest rate on this floating rate term loan by using an interest rate collar for the entire seven-year term. The proceeds were used to reduce borrowings outstanding on our revolving unsecured line of credit, freeing up liquidity and extending maturities.
Also during the fourth quarter, we were active on our ATM and issued 1,164,900 common shares at an average price of $10.38. We raised net proceeds of approximately $11.9 million.
We continue to make progress improving our capital structure and expect to make continued progress on this front through organic NOI growth, growth in NOI from our value-add initiatives, and strategically recycling capital. One part of our longer term strategy is increasing our unencumbered assets. As of year-end on a pro forma basis after the close of the previously mentioned acquisitions, our unencumbered assets as a percent of our total portfolio increased to 40.6%, up from 28% at year-end 2016. By total NOI on a pro forma basis, our unencumbered assets represent 43% of our portfolio.
Shifting gears to 2018, as Scott mentioned, we are focused on three priorities: continuously reviewing and improving our operations, executing on our value-add initiatives to drive outsized NOI growth into 2019, and recycling capital where appropriate to improve scale and focus. For 2018, our guidance for core FFO is a range of $0.74 to $0.79 per share. We expect organic same store NOI growth at our communities of 3% to 4%. This reflects expected revenue growth of 3% to 4% and operating expense growth between 2.5% and 3.5%. While this indicates more modest growth than we saw in 2017 as increases in occupancy helped drive higher revenue growth, we believe that a strong macroeconomic environment will remain a tailwind for the U.S. multifamily market.
We anticipate continued GDP expansion will drive job growth and ultimately provide a healthy level of demand for apartment housing. Further, we feel very comfortable with the asset composition and geographic footprint of our portfolio and believe our core non-gateway markets will continue to benefit from both broader economic expansion as well as anticipated migration trends that will allow our markets to outperform and drive a favorable supply-demand dynamic.
While controllable operating expenses are expected to grow with inflationary pressures, we anticipate increases in real estate taxes and insurance to outpace inflation. First on real estate taxes, several of our properties are in MSAs that reassess annually. We planned for and were successful during 2017 in limiting these increases, but we are being cautious for 2018. As for insurance, we believe insurers will increase premiums given the significant losses they sustained from 2017’s severe storms and are preparing accordingly.
Additionally, the harsh winter conditions across much of the eastern seaboard resulted in expenses related to frozen water lines and higher than anticipated snow removal costs during Q1 2018. These conditions will weigh on our same store NOI growth for Q1, resulting in an expected range of same store NOI growth of 1% to 2%. Removing the effects of weather, we anticipate our same store NOI growth to step up incrementally throughout the year as the benefit of the value-add program begins to come online.
As Scott and Farrell mentioned, the 14 value-add projects are expected to generate a total of $8.5 million of incremental NOI, though due to the timing of construction we only anticipate approximately $750,000 to be realized during 2018. Additionally, given the uncertainty around timing and execution of future transactions, we have made no capital recycling assumptions in our full-year guidance. We will continue to be transparent in updating you on our capital recycling efforts going forward.
Lastly, as previously mentioned, this quarter transitioned from a monthly dividend to a quarterly dividend distribution. We expect our board of directors to declare the dividend by the middle of March and we will issue a press release at that time.
With that, I’ll turn the call back to Scott.
Thank you, Jim. Operator, let’s open the call to questions at this time.
[Operator instructions]
Our first question comes from Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird. Your line is now open.
Hey, good morning. Just one quick question - should you continue to see acquisition opportunities in your pricing range in the markets where you like to be, sort of in that B to B-plus range as far as property quality goes, obviously there is growth in your portfolio and your FFO if you don’t do anything per your guidance, but I guess if the right opportunity presented itself, can you talk about potential sources of equity capital and where they rank the way you’re thinking about things right now?
Sure, Drew. So obviously at current market stock prices, we’re not interested in issuing equity to fund acquisitions; however, we are looking at the portfolio for recycling opportunities. As I stated, one of our goals is to pair our exposure to some individual markets where we don’t see additional growth being appropriate, and as that happens we would, if it made sense, recycle that capital into new acquisitions in more target markets. But we’re constantly looking at what the portfolio will look like after these transactions and weighing whether or not it will make sense in the current environment.
So I guess in other words, should you see the opportunity to recycle capital, would you be hesitant, I guess, to do that if there was going to be any type of earnings dilution other than maybe just some temporary cash drag?
Yes, absolutely. Our goal has always been to grow when it makes sense to support both of our goals, which one is to be accretive to earnings and also to help us reduce leverage, and again as I’ve stated, I’m not interested in just growing for the sake of growth. It’s got to make sense for the company’s long term goals.
Very helpful. That’s all for me.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt with Keybanc Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Yes, hi. Good morning. Kind of along the same lines as Drew’s question, what markets are you most focused on growing the portfolio, and how big is the acquisition pipeline as we sit here today?
