Rexford Industrial Realty Inc

NYSE:REXR

Good morning, and welcome to the Rexford Industrial's First Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mikayla Lynch, Director, Investor Relations and Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and welcome to Rexford Industrial's First Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. In addition to yesterday's earnings release, we posted a supplemental package and earnings presentation in the Investor Relations section on our website to support today's remarks.

As a reminder, management's remarks and responses to your questions may contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws, which are based on certain assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties outlined in our 10-K and other SEC filings. As such, actual results may differ, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in the future. We'll also discuss non-GAAP financial measures on today's call.

Our earnings presentation and supplemental package provide GAAP reconciliations as well as an explanation of why these measures are useful to investors.

Joining me today are our Chief Operating Officer, Laura Clark; and Chief Financial Officer, Mike Fitzmaurice. Our co-CEOs, Michael Frankel and Howard Schwimmer, will join us for the Q&A session following prepared remarks.

It's my pleasure to now introduce Laura Clark. Laura?

Thank you, Mikayla, and thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to begin by recognizing the Rexford team. Your dedication and strong execution drove first quarter performance and position us well to navigate today's heightened macroeconomic uncertainty. Rexford delivered solid first quarter performance, in line with expectations. We executed 2.4 million square feet of leases, achieving net effective and cash rent spreads of 24% and 15%, respectively. Embedded rent steps in our executed leases averaged 3.6%. Notably, 400,000 square feet of new leasing activity in the quarter was from 5 repositioning and redevelopment projects.

Overall absorption in the quarter was a positive 125,000 square feet and renewal activity remained strong. We achieved 82% tenant retention, the highest level over the past year. Market rents across our portfolio declined 2.8% sequentially and 9.4% year-over-year. Despite continued softness in market rents, Rexford's portfolio outperformed the overall market, which experienced a decline of 4.7% sequentially and 12.1% year-over-year, according to CBRE. The decline in Rexford's portfolio market rents was largely concentrated in spaces above 100,000 square feet which are experiencing some excess supply in the submarkets of Mid-Counties, North Orange County and the Inland Empire West.

In contrast, market rents for Rexford's smaller format spaces under 50,000 square feet continue to show relative resilience, supported by limited supply comparable to our superior highly functional product. Regarding the current leasing environment. At the start of the year, leasing activity had picked up as tenant requirements in the market were increasing. At the time of our last earnings call, we had activity on approximately 90% of our vacant spaces, representing a material pickup when compared to 2024. Since the recent tariff announcements, we have seen some tenants defer decision-making amid increased economic uncertainty.

We currently have leasing activity on approximately 80% of our vacant spaces. And while overall engagement remains healthy, it is difficult to predict the near-term impact surrounding the tariffs and overall levels of uncertainty. As Fitz will discuss in more detail, our guidance anticipates the potential for increased lease-up timing.

Turning to capital allocation. By stabilizing assets at above-market yields, and selling properties at low cap rates, we are driving accretive cash flow growth and long-term value creation. By way of example, in the quarter, we stabilized 5 repositioning projects totaling 560,000 square feet at a 7.6% unlevered yield and completed 2 dispositions totaling $103 million at exit cap rates in the low 4% area.

Our capital allocation and recycling strategy will continue to be focused on maximizing returns and accretion. Our value-add repositioning and redevelopments are a key driver of accretive growth with $70 million of incremental NOI expected in the near term from the 3.2 million square feet of projects under construction or in lease-up. Regarding dispositions, we currently have approximately $30 million of dispositions under contract or accepted offer subject to customary closing conditions. We have no acquisitions under contract or accepted offer.

In closing, we are facing a heightened level of uncertainty related to the introduction of new tariffs. However, our portfolio continues to be well positioned over the medium to longer term. We own a high-quality portfolio located in Infill Southern California, where the long-term supply-demand imbalance will continue to persist making our portfolio even more valuable into the future. Our tenants serve the nation's largest regional population base and one of the largest economies in the world where leasing demand is driven by consumption. This is in contrast to larger format industrial product where demand is more closely linked to global trade flows.

The health and diversity of our tenant base is strong and we are seeing demand from a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, construction, defense and aerospace and the warehousing and distribution of consumer staples, household goods and food and beverage to name a few. Our value-add focus drives accretive cash flow growth. We currently have over $230 million of projected incremental NOI embedded within our portfolio, positioning us to grow shareholder value over the long term. We appreciate your continued support and look forward to sharing more progress in the quarters ahead. Now, I'll turn the call over to Fitz.

