• REIT - Residential
  • Real Estate
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. logo
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
AVB · US · NYSE
211.75
USD
+2.39
(1.13%)
Executives
Name Title Pay
Mr. Edward M. Schulman Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary 1.21M
Mr. Kevin P. O'Shea Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer 1.83M
Ms. Keri A. Shea Senior Vice President of Finance, Principal Accounting Officer & Treasurer --
Ms. Alaine S. Walsh Executive Vice President of Human Capital & Administration --
Mr. Ronald S. Ladell Senior Vice President of Development - New Jersey --
Mr. Benjamin W. Schall President, Chief Executive Officer & Director 3.07M
Mr. Sean J. Breslin Chief Operating Officer 1.97M
Mr. Matthew H. Birenbaum Chief Investment Officer 1.93M
Mr. Jason Reilley Vice President of Investor Relations --
Mr. Kurt D. Conway Senior Vice President of Brand Strategy & Marketing --
Insider Transactions
Date Name Title Acquisition Or Disposition Stock / Options # of Shares Price
2024-08-06 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 207.1682
2024-08-06 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 861 205.97
2024-08-05 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 208.9016
2024-08-05 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 209.4922
2024-08-06 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 208.9
2024-08-01 Thomas Pamela Rogers Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1878 0
2024-07-08 Thomas Pamela Rogers - 0 0
2024-05-23 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 Howard Christopher B. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-23 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 980 0
2024-05-15 Howard Christopher B. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 126 0
2024-05-15 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 126 0
2024-05-15 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 164 0
2024-05-15 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 170 0
2024-05-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 500 0
2024-03-08 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 185.6497
2024-03-07 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1750 185.1
2024-03-01 Walsh Alaine Susan Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 379 0
2024-03-01 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 807 0
2024-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6221 0
2024-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7162 0
2024-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2972 0
2024-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 484 0
2024-03-01 Schall Benjamin CEO & President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 14785 0
2024-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7032 0
2024-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 22200 0
2024-03-01 Howard Christopher B. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 140 0
2024-03-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 140 0
2024-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 182 0
2024-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 189 0
2024-02-13 Walsh Alaine Susan Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 699 0
2024-02-13 Walsh Alaine Susan Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1744 0
2024-02-13 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1745 0
2024-02-13 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1161 0
2024-02-13 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9311 0
2024-02-13 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5936 0
2024-02-13 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10477 0
2024-02-13 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6612 0
2024-02-13 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10477 0
2024-02-13 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5990 0
2024-02-13 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 44617 0
2024-02-13 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4812 0
2024-02-13 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4460 0
2024-02-13 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1047 0
2024-02-13 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 630 0
2024-02-13 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 29099 0
2024-02-13 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7789 0
2024-02-13 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12651 172.11
2024-02-01 Schall Benjamin CEO & President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3360 0
2024-01-29 Walsh Alaine Susan Executive Vice President D - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2023-03-01 Walsh Alaine Susan Executive Vice President D - Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2444 180.32
2024-01-09 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - J-Other Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 359 0
2023-12-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 125 0
2023-12-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - J-Other Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8455 0
2023-12-04 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - J-Other Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 224 0
2023-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 190 0
2023-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 183 0
2023-12-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 140 0
2023-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 169 0
2023-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 165 0
2023-09-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 138 0
2023-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 179 0
2023-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 186 0
2023-08-11 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3331 186.25
2023-08-11 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 500 0
2023-06-01 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Howard Christopher B. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-06-01 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 990 0
2023-05-23 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 171 0
2023-05-23 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 143 0
2023-05-23 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 186 0
2023-05-23 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 171 0
2023-05-22 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4000 176.0992
2023-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 368 0
2023-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1598 0
2023-03-01 Schall Benjamin CEO & President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5981 0
2023-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3696 0
2023-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 16111 0
2023-03-01 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 529 0
2023-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4133 0
2023-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4272 0
2023-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 178 0
2023-03-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 149 0
2023-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 193 0
2023-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 178 0
2023-02-23 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 422 0
2023-02-23 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 905 0
2023-02-23 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1936 0
2023-02-23 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2263 0
2023-02-23 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 11703 0
2023-02-23 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6379 0
2023-02-23 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10073 177.83
2023-02-23 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3745 0
2023-02-23 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5326 0
2023-02-23 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 17944 0
2023-02-23 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 609 0
2023-02-23 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1243 0
2023-02-23 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4212 0
2023-02-23 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6403 0
2023-02-23 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4212 0
2023-02-23 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6528 0
2023-02-01 Schall Benjamin CEO & President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3359 0
2023-01-30 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 379 0
2022-12-20 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director D - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2022-10-20 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2022-10-20 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J director I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2022-05-26 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 172 0
2022-12-01 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 144 0
2022-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 187 0
2022-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 172 0
2022-12-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 47 0
2022-11-30 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 546 0
2022-11-01 MUELLER CHARLES E JR director D - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2022-09-01 Swanezy Susan A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 147 0
2022-09-01 Lynch Nnenna A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2022-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 159 0
2022-09-01 Brown Terry S. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 147 0
2022-05-26 WALTER W EDWARD A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Swanezy Susan A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Lynch Nnenna A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Lieb Richard J A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Howard Christopher B. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Hills Stephen P. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 HAVNER RONALD L JR A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 BUCKELEW ALAN A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Brown Terry S. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-26 Aeppel Glyn A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 852 0
2022-05-18 Swanezy Susan A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 130 0
2022-05-18 Lynch Nnenna A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2022-05-18 HAVNER RONALD L JR A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 143 0
2022-05-18 Brown Terry S. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 130 0
2022-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 436 0
2022-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2535 0
2022-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5392 0
2022-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Executive Chairman D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 21739 0
2022-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Executive Chairman D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 100 0
2022-03-01 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 668 0
2022-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5964 0
2022-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5925 0
2022-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 120 0
2022-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2022-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2022-03-01 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 96 0
2022-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2022-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2022-02-17 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 489 0
2022-02-17 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 365 0
2022-02-17 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2099 0
2022-02-17 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1575 0
2022-02-17 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4665 0
2022-02-01 Schall Benjamin CEO & President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3582 0
2022-02-17 Schall Benjamin CEO & President A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8304 236.14
2022-02-17 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4126 0
2022-02-17 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3896 0
2022-02-17 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Executive Chairman A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 20270 0
2022-02-17 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Executive Chairman A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10201 0
2022-02-17 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 706 0
2022-02-17 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 756 0
2022-02-17 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4668 0
2022-02-17 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4696 0
2022-02-17 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4668 0
2022-02-17 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5702 0
2021-12-31 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Executive Chairman I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2021-12-31 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2021-12-31 Breslin Sean J. officer - 0 0
2021-12-31 Birenbaum Matthew H. officer - 0 0
2021-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 114 0
2021-12-01 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 98 0
2021-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 125 0
2021-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 114 0
2021-11-23 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 245.4269 240.9427
2021-11-17 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 243.7931
2021-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 113 0
2021-09-01 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 97 0
2021-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 124 0
2021-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 113 0
2021-03-18 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 100 0
2021-08-31 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 21843 228.49
2021-08-26 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 224.1
2021-08-19 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1760 222.7601
2021-08-19 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1760 222.7601
2021-08-06 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 426 229.5153
2021-08-05 Lockridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1862 228.92