The first answer to your question, through the nine-property portfolio that we bought, we expanded in Columbus, in Indianapolis and Atlanta, which are all markets that we’ll continue to look at growing. We have focused on Tampa, Orlando and Raleigh as well, which are all markets that have the fundamentals we’ve talked about - job growth, population growth, and relatively limited supply, and we’re seeing a tremendous amount of opportunity now in the pipeline mainly because the NMHC, which is our national conference was in January where a lot of properties were launched for sale, so we have a pretty robust pipeline that’s just now focusing on what’s actionable and in the markets that I mentioned.
So I guess it’s reasonable to assume that you are seeing opportunity out there, it’s just a matter of what the pricing is on those assets and what the opportunity is from a funding perspective and the disposition side. Is that a fair characterization?
That’s correct.
Then when you mentioned pair trading out of individual markets, any sense what markets you’re focused on selling out of more near term?
We’re constantly looking at it and looking at the opportunities that would match the sale process. When Scott talks about markets that we may not expand into, we’re in Huntsville in a single asset, we’re in Austin with a single asset - those are two markets that we don’t necessarily know if we’ll be able to grow in, so it’s those type of markets where we have one property and it may not be a long-term fit for us. But if you look at Tampa and Orlando, those are markets where we have one asset which we’re actively trying to expand into.
That’s helpful. Then as far as guidance, as far as the revenue growth of 3 to 4% you assume, can you give us a sense of what markets stack up towards the higher or above the high end of that range for this year?
Yes, so I touched on it briefly on the call. A lot of the properties, the markets that we mentioned that were up in the high range of 2017 are really what we’re projecting to be on the high range of 2018, so it’s Atlanta, Raleigh, the Tampa and Orlando markets with again good population and job growth, and really under that 3% inventory growth in 2018, which will provide that supply-demand imbalance that we’ve talked about in the past.
Okay, then last one from me, also along with that 3% to 4% revenue growth, Jim, just curious where does that put you as far as leverage at year end, just based on the core growth that you’re projecting for this year?
For the end of 2018, we should be right around 9 to 9.1 times.
Great, thanks guys.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Brian Hogan with William Blair. Your line is now open.
Good morning. A follow-up on that leverage question there. With your acquisition opportunities, would you increase leverage and to what level? Obviously your focus is on deleveraging over time, but I was just curious what your targets are for leverage range-wise.
No, we’re not looking to increase leverage. Our goal is to continue to reduce it. If we can do that through over-equitizing acquisitions, that’s one way. It will also reduce organically as the NOI grows and as we see the benefit from the value-add initiative. But our goal is to reduce leverage, so we will not be increasing it for acquisitions.
Great, and if you can remind me of your target over time?
Yes, the leverage targets over time are a debt to gross assets low 40s, low 40%, and net debt to EBITDA in the low 7s.
All right. With the properties that you just acquired, can you articulate the cap rates, and then if you adjust for the value-add projects that you’re doing on those properties, what is the adjusted cap rate?
So we bought the portfolio on a 6% economic cap rate. Once we implement--finish implementing all of our standard operating procedures and complete the value-add, that cap rate will be 7% on a stabilized basis, and that’s roughly the $2 million of NOI being created by efficiencies in the value-add that we mentioned.
All right. Then taking a step back, and you talked a lot about [indiscernible] market on the call, but demographic shifts, given the strength of the home purchase market, and I know Scott you mentioned the tax reform, what is your thoughts on ability to push rent further? Obviously you’ve got occupancy rates within your target range, but is it still 3% to 4%, is it longer term, or what do you think?
Yes, I think it’s 3% to 4%, and I--you know, there are some markets that we have exposure to where we’re seeing home purchasing impacting renewal rates, but it’s relatively minor, and I do believe in a rising interest rate environment that the rent-buy analysis will move more into our favor. I think the tax reform act, if anything, will be a benefit as well. Clearly in some of our B assets, we’re not competing with houses that have $10,000 real estate tax bills, but some of the A markets and A assets we have, we clearly are, so all of that has to be factored in. So I think on balance that we’re positioned well for that kind of growth going forward.
One last one from me. Have you seen any change in the portfolio--or sorry, the occupancy churn? How fast does it turn over? Have you seen any material change in that?
No, and just to dovetail on Scott’s response, we monitor obviously move-outs. It’s consistently stayed about the 20% range for move-outs to new homes, and we’ll watch that throughout 2018 to see if that changes, and we’ll update you on our calls.
All right, thank you for your time.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Hey, good morning everyone. Just wondering if you can talk about the 3% to 4% revenue growth outlook for 2018. Can you just break that down between occupancy, rate growth, and maybe some of the value-add NOI that you’re expecting? It sounded like occupancy gains you wouldn’t expect as much here this year, but just curious if you could break that down a little bit.