Thanks, Laura, and thank you, everyone, for joining. First, I'd like to thank our team for their commitment to excellence and teamwork as we continue to focus on driving long-term value. First quarter results were in line with our expectations. Core FFO was $0.62 per share, representing 7% growth, both sequentially and year-over-year. We recognized $0.04 of expected termination revenue that was tied to a couple of known tenant move-outs. We are maintaining our full year 2025 core FFO outlook of $2.37 to $2.41 per share, though we are closely monitoring market dynamics and will assess our outlook to the extent conditions may evolve.

Overall, our underlying 2025 guidance assumptions remain intact, including the projected $15 million net NOI contribution from repositioning and redevelopment. Although our projected lease-up timing has increased to 9 months, from our prior expectations of 8 months due to tariff disruption, this was positively offset by some short-term lease extensions for properties otherwise planned for future repositioning or redevelopment.

Reflecting recent changes in market rents, we've revised our leasing spread assumptions. We now expect net effective and cash leasing spreads of approximately 25% and 15%, respectively. This change will not have a material impact on our guidance as only 11% of our ABR is set to expire through year-end with most expirations weighted towards the second half of 2025.

Our low leverage investment-grade balance sheet positions us to be opportunistic while navigating market uncertainties. Today, we have more than $1.6 billion of liquidity, including $608 million of cash and nearly full availability on our $1 billion unsecured line of credit. Since last quarter, we have further bolstered our balance sheet, reducing net debt to EBITDA by over 0.5 turn to 3.9x. Due to the settlement of $400 million of forward equity that was raised at $49 per share in March 2024.

During the quarter, we proactively initiated the recast of our credit facility, extend duration, lower interest expense, increased liquidity, enhanced flexibility. This includes the refinancing of our $400 million term loan, positioning us with no significant maturities until 2027. We expect to close on our recast in May, subject to customary closing conditions. We will continue to remain opportunistic with our debt maturities, focusing on duration and further lowering our cost of debt.

And with that, I'll turn the call back to the operator and open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo.

So as you mentioned, market rents accelerated downward during the quarter, down 2.8% from 1.5% in Q4. I guess maybe putting aside the potential impact of tariffs on leasing demand for a moment, do you have any better sense of how much further you'd expect rents to decline just based on how much excess vacancy is on the market and how aggressive some of your competitors have been on pricing? And then, I guess, if you were to factor in the tariffs, how much of an accelerant to rent moderation do you think a drawn-out trade disagreement could potentially present in your markets?

Blaine, it's Laura. Thanks for joining us today. As you mentioned, we are seeing some nominal pressure on market rents, but we're certainly not giving away space in the market and demand continues as represented by, as I mentioned in our prepared remarks, the current level -- we've got activity on about 80% of our vacant spaces. And we actually have leasing -- of that leasing activity, we're actually trading paper on about 2.7 million square feet today alone. So while it's challenging to predict future rent growth in the near term, as -- since indicated, we only have about 11% of our portfolio rolling through year-end and feel really good about the positioning of current activity given the uncertainty in the market.

I also think it's important to note that we -- that demand is represented by a diverse array of tenants. That activity is made up of some of the larger drivers are the construction industries and trades, 3PLs, also including technology, manufacturing, entertainment and apparel. So that diversity, the levels of demand as well as the diversity, we're pleased with at this point in time. One more note, I think that's important is our business model. Our business model has many levers of growth, embedded growth that in a current environment, when there could be pressure and continued pressure on rents allows us to continue to grow cash flow.

We've got about $230 million of incremental NOI embedded in the portfolio today, about $60 million of that's the mark-to-market, about $70 million from our repositioning and redevelopments that are in process and in the pipeline. And then another $100 million from the annual embedded rent steps in our leases that's at 3.7%.

And Blaine, it's Michael. I'll just add a little bit to your question related to the impacts -- or potential impacts from the tariffs and I'll start with reminding everyone about before the tariffs, the backdrop is actually looking relatively favorable. And we had an increase in tenant activity and the pent-up demand that we felt might be coming back to the market felt tangible. And when the tariffs were announced, we did see a shift, as Laura mentioned earlier. And so our tenants are clearly sensitive about the prospect of what tariffs could bring.

And the impacts of the tariffs, there's a range of potential impacts. To the extent they drive a change in trade flows, our tenant base is relatively insulated. Nobody is perfectly insulated. But as you know, our tenants are disproportionately serving regional consumption. And this is the largest zone of consumption in the country. And so we believe that does mitigate the impacts associated with changing or shifting trade flows to the extent that tariffs drive a reduction in overall consumer demand. Clearly, that's something that our tenants are a little more worried about. And I think that our tenant base in terms of their behaviors, it is very sentiment-driven right now in terms of their expectations about the future because what they told us earlier this year is they're feeling pretty good about their underlying business actually.