2021-08-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 228.6
2021-06-03 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 994 212.9414
2021-06-02 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 212.03
2021-05-27 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Lynch Nnenna director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Howard Christopher B. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 BUCKELEW ALAN director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-27 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 833 0
2021-05-24 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1271 204.27
2021-05-24 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 204.185
2021-05-20 Lynch Nnenna director D - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2021-05-19 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 146 0
2021-05-19 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 133 0
2021-05-19 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 133 0
2021-03-01 Lockeridge Joanne M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 755 0
2021-03-01 Lockeridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 886 0
2021-03-01 Lockeridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2021-03-01 Lockeridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2023-03-01 Lockeridge Joanne M Executive Vice President D - Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4365 180.32
2021-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 523 0
2021-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 562 0
2021-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2091 0
2021-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2517 0
2021-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4065 0
2021-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4065 0
2021-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5358 0
2021-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5358 0
2021-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 20326 0
2021-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 20326 0
2021-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 25597 0
2021-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 25597 0
2021-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2227 0
2021-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2227 0
2021-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3037 0
2021-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3037 0
2021-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4530 0
2021-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6073 0
2021-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4530 0
2021-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6053 0
2021-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 148 0
2021-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 162 0
2021-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 148 0
2021-02-25 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 395 0
2021-02-25 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 395 0
2021-02-25 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3142 180.32
2021-02-25 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3142 180.32
2021-02-25 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1891 0
2021-02-25 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 6983 180.32
2021-02-25 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4215 0
2021-02-25 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13966 180.32
2021-02-25 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8822 0
2021-02-25 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 69832 180.32
2021-02-25 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2768 0
2021-02-25 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8729 180.32
2021-02-25 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4232 0
2021-02-25 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 17458 180.32
2021-02-25 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3963 0
2021-02-25 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 17458 180.32
2020-12-31 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2020-12-31 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President I - Common Stock, par value $.01 0 0
2021-02-01 Schall Benjamin President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 27691 0
2021-01-25 Schall Benjamin President D - No securities of the issuer are beneficially held. 0 0
2020-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 134 0
2020-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 172 0
2020-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 157 0
2020-11-16 WALTER W EDWARD director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0.9685 173.35
2020-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 142 0
2020-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 182 0
2020-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 166 0
2020-05-19 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 SARLES H JAY director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 BUCKELEW ALAN director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-19 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1099 0
2020-05-11 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 167 0
2020-05-11 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 143 0
2020-05-11 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 183 0
2020-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 18030 0
2020-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 434 0
2020-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2330 0
2020-03-03 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 210.58
2020-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4034 0
2020-03-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1714 211.5286
2020-03-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 248 212.111
2020-03-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3150 212.148
2020-03-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 102 212.185
2020-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2735 0
2020-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4557 0
2020-02-24 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 450 0
2020-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4924 0
2020-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2020-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2020-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 143 0
2020-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 131 0
2020-02-13 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1307 0
2020-02-13 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4891 0
2020-02-13 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10938 0
2020-02-13 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 39881 0
2020-02-13 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6420 0
2020-02-13 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 11646 0
2020-02-13 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 11821 0
2019-12-31 SARLES H JAY - 0 0
2019-12-31 Birenbaum Matthew H. officer - 0 0
2019-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 134 0
2019-12-04 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 700 214.3357
2019-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 105 0
2019-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 122 0
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1544 130.23
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 777 213.5071
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 469 213.42
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 235 0
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 777 130.23
2019-11-21 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 767 130.23
2019-11-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 26634 126.78
2019-11-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 20861 213.4396
2019-11-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5773 214.1868
2019-11-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 11896 0
2019-11-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 26634 126.78
2019-09-05 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2500 215.1145
2019-09-03 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1301 213.4653
2019-09-03 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 214
2019-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 106 0
2019-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 106 0
2019-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 135 0
2019-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2019-06-11 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2500 209.0692
2019-06-10 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 209.2751
2019-06-11 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 210
2019-06-12 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 210
2019-06-06 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 206.9304
2019-05-23 Swanezy Susan - 0 0
2019-05-23 HAVNER RONALD L JR - 0 0
2019-05-23 Brown Terry S. - 0 0
2019-05-15 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2019-05-15 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2019-05-15 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 112 0
2019-05-24 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 250 205.4873
2019-05-24 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 250 205.4873
2019-05-23 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 SARLES H JAY director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 BUCKELEW ALAN director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-23 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 785 0
2019-05-06 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1131 200.0907
2019-03-07 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 13 0
2019-05-02 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 201.751
2019-03-14 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1992 130.23
2019-03-14 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1992 198.925
2019-03-14 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2100 198.9604
2019-03-14 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 1992 130.23
2019-03-13 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2120 199.77
2019-03-14 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 380 199.73
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 17850 132.95
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 25682 130.23
2019-03-08 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2093 130.23
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 767 130.23
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 752 132.95
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1023 195.5
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 43532 196.39
2019-03-08 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 20957 196.36
2019-03-08 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3300 197
2019-03-08 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 100 0
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 26449 130.23
2019-03-08 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 2093 130.23
2019-03-07 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 18602 132.95
2019-03-08 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4956 195.96
2019-03-07 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 767 130.23
2019-03-07 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 752 132.95
2019-03-07 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1023 195.5
2019-03-07 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 767 130.23
2019-03-07 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 752 132.95
2019-03-07 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5000 196.23
2019-03-05 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2720 196.64
2019-03-06 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 780 196.5
2019-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4715 0
2019-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4002 0
2019-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 18296 0
2019-03-01 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4155 0
2019-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 490 0
2019-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2679 0
2019-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3309 0
2019-02-12 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 250 0
2019-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5146 0
2019-02-19 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 0
2019-03-01 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3808 0
2019-03-05 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 195.5
2019-03-05 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 196
2019-03-05 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 197
2019-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 116 0
2019-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 116 0
2019-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 116 0
2019-02-14 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5039 0
2019-02-14 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1119 0
2019-02-14 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4308 0
2019-02-14 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8553 0
2019-02-14 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 35078 0
2019-02-14 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5177 0
2019-02-14 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5696 0
2019-02-14 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9759 0
2019-02-14 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9588 0
2018-12-31 SARLES H JAY - 0 0
2018-12-31 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO - 0 0
2018-12-31 HOREY LEO S III officer - 0 0
2018-12-31 Birenbaum Matthew H. officer - 0 0
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3100 130.23
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 752 132.95
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 525 190.71
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3100 189.13
2018-12-06 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 266 188.5
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3100 130.23
2018-12-03 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 752 132.95
2018-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 118 0
2018-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 118 0
2018-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 118 0
2018-11-26 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2905 185.89
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7841 132.95