Yes, the value-add is about 1% of that, and the rest is rental rate growth.
Okay, so we should expect flat occupancy then?
That’s what we’ve modeled and forecasted.
Got it, okay. Then just if you could remind us in terms of the underwriting, like for the Chelsea for instance, we’ve talked about going in cap rates and things like that, but as you think about the overall IRRs for these projects, what’s the right spread to your cost of capital today that makes sense for an acquisition to pencil, and maybe what are your IRR expectations for the Chelsea?
I think Chelsea, the underwritten--it was a 5.9 economic cap rate. Our cost of capital is slightly--given the ATM proceeds we raised is slightly below that, so I think we typically like to see cap rates in that 5.9, low 6s in order for them to pencil out.
This is Scott. I’ve always been a little reluctant to be acquiring assets on an IRR basis because we don’t have a stated hold period like a fund might have, and we also don’t know what exit cap rates are going to be. You can make your IRR analysis anything you want it to be by just changing those assumptions, so we’re more interested in what’s our cost of capital and what’s the property going to return on a Year 1 and then what it’s going to return once we have our management platform in place and any value-add done.
Okay, thanks for that. Maybe just one other question. In terms of the new and renewal spreads, can you just give us a sense of how those are tracking?
Yes, they’re tracking better than they were last year, actually, so we’re seeing renewal spreads through the first quarter at 3.5% on renewal leases, and about 0.5% on new leases. That’s on 1,600 leases through March, so we’ll see a couple--you know, there’s probably a couple hundred out there that still need to be either renewed or vacated as we work through that process, and it’s about 55% renewal rate.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you. Again ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, in order to ask a question, please press star then the one key on your touchtone telephone. Our next question comes from John Massocca with Ladenburg Thalmann. Your line is now open.
Good morning, gentlemen. Given what you’re seeing in the acquisition market, have you seen any cap rate expansion driven by the recent moves in interest rates?
It’s interesting you ask. I’ve seen--and I mentioned this on the last call, there has been some movement, maybe a quarter percent, on the new supply as people are concerned about supply and actually getting the pro forma rents and a longer lease-up as these properties are being delivered. In the Class B space, not yet - you know, we’re waiting for it as there’s a lag to a rise in treasuries, but there’s a lot of liquidity in the Class B space, so I think it’ll just take some time for that to work through the market.
So you’re saying because there’s so many--is it because there’s not enough transactions going on in the Class B space and supply is kind of tight there, that you think there hasn’t really been a reaction, or is it just because there are deals that are already out there that are going to need to close before you see any expansion?
There seems to be a disconnect at the moment between buyers and sellers. Buyers are modeling--you know, because of modeling higher interest rates are looking for higher cap rates on the acquisition side, but sellers have not come to the realization yet that they might be selling at a higher cap rate. So from what we’re seeing, there’s a little bit of a disconnect but there’s still--to Farrell’s point, there’s still enough liquidity and enough people looking to invest in the Class B assets that they’re getting done without cap rates having moved much at this time. I do expect them to move. If interest rates stay elevated or keep moving up, I should say, I would expect that cap rates on the B space over time will increase.
Yes, and remember much of what’s closing now, most of the people had their debt lined up so they were locked into their rates. As they get through the sale process now and through the second and third quarter as debt is re-priced at higher treasury rates, that’s going to impact people’s returns and thus what they’re going to pay for the properties.
Okay, makes sense. Then on an actual property supply side, have you seen any supply pressures on your Class B properties, or has all the supply pressure you’re talking about really been more focused on the Class A segment?
It’s a completely different renter, so it’s really been on our Class A portfolio and in selected markets that can’t support the supply. Like I said, Orlando has been very resilient - that’s one of those markets where we’ll see, as they continue that supply, if it will stay resilient.
Makes sense. Then lastly, your controllable expense guidance seems pretty reasonable - at one point, 62%. Heard some other players in the space talking about how pricing for contract labor has gone up and supply costs have gone up. What do you think is allowing you to keep that low growth number?
We’ve just been focused on looking at our contracts and negotiating with them well ahead of time so we can minimize the effects of that. Obviously we’ll be monitoring that throughout the year and do the best we can to continue to keep it within that guidance range.
To Jim’s point, gaining scale in these markets like Columbus and Indianapolis, having more leverage given the larger contracts helps reduce the expense.
Okay, that’s it for me.
Thank you. I’m not showing any further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back to Scott Schaeffer for any further remarks.
Thank you. 2017 was another transformational year for IRT. With the management internalization complete, we wasted no time in prioritizing our capital recycling initiatives that improved the composition of our portfolio, enhanced economies of scale in existing markets and created scale in our new target markets, and significantly lowered our leverage ratio. As we look forward to 2018, we will continue to evaluate our portfolio to further capitalize on this progress.
Thank you all for joining us today and we look forward to speaking with you next quarter.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This concludes today’s program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.