And to the extent there is a drop-off in consumer demand, I think if we look back to prior cycles. Again, we found that our Infill Southern California tenant base has proven to be relatively resilient, certainly more resilient, for example, than your big-box non-infill markets where those -- that space is more fungible, it's more of a commodity. And our tenants tend to be far more sticky through downturns because our -- because of the extreme long-term scarcity of our space, the irreplaceable nature of our space and the fact that it's very difficult for tenants to move and find the same -- they need to be near their end points of distribution. They need to be near skilled labor.

They need to be within the -- the business ecosystem and services that support their products and components -- so a lot of factors that drive the relative stability of our infill tenant base, even through cycles associated with reduced consumer demand.

Our next question comes from Samir Khanal from Bank of America.

I guess, Mike, I know you talked about the lease up. I think you talked about 9 months instead of 8 months. But maybe -- maybe help us understand a little bit more about the low end of guidance here. I think given the uncertainty, everybody is trying to figure out maybe how much room or cushion there is for sort of rents to fall, occupancy to fall as we think about kind of what PLD did, they sort of stress test their guidance. So walk us through that, please.

Sure, Samir. I appreciate the question. And again, congrats on the new role. Like any quarter, we're always sensitizing our earnings at the top end and to the bottom end of the range. Obviously, this quarter took kind of a bit of a heightened focus for obvious reasons. But the way we looked at it is we really sensitized our expectation to historical downturns, whether it be the pandemic, recent market rent changes in Southern California, the GFC and the variables that we focused on were projected lease-up time for our repositioning, redevelopment, also market rent decline, bad debt expense, and same-property occupancy. And we track those down to the historic downturns, the lows of the market, and we feel really, really good about where that gets us to in the bottom end of our range to $2.37.

And to your point, embedded in our guidance is a longer projected downtime of 9 months, which is a full quarter beyond what historical norms are of 6 months. And then also bad debt. Bad debt is at 75 basis points, which is about double of what this portfolio has generated over the last 6, 7 years since 2018, 2019. So we feel really, really good about the range of possibilities on the downside.

Our next question comes from John Kim from BMO Capital Markets.

I was wondering if you could provide some more insight on the cash mark-to-market -- or sorry, the cash leasing spreads this quarter, which went negative. And just looking at the leases that you signed this quarter, the average rent was [indiscernible] and comparing that versus your in-place ABR, it looks like it would suggest a negative mark-to-market. But I'm wondering if you could just provide some more color on that.

Yes, John, I'll take that question. In terms of our new leasing spreads, I think it's important to note that this quarter only included about 280,000 square feet of comparable leases. So a very small sample set. Most of the new leasing activity we did this quarter was in our repositioning and redevelopment where you don't have comparable leasing spreads. .

So drilling into that negative 5% cash leasing spread for the quarter, it was primarily attributed to 1 lease that lease had an above-market rent that was related to some specialized improvements that were in that space. And then we lease that building as is. So it's really a unique circumstance with that lease. But again, a small sample size.

Our next question comes from Mike Mueller from JPMorgan.

I guess -- can you talk about the pace of redevelopment and repositioning starts for the next 12 months or so based on what you're seeing and expecting today and maybe how it compares to the past year or two?

Sure, Mike. I'll take that question. So in terms of what's coming online this year, we have about $30 million of incremental NOI relative to [indiscernible]. In the first quarter, we experienced about $9 million of that $30 million. And as we look through the remaining part of the year and second through the fourth quarter, it's a bit more back half weighted, the additional $21 million or so.

In terms of what's coming offline, that cadence has changed a bit from last quarter, where we had expected it to come offline predominantly in the first quarter -- first part of the second quarter. But today, we expect that to be more ratable throughout the year. So we had about $3 million come offline in the first quarter, and it will be ratable to get to the $15 million coming off-line for the full year in 2025. And so when you net those 2 together, you could do the $15 million net NOI contribution that we expect.

Our next question comes from Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank.

Could you talk a little bit about the lease terminations in 1Q, like the nature of those tenants? And how are you just kind of thinking about the watchlist today if there is one of potential tenants?

Sure. Yes, we did experience, as you just alluded to, and I mentioned in the call about $9 million or so of termination revenue that was tied to 2 tenants, and that was expected in line with our expectations. Laura, do you want to talk a bit about color?