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7297 115.83
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8164 130.23
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 15639 186.5903
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7163 187.3878
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 500 188.12
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8164 130.23
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7297 115.83
2018-11-20 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7841 132.95
2018-11-19 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1880 185.0973
2018-11-19 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 186.88
2018-11-16 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1400 183.76
2018-11-07 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 182.2401
2018-11-06 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 179.5101
2018-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2018-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2018-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 123 0
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 130.23
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 130.23
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7200 182.2
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7200 182.2
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3000 130.23
2018-08-24 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 3000 130.23
2018-08-03 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 179.8455
2018-05-31 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 SARLES H JAY director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 RUMMELL PETER S director A - A-Award Common Stock , par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 BUCKELEW ALAN director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-31 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 846 0
2018-05-22 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 126 0
2018-05-22 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 126 0
2018-05-22 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 126 0
2018-03-01 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4193 155.05
2018-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 129 0
2018-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 494 155.05
2018-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2552 155.05
2018-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3336 155.05
2018-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 16713 155.05
2018-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3230 155.05
2018-03-01 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3760 155.05
2018-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 129 0
2018-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 129 0
2018-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4128 155.05
2018-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4128 155.05
2018-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4647 155.05
2018-02-15 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9191 0
2018-02-15 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1329 0
2018-02-15 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5231 0
2018-02-15 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9366 0
2018-02-15 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 39367 0
2018-02-15 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7808 0
2018-02-15 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7013 0
2018-02-15 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10813 0
2018-02-15 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10674 0
2017-12-31 SCHULMAN EDWARD M officer - 0 0
2017-12-31 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO - 0 0
2017-08-11 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7000 0
2017-12-12 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 25160 183.8409
2017-12-11 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 182.5
2017-12-12 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 183
2017-12-11 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 182.6501
2017-12-04 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 0
2017-12-04 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2000 181.89
2017-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 110 0
2017-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 110 0
2017-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 110 0
2017-10-11 Hills Stephen P. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 510 0
2017-09-12 Hills Stephen P. director D - No securities of the Issuer are beneficially held 0 0
2017-09-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 106 0
2017-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 106 0
2017-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 106 0
2017-06-09 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5112 74.2
2017-06-09 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5112 193.88
2017-06-09 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5112 74.2
2017-05-25 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 SARLES H JAY director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 RUMMELL PETER S director A - A-Award Common Stock , par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 BUCKELEW ALAN director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-25 Aeppel Glyn director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 703 0
2017-05-17 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 92 0
2017-05-17 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 92 0
2017-05-17 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 92 0
2017-05-15 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1764 191.8219
2017-05-11 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 192.3621
2017-05-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 225 0
2017-05-09 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2750 191.201
2017-05-05 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1500 192.1925
2017-05-05 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 5820 115.83
2017-05-05 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 17210 192.0472
2017-05-05 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5820 115.83
2017-05-02 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10000 115.83
2017-05-02 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 115.83
2017-05-02 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 75 0
2017-05-02 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10000 191.136
2017-03-06 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 0
2017-05-01 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 190.25
2017-03-08 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3560 182.1942
2017-03-07 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3877 182.1009
2017-03-07 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 181.7675
2017-03-06 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 182.6273
2017-03-06 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3000 182.6273
2017-03-06 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2750 183
2017-03-01 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3504 183.31
2017-03-01 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 471 183.31
2017-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2093 183.31
2017-03-01 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2093 183.31
2017-02-28 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1200 0
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 767 130.23
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 752 132.95
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 863 115.83
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1636 183.31
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2561 183.31
2017-03-02 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2500 183.0677
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 767 130.23
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 752 132.95
2017-03-01 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 863 115.83
2017-03-01 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3183 183.31
2017-03-02 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 183.5
2017-03-01 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3474 183.31
2017-02-24 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 250 0
2017-03-01 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 3123 183.31
2017-03-01 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2624 183.31
2017-03-01 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 13335 183.31
2017-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 95 0
2017-03-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 95 0
2017-03-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 95 0
2017-03-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 95 0
2017-02-16 Wilson Stephen W Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8353 0
2017-02-16 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1834 0
2017-02-16 Shea Keri A SVP-Finance and Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1834 0
2017-02-16 SCHULMAN EDWARD M EVP-General Counsel A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 7266 0
2017-02-16 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8464 0
2017-02-16 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 8464 0
2017-02-16 HOREY LEO S III Chief Administrative Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9986 0
2017-02-16 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 10906 0
2017-02-16 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 13146 0
2017-02-16 O'Shea Kevin P. Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 9826 0
2017-02-16 NAUGHTON TIMOTHY J Chairman & CEO A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 45472 0
2016-12-31 McLaughlin William M Executive Vice President I - Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 0 0
2016-05-02 O'Shea Kevin P. officer - 0 0
2016-12-01 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 93 0
2016-12-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 107 0
2016-12-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 107 0
2016-08-09 Breslin Sean J. officer - 0 0
2016-10-12 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 527 0
2016-10-12 Swanezy Susan director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 527 0
2016-10-12 Lieb Richard J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 527 0
2016-09-13 Swanezy Susan director D - No securities of the issuer are beneficially owned 0 0
2016-09-13 Lieb Richard J director D - No securities of the issuer are beneficially owned 0 0
2016-09-01 HAVNER RONALD L JR director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 100 0
2016-09-01 Brown Terry S. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 100 0
2016-08-09 Breslin Sean J. Chief Operating Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 1000 185.711
2016-08-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 2044 126.78
2016-08-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 4940 130.23
2016-08-02 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 250 0
2016-08-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 6984 185
2016-08-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4940 130.23
2016-08-08 Birenbaum Matthew H. Chief Investment Officer D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2044 126.78
2016-05-26 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 722 0
2016-05-26 WALTER W EDWARD director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 722 0
2016-05-26 SARLES H JAY director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $.01 per share 722 0
Transcripts
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference call.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Paul, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. . There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, the press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Ben?
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Jason, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I'm here with Kevin O'Shea, our Chief Financial Officer; Sean Breslin, our Chief Operating Officer; and Matt Birenbaum, our Chief Investment Officer. I will start by emphasizing a number of key themes that are top of mind and that we believe are important drivers of our continued outperformance and then turn it to Kevin, Sean and Matt to go deeper. . As usual, we will reference our investor presentation, starting on Page 4 as we proceed through our prepared remarks. Our operating momentum continued in the second quarter with us exceeding revenue expectations and also successfully managing operating expenses lower. Based on this momentum, we further raised our guidance for the year and are projecting sector-leading full year core FFO and same-store revenue growth among our closest peers. Our operating momentum through the first half of the year has been driven by better-than-expected demand with our core renter, the knowledge-based worker in a relatively strong position right now. Sectors of the economy that encompass our core customer are at effectively full employment with stable job and income prospects. We also continue to benefit from customers' strong tilt towards renting versus buying a home, given the lack of for-sale inventory and unaffordability. And finally, as expected, we continue to benefit from the low levels of new supply in our suburban coastal markets, a dynamic that should continue to benefit our portfolio versus most of the rest of the sector for another 12 to 18 months at least. Our strong internal growth is also being fueled by our continued progress with our operating model transformation. As we detailed at our Investor Day last November, our collective set of initiatives, from investment -- from our investments in technology and centralization to our reimagined operating neighborhoods are driving meaningful operating efficiencies and allowing us to drive healthy increases in ancillary revenue streams. We're on track with these operating initiatives for 2024 with a strong runway of future earnings growth ahead of us. Importantly, we're also increasingly tapping these operating capabilities to drive outsized yields and returns on new developments and acquisitions. Further to that point, our platform is uniquely positioned to continue to drive incremental earnings growth and value creation from our external investment activity. Our developments underway continue to outperform. During the quarter, we completed 3 new development communities at an impressive initial stabilized yield of 7.7% as noted on Slide 5. We are also incrementally more optimistic about new development adding 2 new -- adding 2 additional developments to this year's starts for a total just north of $1 billion. We're underwriting mid-6% yields on this set of new projects well within our strike zone of having 100 to 150 basis points of spread relative to market cap rates and our cost of borrowing. And as the final differentiator that I'll highlight upfront, we continue to actively reposition our portfolio for superior longer-term growth, heading from 70% suburban to 80% and 8% of our portfolio in our expansion regions to 25%. We believe we are now moving into a more attractive environment to execute on this repositioning, particularly with the froth in rents and cap rates off in our Sun Belt expansion regions. We're also tailing our portfolio in our expansion markets with lower density and lower price point assets at an attractive basis. At the bottom of Page 5, $500 million of the $900 million of capital raised year-to-date has been from asset sales at an average cap rate of 5.1%, which we are then reallocating into acquisitions in our expansion markets. The remaining $400 million was our prior unsecured debt deal with an effective rate of 5.05%, including the benefits of swaps we had in place, highlighting our relative cost of capital advantage. Before turning it to Kevin to discuss our updated guidance, let me touch on a couple of the details of our Q2 results. Page 6 provides the detail of our $0.09 core FFO outperformance in Q2, broken down by category. And please take note that $0.02 of this $0.09 outperformance was timing-related and costs we expect to incur in the second half of the year. Slide 7 Zoom's closer in on our Q2 revenue outperformance with better-than-expected outcomes on lease rates, occupancy and other rental revenue, partially offset by bad debt staying more elevated than we had hoped. Other than bad debt, our revenue momentum was strong, which is a nice segue to Kevin to discuss our updated and increased guidance for the year. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
Turning to Slide 7. You will see our updated 2024 full year financial and operating outlook. Based on our performance to date and our expectations for the remainder of the year, we are raising our projection for full year core FFO per share by $0.11 to $11.02 per share. This represents a year-over-year growth rate of 3.7%, which is a healthy 100 basis point increase relative to our outlook in April and a 220 basis point increase relative to our January outlook. We're also favorably adjusting our expectations for full year same-store revenue, operating expense and NOI growth. We now expect revenue growth of 3.5% and same-store NOI growth of 2.9% in 2024, which are favorable increases of 40 basis points and 80 basis points, respectively, relative to our prior outlook in April. Lastly, our midyear forecast includes a strong increase in new development starts of nearly $200 million to just over $1 billion of new starts in 2024. Matt will provide additional details on this activity in a few moments. Slide 8 highlights the drivers of the $0.11 increase to our full year projected core FFO per share midpoint relative to our April outlook. Encouragingly and importantly, strong performance within the same-store portfolio is driving most of the increase. In addition, we are benefiting from outperformance at our lease-up communities. These amounts are partially offset by other items, including minor adjustments in capital markets activity and overhead. Slide 9 provides a road map from our second quarter core FFO per share to our third quarter projected core FFO per share midpoint. Looking at the components of the sequential quarterly change, we expect revenue growth from the same-store portfolio and NOI contributions from lease activity and other stabilized communities to drive $0.08 of sequential core FFO per share growth. These contributions will be affected by a combination of higher same-store operating expense growth in the third quarter, which we expect will increase about 6% on a year-over-year basis. Adjustments in capital markets and transaction market activities which are primarily driven by recent net disposition activity in the last month, consistent with our sell first and buy later transaction strategy and by adjustments in overhead expenses. In the fourth quarter, we expect reduced same-store operating expense growth. And for full year 2024, we now expect same-store operating expense growth of 4.8%, which is a 60 basis point decrease from our last quarter outlook and an 80 basis point decrease from our January outlook. Based on our performance to date, and our projected core FFO per share midpoint for the third quarter, the implied projected core FFO per share midpoint for the fourth quarter is $2.84 per share. Notably, this strong sequential growth in Q4 is primarily driven by our growth from our same-store portfolio and our lease-up communities during the fourth quarter. I will now turn the call over to Sean.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Kevin. Turning to Slide 10. Key portfolio indicators were strong during Q2, and we're off to a good start in Q3. In Chart 1, turnover remains well below historical norms in part supported by a lower level of move-outs to purchase a home. In Q2 specifically, turnover was down 600 basis points year-over-year or roughly 12% and was lower than last year in every region. Lower turnover supported relatively stable occupancy and drove higher rent change as we move through the quarter. Effective rent change increased from 3.2% in April to 4% in June before moderating into the high 3% range during July. As expected, our East Coast regions delivered the strongest rent change in Q2 of 4.2% and with our Mid-Atlantic portfolio leading the way of roughly 5.5%. Our Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland assets continue to demonstrate strong momentum, but the District of Columbia is still lagging due to weaker demand which is in part due to the federal government's return to the office policies and ongoing supply, which is projected to be roughly 4% of existing inventory this year before declining to approximately 2.5% in 2025. Our Boston portfolio, which represents high-quality assets and predominantly supply protected suburban submarkets produced rent change in the high 4s during the quarter. New supply in Boston has declined from the low 2% range a year ago to roughly 1.5% this year and is expected to decline to just above 1% next year for the urban supply projected to be substantially higher than suburban supply. Assuming a relatively static demand environment, the outlook for our suburban Boston portfolio remains quite positive. The Metro New York, New Jersey portfolio 2/3 of which is diversified across various suburban submarkets in Westchester, Long Island and Central and Northern New Jersey, delivered 4% rent change during the quarter. Recently, the strongest growth has occurred across the various submarkets in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Long Island. Some of the more distant locations in Central New Jersey have lag as employees increase their in-office Workday requirements in the city. The West Coast established regions produced rent change in the 3% range our Sudattle portfolio, which is primarily located in east side and north-end submarkets, led the way with 6% rent change during the quarter. While there are some pockets of new supply in select suburban submarkets, most notably Redmond, most of the new inventory is concentrated in urban submarkets and is not competitive with our portfolio. On the demand front, major employers like Microsoft and Amazon require more in-person work has supported the increased demand we've experienced throughout the first half of the year. Northern and Southern California lags Seattle with rent change in the mid-2% range. In Northern California, we had better momentum in San Francisco and San Jose, with 3.2% and 4% rent change, respectively, during Q2. However, the East Bay remains soft with the rent change of 50 basis points during the quarter. Given the supply is projected to be below 1% of stock across the major markets in Northern California for this year and next year. trends could continue to improve in the near future to the extent we realize a modestly stronger level of demand. Moving down to Southern California. Orange County produced the strongest rent change at 4.2%, followed by San Diego roughly 3% and L.A. in the 2% range. Orange County and San Diego have been healthy markets year-to-date, but performance across the various submarkets in L.A. has been choppy and highly correlated with the volume of inventory returning to the submarket from nonpaying residents. As it relates to bad debt, which is depicted in Chart 4 on Slide 10, while we're encouraged with the year-to-date trends in underlying bad debt across our same-store portfolio, results were choppy during the second quarter. We're still expecting bad debt to average roughly 1.7% for the full year 2024 at approximately 60 basis point improvement from 2023. As we've stated previously, prepandemic bad debt for our portfolio was 50 to 70 basis points. So to the extent we reach that level, we realized an incremental $25 million in revenue or more over the next several quarters. Transitioning to Slide 11 to address our updated revenue outlook for the year. We now expect same-store revenue growth of 3.5% for 2024, an increase of 40 basis points from our most recent outlook. The increased outlook is primarily driven by stronger lease rates as lower turnover and stronger occupancy in the first half of the year allowed us to achieve higher rental rates than originally anticipated, a trend we expect to continue. We now expect like term effective rent change in the 3% range for the full year 2024, up roughly 100 basis points from the 2% level we expected at the beginning of the year. We realized 3% rent change in the first half of the year and expect to produce similar performance in the second half. We've seen rent change begin to moderate to start the third quarter and consistent with seasonal norms expected to decelerate through the back half of the year. We expect renewals in the mid-4% range for the balance of the year, while new move-ins averaged roughly 1.5%. The near-term outlook for lease renewals remains healthy with offers in the low 6% range for August and September. Moving to Slide 12. You can see where we're projecting stronger revenue performance relative to our prior outlook. In our established regions, we're expecting substantially stronger growth in New England, the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northwest. We we're expecting modestly better growth in New York, New Jersey and almost no change in Northern and Southern California. In our expansion regions, Denver and Southeast Florida are expected to perform slightly better than we originally anticipated, but our other expansion regions of Dallas and Charlotte are expected to be weaker primarily as a result of the continued challenging levels of new supply in those markets. And then finishing on Slide 13, we're on track to realize roughly $10 million of incremental NOI from our operating initiatives in 2024. You can see those results in our same-store portfolio in 2 areas
Matthew Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to our development communities. You can see Slide 14 details the continued impressive results being generated by our lease-ups. The 6 development communities that had active leasing in the second quarter are delivering rents $320 per month or 11% above our initial underwriting, which is translating into a 40 basis points increase in yield. And this performance is being supported by strong leasing velocity with these assets averaging 37 net leases per month which was an all-time company record driving our increased guidance for lease-up NOI for the year by roughly $4 million. On the strength of these results and with the transaction market providing more insight into current asset values, we are also increasing our projected development start volume for the year, as shown on Slide 15. We now expect to break ground on 9 new communities this year for a total projected capital cost of $1.05 billion with the vast majority of these starts in either expansion regions or the Northeast and almost exclusively in suburban submarkets. Three of these starts occurred in the second quarter, with most of the others expected in Q3. Based on today's rents, operating expenses and construction costs, these developments are underwriting to a projected yield of 6.4%, generating our target spread of 100 to 150 basis points over current cap rates and we control a total development rights pipeline of roughly $4.5 billion, providing plenty of opportunities for future profitable growth in years to come. Turning to Slide 16. After several quarters, which were quiet, we have also been active in the transaction market recently, closing on 5 dispositions since our last call for aggregate sales proceeds of $515 million. All of these dispositions were in our established coastal regions and they priced at a weighted average cap rate of 5.1%, reflecting an average price per home of $475,000. 3 of the 5 sales were also in urban submarkets where we are seeing better investor interest after several years where these locations were heavily out of favor with institutional capital. We've reinvested a bit less than half of this capital so far into 3 acquisitions in our expansion regions at an average price per home of $260,000 as we are starting to find attractive opportunities to buy the low replacement cost in submarkets and assets that we like. Our asset trading activity continues to move us closer to our long-term portfolio allocation goals of having 25% of our portfolio and expansion regions and 80% in suburban submarkets. We will look to redeploy more of those proceeds before the end of the year as well as bring several additional assets to market as we continue to focus on optimizing our portfolio as we grow. And with that, I'll turn it back to Ben.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Matt. I'll wrap up on Slide 17 with the highlights from our recent ESG report. Our efforts on sustainability are led by Katie Rotenberg and her team but it is a full commitment across the entire organization that enables us to continue to make meaningful progress on these collective initiatives, from reducing our operating costs and environmental impact to making ABB more inclusive and diverse and to all of the time invested via volunteering by our local teams, a huge thanks to all AvalonBay associates. And with that, I'll turn the call to the operator to facilitate questions. .