Yes. I think it's important to note that the majority of that termination income was tied actually to an office property that we acquired as part of a redevelopment plan. That, that property is owned industrial. So the tenant that was occupying that space was an office user, not your traditional industrial user. We were able to negotiate a favorable term fee there and now have the ability to move forward with the redevelopment plan in the future. And then in terms of bad debt, our bad debt assumptions for the year.

Yes. Our bad debt assumptions for the year. We had outsized growth in the first -- or outsized performance in the first quarter of about $3.4 million, which was about 120 basis points. As we look through the remaining part of the year, it will be between 50 and 55 basis points, which lines up with our 75 basis points expectation.

Our next question comes from Craig Mailman from Citi.

This question may be a bit ironic or hypocritical, however, you want to look at it, given that I've kind of asked you guys about selling assets over the last couple of years and now you are doing it and being successful. But I'm just kind of curious about the timing of it, given you're sitting on $600 million. Is there some -- were these more reverse inquiries that users wanted to buy these buildings? Or what's driving the uptick in disposition activity when acquisitions look a little bit less likely in the near term?

Craig, it's Howard. Thanks for the question. We've always looked into the portfolio and considered dispositions, but we've, in the past, had such tremendous upside in rent growth that it was hard to justify a great majority of sales. And today, yes, those 2 dispositions we completed were unsolicated offers. And what was unique about those is that there were some owner users that came to us, and they paid an extraordinary premium for the 2 assets we sold. Those traded for in aggregate in the range of about a 4% cap rate which is really interesting when you consider in today's market that deals are trading in the mid-4s to 5% range or higher even depending on what the circumstances with above-market rent in a portfolio. So great opportunity for us in terms of being able to recycle very accretively this capital.

Our next question comes from Greg McGinniss from Scotiabank.

Just looking at the average rent escalator signed in Q1 is down to 3.6% as compared to 4% last year. Are you starting to see tenants push back on the 4% escalators you've been able to achieve over the last couple of years?

Greg, it's Laura. Yes, given some of the market dynamics and pressures on rents, we're certainly seeing some other components of the leases where there is pressure, but it's really concentrated by submarket in certain size ranges. So looking into that 3.6% embedded rent steps that was really focused around the spaces over 100,000 square feet, where we saw rent steps averaging about 3.4%. Looking at our smaller format spaces, those rent steps are holding closer to 4%.

Our next question comes from Anthony Hau from Truist Securities.

Howard, I think you have highlighted that Infill locations tend to be more resilient in downturns. Can you help us like better quantify that, whether through occupancy, rent growth or leasing velocity compared to non-infill assets?

Sure. Yes, thanks for the question. It's really more of a scarcity for space. Southern California is a fully built-out market. There's -- while we do have some construction that occurs in our tight infill markets, it's generally just to replace older dysfunctional product. So we're really not introducing any more supply, whereas you look at many other markets around the country that have land -- and you don't have any limits on growth in terms of construction.

Land values tend to drop quickly in tougher times and competing product then enter the market at lower prices than even existing products. So we don't have that dynamic in Southern California. And as we've sort of mentioned earlier in the call, we're really a consumption-driven market with upwards of 24 million people here. It's really a different dynamic than you find and through cycles. We really generally haven't had a huge drop-off in occupancy. It's really more just timing of leasing and so forth.

Our next question comes from Brendan Lynch from Barclays.

I wanted to just dig in a little bit on your philosophy on the pace of redevelopment and repositioning. If we're entering a period of market weakness, is that -- would you be leaning into more redevelopment now because there's a lower opportunity cost of taking assets offline.

Brendan, thanks for joining us today. When we think about capital allocation. I mean, taking it back to our capital allocation strategy, we're focused on driving accretion and then long-term value. So when we're considering repositionings and redevelopments, we're doing just that. On our repositionings, we're achieving high above-market incremental returns somewhere in the 15% area on the incremental returns on the incremental capital that we're investing into those assets. .

So not only is that driving accretive cash flow growth, but we're also enhancing the value of these assets over time. So to the extent that those repositioning and redevelopment opportunities that we have in the pipeline allow us to do that, we think that it's prudent for us to continue to move forward and that a significant part of how we will continue to drive outsized cash flow per share growth.

And one item I would note there, just by way of example, what we experienced during the quarter, we did -- as Laura noted earlier in my prepared remarks to the stabilized lot projects 560,000 square feet. Now that stabilized deal is about 7.6%. But on an incremental return perspective to line up with lower thoughts just a moment ago, that was 20%, which is the highest risk-adjusted return today, I think a great way to deploy our capital.

Our next question comes from Michael Griffin from Evercore ISI.