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Eric Wolfe with Citi.
Eric Wolfe:
You mentioned in your remarks the strong growth you're seeing in the fourth quarter, specifically I was just wondering if that's a good run rate for us to think about as you go into 2025 or if there's something in that number that wouldn't maybe carry over like lower seasonal costs. Just because you brought up the remarks, I don't know if you were trying to signal something about not your earnings growth going forward.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, Eric, this is Kevin. I'll take a crack at this one. Others may want to jump in. We weren't trying to signal anything about '25 in terms of our guidance yet. It's a little bit early at this point in the year to do that. Rather recently noting that the fourth quarter would be expected to have a sequential increase in earnings to get from that third quarter to midpoint core FFO per share guidance of $2.71 to the implied midpoint in the fourth quarter of $2.84. That 13% pickup is primarily driven by sequential growth from 3Q to the fourth quarter in the same-store portfolio. Much of it is a seasonal decline in operating expenses, but some of it is a sequential continued increase in same-store revenue item of business annual trends that Sean alluded to in his remarks as well some other adjustments. So that was really all we're trying to signal and road map to investors is the growth from 3Q to 4Q and the components and the sources of that being kind of coming primarily from same-store as well as continued growth from our lease-up portfolio as well.
Eric Wolfe:
Got it. That's helpful. And then in the presentation, you had some [indiscernible] about the sort of unevenness in buyback. Can you talk about what you're seeing there, why you're seeing it, and what you're seeing sort of suggests that it might be harder to eventually get back to that normal long-term average that you typically run at?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Eric, it's Sean. Yes, I mean, overall, what I'd say is you sit back and look at it relative to what we've seen in the last couple of years, things are absolutely trending in the right direction, right? So it's 2.3% last year. We're looking in terms of underlying bad debt. We're expecting that to decline down into the roughly 1.7% range for 2024. So it's moved in the right direction. Each month, each quarter it can be a little bit bumpy based on underlying activity. But I think we're trending in the right direction. We've not provided a precise forecast as to when we would expect it to get back to normal levels just based on the underlying activity that has to manifest itself in actually happening, which relates to court cases and various things like that. So we'll certainly provide our best insight as we turn the quarter towards 2025, but you feel good about the overall change from '23 to '24 at this point in time.
Operator:
Our next question is from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Is it fair to say that based on the some of the lease rate growth data that you provided for what you expect for the back half of the year, kind of in that 3%-ish range that the earn-in heading into next year should be around that mid-1% range, maybe a little bit below that heading into 2025?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Austin, it's Sean. Given where we sit here with kind of half the year left to go, it wouldn't be appropriate to make comments as it relates to what we think the earnings going to be in January. But you can sort of do some math based on rent change last year versus this year and try to reach your own conclusion on that.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That's fair. And then -- so just based on maybe the projected acceleration in same-store revenue growth from 3Q to 4Q, you mentioned that picks up a bit, and I think you highlighted in the presentation. I know you don't want to provide too much on '25, but is that directionally what you'd expect then see heading into next year, just given kind of the growth you're getting in the back half of the year on lease rate growth, what you're seeing from a supply perspective? Or is there something specific in the fourth quarter that's causing that to reaccelerate?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I think for the most part, Austin, if you think back to Q4 of last year, we have a little bit softer comps when we get to Q4 of this year and that is in part producing the expectation for a slightly better revenue growth in Q4 as well as the continued activity in a couple of areas. One, from an operating initiative standpoint, continue to drive other rental revenue. We continue to push that and see that increasing sequentially as we move quarter-to-quarter. And then consistent with my last comment, we do expect bad debt in the second half of the year, potentially by Q4 to be a little bit better as compared to where we've been. So there's a few things that are contributing to it. But I would say the softer comp from last year is really the primary reason.
Operator:
Our next question is from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Kevin, you mentioned that you expect same-store expense to rise, I think, in the third quarter to 6% before moderating back down again in the fourth quarter. Can you just explain that dynamic?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. John, it's Kevin. Sean may want to jump in here a little bit. Essentially, what you've got going on in the second quarter, third quarter is a seasonal uptick in the number of the OpEx categories, particularly redecorating utilities and marketing expenses as well as a timing-related increase in nonroutine expenses. So what you're seeing, you're going through the second quarter, third quarter, essentially $0.09 sequential increase in OpEx in the same-store portfolio. And then in the fourth quarter, you see that reversal seasonally in the fourth quarter for Roper [ph] going to be the sort of a $0.07 sequential decline from the fourth quarter in OpEx. So that's a little bit of the background on that one.
John Kim:
And then I wanted to ask about build to rent. It looks like you have a new project in this category in Dallas. I was wondering how you look at this opportunity going forward and how you anticipate margins in the build-to-rent format versus multifamily?
Benjamin Schall:
John, I'll start with a couple of comments, and I appreciate you calling out that new project in Plano. The BTR space, when people talk about BTR. Significant portion of it is townhome development, and that's a product that we're very comfortable with, one we've developed historically, one in which we own, operate and develop today. So it's a product that we like the prospects of going forward, you think about demographics, population ships, you think about what's happening in the for-sale market. And so we've been active in the townhome space, I'd say, increasingly active over the last couple of years, and it's some places where we're building townhomes in conjunction with our apartment projects. . We actually have some town owned projects that we built that are full townhome projects. So this -- as we go forward, the Plano project sort of fits that type of growth and our growth in BTR, growth in townhome, you should expect to come through our similar channels of how we've been growing, which is some through our own development, some through funding of other developers, which is what this Plano project was as well as some potential acquisitions.
John Kim:
But as far as yields and operating margins, do you find it similar to multifamily?
Matthew Birenbaum:
John, it's Matt. Yes, very similar. I mean, again, these are communities where it's 150 homes in one location with a small amenity package, including a clubhouse and a pool and the operating margins are very comparable to multifamily communities that we would have in that region.
Operator:
Our next question is from Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.
Jamie Feldman:
Great -- so I appreciate the color or the thoughts on the back half of the year in terms of your expected rent change renewals maybe to 4 to 1.5 [ph]. Can you talk more about by region, whether it's your major regions in the Northeast and the West or just kind of coastal versus Sunbelt, how you think that plays out? And then -- what -- how do you feel about visibility this time at this time this year versus this time last year? Clearly, we're heading into the slower season, but what feels different to you?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Jim, it's Sean. Why don't I take your second question first. Just from a macro perspective, I think we feel generally pretty good about the outlook that we provided. And I would say, just relative to last year, I mean, different things happening in terms of the general outlook, but I would say overall, each time we present our forecast, presumable we think is our realistic case for that forecast and the environment sort of dictates that. So I wouldn't say we're more or less confident this year than last year, per se, there's a lot of things that are happening out there that you could point to that you create concerns or you can create optimism, we try not to get caught up in that. As it relates to the outlook for the market, I'll try to keep it at a high level as opposed to going through all the regions, but we do expect continued outperformance across our established East Coast regions in the second half of the year relative to the Sunbelt and relative to the West Coast regions, generally speaking, with 1 exception potentially to be in Seattle, which has surprised -- I think most of us to the upside in the first half of the year and expect a solid growth in Seattle in the back half of the year. So without going through every region, I would think of it as East established, West established, followed by the expansion regions in terms of the latter of performance.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. And then thinking about the Dallas or the Plano asset, just -- how are you thinking about putting capital to work in development through infusions in [indiscernible] balance sheets versus on your own balance sheet? Is there something changing given rates are on their way down, it seems like the cycle people are getting more positive on late -- or late '25, '26 can look like? Do you think you pare back maybe some of these more capital infusion type investments versus just doing everything on balance sheet or keep the same mix?
Benjamin Schall:
Jamie, what I would call out as different going forward is we have, to a certain degree, institutionalized our programs are providing capital to third-party developers. And we think about that as additive to the external investment activity that we make through our own teams. As we look out over the next number of months and number of quarters, you can hear from us, we are incrementally more positive in and around the prospects on development. And we're excited for the DFP program because it potentially allows us to accelerate external investment activity, call it earlier in that development cycle.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Just one thing I'd add there, Jamie, just to be clear, whether we're doing it as an AvalonBay or DFP, they're both on balance sheet. We're both match funding them and they're being reported as consolidated communities. The only difference is that, in one case, our development and construction teams are actually executing on it. And in the other case, there's a third-party developer. But from a capitalization point of view, they are the same. .
Operator:
Our next question is from Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Kramer:
Great. Just wondering where you guys are going out with renewals for August, December and maybe even October, if you have that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Adam, it's Sean. We've mentioned that for August and September, renewals went out in the low 6s, which is the visibility that we have today.
Adam Kramer:
Got it. Helpful. And then just kind of a backward-looking basis, just thinking about kind of the cadence of particularly new and blended lease growth in May, June and July. Looks like a nice acceleration into June and then a little bit of a decel into July. Just wondering if you could kind of comment on kind of what happened, right? Was this kind of a typical seasonal pattern? Was this something different? Was this a pull forward of seasonality, just interested to kind of hear on a backwards [indiscernible] basis, what happened in the last few months.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Adam, it's Sean again. I mean I think the way it lays out is pretty consistent with historical seasonal patterns where you think about where you start the year in January, asking rents typically rise up through kind of early July, spending in the market, I'm kind of picking the average here, 6%, 7%, then you see a decelerate in the back half of the year, also consistent with seasonal norms. And so the acceleration that we saw was a combination of 2 things. One, the seasonal approach or seasonal factors. Second is just our overall revenue management approach. And what we saw early in the first quarter was better than anticipated occupancy, lower turnover. We hit the gas pretty hard as it related to asking rents. You saw that manifest itself in both renewals and new move-ins as we move through Q2. But as you see the seasonal peak in rents, and you try to make sure that you're maintaining stable occupancy, you start to see it begin to decelerate July, August time frame for the balance of the year. And so as you look at what happened, for example, from June to July, some markets were up a little bit, some markets were down a little bit. Overall, it was net down slightly 30 basis points from June to July, but it's not material in the whole scheme of things. But we would expect to see continued seasonal deceleration as we move through August all the way through the balance of the year.
Operator:
Our next question is from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Matt, a question for you on -- just to get a sense for how the economics of the development rights pipeline compared to the starts this year. So [indiscernible] and started an additional $1 billion of starts, how would yield compared to the 6.4% you're expecting for 2024 starts?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. John, it really is depending on the geography. So the next $1 billion versus starts, what are those yields going to look like, it does depend on where they are. So we're finding yields basically from here in the mid-Atlantic North to Boston, the suburban kind of medium density to lower density product mid- to high 6s to even pushing 7 or even a little bit north of 7 and some of our Jersey starts. What we're seeing in the expansion regions is yields kind of around 6%, low 6s. But again, cap rates are lower there as well. So that -- we still have that spread. And on the West Coast, it's hard to find deals that you can get a yield into the 6s which is why very little of the start activity is in those regions. So it would really depend on kind of the mix of business. And then the other thing I'd say is hard costs are moving, and you don't know how much until you actually bring the jobs to bid. So some of the acceleration that we're seeing this year is, frankly, because hard costs are coming in a little better than we thought. So those deals are starting to pencil a little better than we thought. So and we have more visibility into that on the jobs that are closer to start than the ones that aren't. So there are some deals that aren't going to be ready to start for another year or two, where based on the hard costs we looked at 12 months ago, they might be in the 5s, but based on our hard costs today, they might be in the 6s.
John Pawlowski:
Okay, that's helpful. But there's nothing unique or maybe a stale land basis that you've seen the 6.4% yield on 2024 starts. Is there anything unique that's inflating the expected yields on this year starts?
Matthew Birenbaum:
No. In fact, if anything, it's the inverse. The newer deals we're signing up have a lower land basis that's more reflective of where today's market is.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Great. Last question on acquisitions. Could you share the average cap rate on the 3 deals you acquired in recent months? And what's a reasonable base case of acquisition volume we should expect this year?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. So the 3 we bought so far, the cap rates around 5. And again, we sold the cap rate is just slightly north of that at 5.1. So that spread has actually come in some. I looked at last year that it was more about -- it was probably 40 basis points. So now that's one reason why we're looking to be more active because we feel like the trade is looking a little better. We are hoping to do at least another $300 million or so of acquisitions before the end of the year. We could certainly do more. We have more assets that we're going to bring to sale in the disposition market as well. So -- but it depends on if we find assets that we like.
Operator:
Our next question is from Josh Dennerlein with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Josh Dennerlein:
I was looking over the ESG slide, and I noticed you highlighted like solar sites, your team has activated in 2023. Could you remind us of just your goal on that front? And then any of that income from those solar sites is included in that $80 million of incremental NOI from the operating model transformation? Or is that something else or in addition?
Benjamin Schall:
On the second part, Josh, that's a separate bucket of activity. So that's not in the operating model, $80 million target. It's part of an NOI enhancing pool that also has the sustainability benefits associated with it. And so when we talked at the Investor Day around our increased menu and opportunity set to be investing back into the portfolio in the 10% to 14% type of range. Those solar projects were a component of that.
Josh Dennerlein:
Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. And then I just want to follow up on Eric's first question on the seasonality of expenses. You mentioned 4Q is a lower quarter. Could you remind us like the cadence throughout the year? And if there's anything we need to like kind of watch out for on a go-forward basis?