Wondering if you could give just a little more commentary on occupancy expectations. If I look at your kind of same-store quarter-end occupancy versus the total portfolio, it's a delta of about 600 basis points versus 400 basis points on average the 4 quarters before. So it seems like you're going to get towards that midpoint of the same-store average occupancy guidance, but should we see that spread narrow? Should we see it widen as we get throughout the year? Like if there's any numbers you can kind of put around that, that would be helpful.

Yes. Thanks for the question, Griff. Appreciate it. But yes, we ended the quarter for same-property occupancy at what 95.7%. We should end at the same level. So it will dip here in a second and third quarter and an increase in the fourth quarter. As we think about our portfolio occupancy, it did take a dip of about 170 basis points since last quarter, and that was primarily related to repositioning and redevelopments that we put into the active arena. And that should end the year right around 90% to 91% or so.

Our next question comes from Vikram Malhotra from Mizuho.

I guess you've alluded to sort of long-term value creation through development, but also to the private market kind of being 5 or sub-5. So I'm just wondering like as you sell assets, like how much could you sell? And then what about using proceeds for buybacks given kind of where the stock is relative to what you just said the private market is trading at?

Vikram, this is Mike. First, as you know, we're a capital-intensive business. We have many, many competing uses of capital. The highest risk-adjusted returns that we're achieving today, as we just noted on the previous question, is repositioning and redevelopments. Like I said, we have 5 projects and a return on an incremental basis, about 20%. We have $15 million of net NOI contribution in 2025. This really positions Rexford up for outsized growth over the medium and long term.

As we think about it, the $600 million of cash that we have sitting on the balance sheet, we're offensive. We're an offensive position. We have an opportunity to be very patient. And it goes back to our core tenets of how we think about our capital allocation philosophy and that's accretive to earnings, balance sheet, NAV and portfolio quality and reinvesting inside our assets and improving the functionality is the best return that we're getting today.

Now in terms of dispositions, today, we have about $30 million or so that is under contract. And beyond that, I think it's too early to give you a guidance on what we could sell later in the year. But it is an attractive use of capital, as Howard pointed out earlier, where we were able to sell in the low 4% area.

Our last question today will come from Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo.

Mike, it's helpful to hear you all went through a stress test on operating results and still feel good about the low end of FFO guidance, but I'm wondering if you can talk about some of the specific assumptions in that stress test as it relates to occupancy, rents and bad debts. And I guess, how you think that scenario would likely impact same-store numbers as well?

Yes, I can provide you with a little more insight there, and I appreciate the follow-up question, Blaine. Like I mentioned earlier, the 4 variables that we look at are projected lease-up timing related to reposition or redevelopment, market rent change, bad debt and same-property occupancy. Now as it relates to core FFO, we -- if you project another month of downtime or lease-up time related to reposition and redevelopment, that's about $0.01 or so than market rent decline of 10% and a 25 basis point increase, 100 basis points for bad debt. That's another $0.01 and on same-property occupancy if we went down to where we were more towards the GFC of about 50 basis points, it's another $0.005 to $0.01. So it gets it to the bottom end of the range for core FFO.

And we'll take one last question from Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank.

Could you guys talk a little bit about 3PL exposure within the portfolio, just kind of given your markets generally are big Asian 3PL markets?

Sure. Tayo, it's Howard. Well, first of all, we have very limited 3PL exposure in our portfolio. And today, we look at 3PLs in the market and they're turning out to be a great solution for a lot of the uncertainty that tenants have, meaning that they're able to take tenants short term, they can expand, contract their needs very quickly. And then to the other part of your question on some of the Asian 3PLs that are in the marketplace. We've done a great job of really being selective on any tenant coming into our portfolio, whether it's 3PL, manufacturer, distributor, we're very thorough in our credit analysis. And to be honest with you, we turned down many, many tenants that we don't actually want to bring into the portfolio.

That said, we do have some Asian 3PL companies, but they are very well established in the market. They've been around for a long time. They have solid businesses and we may expand them or we may -- we're actually negotiating a deal right now on a 190,000 foot building with a Chinese 3PL that's been in the market a long time and has a good credit profile.

What you hear in the marketplace are some of these 3PLs coming to the market that have no credit and people because they have vacancy and are in dire need for occupancy or taking some of those. And those are highly risky and are not the type of uses that we're going to ever put into the Rexford portfolio.

This will conclude today's Q&A session. I would like to turn the call back over to Laura Clark for closing remarks.

Rexford delivered strong first quarter performance and that underscores the power of our platform and the rigor of our execution. In the face of ongoing uncertainty today, our high-performing and full portfolio and significant embedded growth positions us to navigate through these near-term headwinds and to deliver long-term value. We thank you all for your time with Rexford today.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.