Sean Breslin:
I wouldn't -- I'm not sure anything to watch out for going forward. I mean, typically, and Kevin went through this earlier, but in terms of the sequence of OpEx, you do see a spike in the third quarter historically. And as Kevin noted, for this year, that spike from Q2 to Q3, about 1/3 of that's in utilities based on seasonal increases in energy and water and sewer and things like that, about 1/3 is in R&M seasonal increase in turnover, which is historically the case and some projects from the first half to the second half and then kind of nits and nats and then things slow down as you get into the fourth quarter. So I think that's normal. I think the pattern has changed materially. . What you should see going forward that would be different, and we have explained before, is that as it relates to the absolute level of OpEx growth, we have a number of things happening that will begin to dissipate in terms of the impact on the portfolio in 2025. So our OpEx guidance for the full year is the [indiscernible] that we identified, but there's about 160 basis points of unusual activity embedded in that, about 80 basis points from the burn off of various pilots, mainly for 21 days and then the net impact of the operating initiatives, primarily in utilities category with both telecom, Internet, things of that sort. So kind of the organic run rate is closer to 320 basis points for this year. And some of those elevated activities that I just mentioned will begin to dissipate as you get into 2025. So without providing specific guidance, there's a little bit more of a tailwind as we get into '25 related to those various categories, but the seasonal patterns won't really change if you think about it from quarter-to-quarter.
Operator:
Our next question is from Michael Goldsmith with UBS.
Michael Goldsmith:
Are you seeing any changes in resident behavior across markets? Or any sort of price sensitivity among your tenants?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Michael, it's Sean. In terms of sort of movement, if you want to describe it that way, nothing terribly substantial. The only thing that might be worth noting that has continued in Q2, we saw the same thing in Q1 is that in the tech markets, particularly in Northern California and Seattle, the percentage of new move-ins from a more distant location within that same region is a little bit elevated. So people that may have moved to second, third ring out or some rural locations during COVID over the last year, they have started to come back and closer. It wasn't like to move 1,500 miles away, but they moved 150 miles that type of thing. So that's the only thing of note as it relates to movement. And then your second question, just in terms of other resident behavior in terms of reasons for move-outs, the percentage of move-outs related to rent increase is above historical norms, not surprised just given the inflationary pressures we've seen across the economy over the last couple of years. But on the sort of flip side, you got to move out to buy a home is way below historical norms. And so renting is still the more affordable option, particularly in our markets where the spread between kind of medium-priced rent and medium price for home is equivalent to more than $2,000 a month is a big number in our established regions. Renting is still the most affordable alternatives. So people are potentially making different choices and other parts of their daily life. But that's the only thing of note.
Michael Goldsmith:
Got it. And my follow-up question is, it seems as though there's been a push for more supply in New Jersey, suburban markets. Is there a risk that similar supply growth could pop up in some of your other suburban markets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Michael, it's Matt. It's an interesting question. For sure, in Jersey, the late -- the last round of Mount Laurel kind of affordable housing allocations was more aggressive than the prior 3 rounds, and we've been the beneficiary of that with an increase in very high-yielding development opportunities. But it is -- it does -- there will be more supply in some of those inland suburban markets than we've seen in the past. We haven't seen that Boston, by contrast, the 4B framework has been the same for the last 30 years. There's actually a lot of towns that are kind of at their 40 threshold now. So as Sean mentioned, the suburban supply in Boston is pretty muted and I would expect it to stay that way. Long Island is another place where they don't really have the ability to force supply on some of these recalcitrant jurisdictions. The governor tried and got her head handed to ourselves. So I would say Jersey is probably the biggest example. The one that people talk about a lot is California, where the state legislature is trying to do things that would push jurisdictions to approve more housing. What we've seen so far is those attempts haven't been as effective as I think the advocates had hoped because it's still really, really difficult to make the economics work in California. So I wouldn't -- I wouldn't be concerned that there's going to be a sudden onslaught of supply there anytime soon.
Operator:
Our next question is from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Two questions. Just first, going back to the bad debt was really interesting that you guys presumably would have a higher, more affluent renter base and yet the bad debt remains elevated. It's certainly above like what MidAmerica was commenting on their call. And specifically, 2 markets that jump out are Metro New York, New Jersey and Mid-Atlantic with rival Southern Cal. So can you just give a sense of overall why your renter base, which assuming has pretty good jobs, one has higher delinquency. And then two, what's going on in Metro New York, New Jersey and Mid-Atlantic that's causing the delinquencies to be as high as they are.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex, this is Sean. Happy to take that one. In terms of trying to compare bad debt across companies, one, I'd say it's probably a little bit challenging just because we don't know everyone's policies and -- what I mean by that is everyone bills different amounts for different things. So when someone doesn't pay us, for example, we bill them for everything. We bill them for the rent, we bill them for the late fees, billing for utilities, there's lease break fees, there's legal cost. There are a lot of things that we bill for and through our customer care center, [indiscernible] we track it very carefully. So I don't know if everyone is the same or not, but differences in policies can impact what the level of bad debt is. So I don't know if there was the same or not, but no differences and policies can unpack. What's the level of bad debt side? it's hard to comment on specifically different customers. As it relates to the markets that you mentioned, yes, New York, New Jersey is an example. It's only 23% of the outstanding accounts that we have. but it punches way above its weight in terms of dollar value. So it's about 1/3 of the outstanding receivables that we have that we're trying to chase down. And the main issue there as you may know, from being there, is just the pace at which the courts are moving. It is the slowest jurisdiction by far in the country. And so we have almost 400 accounts out there in the greater New York Metro area, and a lot of them have been sitting out there for more than a year in terms of their current time sort of in the eviction process, which continues. So we continue to see faster movement in primarily in New York City, but it does extend to places like Long Island and Westchester. And then in the Mid-Atlantic, a lot of that is tied to accounts in the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, 2 areas that have also been slow and also have taken steps to try to give renters more time through free legal advice, delays in court cases and things of that sort. So there's sort of a combination of factors that have led to it where New York, New Jersey, the Mid-Atlantic and Southern [indiscernible] are kind of all in the general same range. And what we've seen some movement, we need to see faster processing and sort of the relaxation of some of these other supportive benefits to prospective extreme cases kind of dissipate to allow the process to continue to move So that's just because like John?
Alexander Goldfarb:
Yes. Second question is, on dispositions. Obviously, [indiscernible] jumped out given that you established a pretty good renter base there. But in looking over your Metro New York portfolio, you have a lot New Jersey, a lot Long Island and Connecticut, you really only down to 2, just New Canaan and Wilton, used to have Shelton, Stanford, a bunch of other markets. So is Connecticut just not a desirable market or you saw an opportunity where disposition IRRs were just way too good to pass up, and your intent is to rebulkup in Connecticut versus the New Jersey and Long Island.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Alex, it's Matt. No, it is -- we are almost complete with exiting the Connected market completely. You're right. If you go back, I think we probably sold 15 assets in Connecticut in the last 6 or 7 years. And once you're on that path to have a couple becomes very operationally inefficient. So you're right. I mean those -- the ones that [indiscernible] was among kind of the absolute most desirable of our Connecticut portfolio, but we've kind of made the decision that we're exiting that market. And so when you only have 2 or 3 assets left, it's kind of not worth it. .
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Omotayo Okusanya with Deutsche Bank.
Omotayo Okusanya:
I just wanted to ask a question on the regulatory front as you're kind of heading into the election cycle, if you're hearing anything at the state level and maybe some thoughts regarding the Biden proposal to have national rent control?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, this is Sean. Happy to take that one. We [indiscernible] front, there's a lot of different things happening across different states. So without being specific, I would just say that the various associations that we're involved with and others are very active in engaging with the local political folks as it relates to what's happening, what's being proposed ballot initiatives, various things like that. So there's a lot of engagement there to manage that activity, most importantly, to educate people as it relates to the pros and cons of various policies. I think the trend we've seen, generally speaking, is that both political entities and individuals are sensitive to Matt's earlier point about doing things that will impact the future supply of housing in a negative way. And I think that's something that has been good for the industry over the last couple of years. . The topic of regulatory control might challenge, but we understand the policy and its impact is absolutely the wrong policy. And for that same reason, there is plenty of engagement not only with the advised administration, but the potential 2 candidates, particularly through the National Multi Housing Council and others as it relates to any kind of national policy, which likely putting a lot of teeth to it. First off, is the States, but just the harm [ph] as it relates to the supply of housing, which is actually what they're trying to solve for. So I think there's slightly a road map there for other policies to promote some housing in areas where it's needed. That is not direct control in nature [ph]. But obviously, can't predict exactly what people may talk about in an election environment.
Omotayo Okusanya:
That's helpful. And then if I may ask one more. In your expansion markets, are you seeing anything different just in regards to how the competition is kind of behaving in light of kind of supply deliveries. And I know we have kind of had the classic use of concessions, but anything unusual in regards to this business practices to kind of shore up their financials that you may be seeing?
Sean Breslin:
Not necessarily. This is John again. I mean it's a typical concessions, 2 months, 3 months, depending on the lease term in the sort of hyper supplied market like part of Austin as an example, or maybe some of the Charlotte places like that, our field people with positive stuff like that, and nothing atypical from what you typically see in this kind of environment where there are pockets of supply commensurate impact on lease-ups.
Operator:
Our next question is from Rich Anderson with Wedbush.
Richard Anderson:
So in terms of your Sunbelt expansion, obviously, you're not getting any bargains there today. And if you're listening to MidAmerica call, things are trending in the right direction, at least eventually. Do you feel a sense of urgency to move more now than ever. And in part 2 of that same question is, can you characterize the nature of your sellers? And are you talking to any of the REITs in the cases where you are expanding through acquisitions?
Benjamin Schall:
Rich, this is Ben. I'll handle the first part, and Matt can talk to the seller dynamics. On the first part, and we think it is an opportune time to effectuate the trade. And Matt talked to earlier, sort of the upfront dilution has gotten pretty narrow as we think about selling older, slower growth assets out of our established regions and then reallocating that capital. The other part that comes to mind is I'm not a believer that, that window is closing. I think when you look at the supply dynamics that are going to continue to be a wait on operating fundamentals in a lot of those markets as well as that we're still a certain degree of the front wave of refinancing activity. I expect the window of opportunity to be with us for a while.
Matthew Birenbaum:
And Rich, in terms of who the sellers are -- what we're finding at least the assets we've been buying and then some of the others that we bid on and maybe haven't been successful. There's a lot of kind of institutional owners that are in funds where the funds are limited like vehicles, may be reaching the end of their 7- or 10-year fund life, and they're just in a position where -- and frankly, they're sitting on a lot of gains on those assets if they bought them back in '14, '15, '16, and even though not as much gain as what it would have been if they have sold it 2 years ago, they're still in a fine position. And so they're going to meet the market. Again, that's not the majority of the market, and that's why there's still plenty of assets that are not trading and sellers that are still holding out for yesterday's prices. But that's the typical buyer profile, it's usually a fund sponsor with institutional capital who's 3 funds later now, and they're closing out this one.
Richard Anderson:
But not your REIT [indiscernible] down there?
Matthew Birenbaum:
No, we have not -- we haven't [indiscernible] really anything that another REIT was selling.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. Second question. I think the townhome model is interesting when you consider millennials, building families and so on. Is that -- does that model work better in the expansion markets in general? Or is it sort of across the board sort of thinking in terms of that -- building out that product?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. It's an interesting question. It really does depend on the land economics. So you do see more of it in some of our expansion regions because land is cheaper there and the zoning is more flexible. So you're seeing a lot of it in North Carolina, we're seeing a lot of it in Texas, not so much in Southeast Florida because that looks a lot like the Northeast in terms of where rents are in land values and very little in California because again, kind of land values and -- the other key factor is what's the relative price of home versus the rent. And when you get into California where the homes are 7 figures, it just doesn't pay to build rental townhomes there. It does pay in some of these other regions, and those economics are a lot closer. .
Operator:
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to hand the floor back over to Ben Schall for any closing remarks.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, everyone. Thanks for joining us today, and we look forward to speaking with you soon.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilly, you may begin your conference call.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Diego, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.
As usual, the press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings. And we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Jason, and good morning, everyone. I'm joined by Sean Breslin, our Chief Operating Officer; Matt Birenbaum, our Chief Investment Officer; and Kevin O'Shea, our Chief Financial Officer. Sean will speak to our operating outperformance year-to-date and our positive momentum as we enter the prime leasing season. Matt will discuss the continued outperformance of our developments and lease-up and how we are strategically deploying capital to generate value. And Kevin is here for questions and is more than happy to speak to our preeminent balance sheet and liquidity profile.
Utilizing our earnings presentation. Slide 4 provides the highlights for the quarter and identify these key themes as we look ahead. First and foremost, we are off to a strong start to 2024 with first quarter results outpacing expectations. We were able to build occupancy earlier than expected, and we also experienced meaningful improvements in bad debt in February and March. Second, we feel well positioned as we enter the peak leasing season, given low turnover, solid occupancy and positive rental rate momentum. We also expect our suburban coastal footprint to continue to outperform, given steady and improved demand drivers and [indiscernible] delivering in our markets versus the rest of the country. Given our first quarter outperformance, applications for Q2 and improvement in underlying trends, we have increased our full year guidance. We also remain laser-focused on executing on our strategic initiatives, including our operating model transformation. We remain on track here to deliver $80 million incremental annual NOI uplift from our operating [indiscernible], a target we raised from $55 million at our Investor Day in November. And finally, with one of the strongest balance sheets in the sector, we are focused on growth opportunities in which we can tap our strategic capabilities from our operating prowess to our development strength to drive outsized returns for shareholders. With that summary, let me go a layer deeper on our results, the wider supply and demand backdrop and our increase to guidance. For the quarter, as shown on Slide 5, we produced core FFO growth of 5.1%, which was 350 basis points above our prior outlook. Same-store revenue growth increased 4.2% and 90 basis points better than our prior outlook. And our developments and lease-up are seeing strong absorption and achieving rents and returns above pro forma. Slide 6 shows the components of the Q1 core FFO outperformance with the bulk of the increase coming from higher same-store NOI. Revenues exceeded our prior outlook by $0.04. Expenses in the first quarter were $0.03 better than expected, while we note that $0.02 of this $0.03 is estimated to be timing related or in other words, expenses we still expect to incur just later in the year than we had originally forecast. Turning to Slide 7. Demand for our portfolio is benefiting from more job growth than originally forecasted. For our job growth estimates, we look to the National Association of Business Economics, or NABE, which has now increased its estimate to 1.6 million new jobs in 2024, up from the prior estimate of 700,000 jobs. This better job outlook provides an incremental list of demand, not necessarily on the same trajectory as it may have in the past, given that a disproportionate share of these additional jobs may be part-time and seem to be more concentrated in lower-paying sectors of the economy. As shown on the right-hand side of Slide 7, demand for [indiscernible] also continues to benefit from the differential in the cost of owning a home versus renting. This is true across most of the country but particularly pronounced in our markets, given the level of home prices, resulting in it being more than $2,000 per month more expensive to own versus rent a home. And this differential translates into record low numbers of residents leaving us to buy a home. Turning to supply on Slide 8. As we emphasized at our Investor Day, our suburban coastal portfolio, 71% suburban today and headed towards 80% suburban, faces significantly less new supply than many of our peers. In our established regions, deliveries will be 1.5% of stock this year and in line with historical averages. In the Sunbelt, by contrast, deliveries will be 3.8% of stock in 2024, significantly above historical averages. And with the lease-up of a typical project taking an additional 12 to 18 months, the pressure on rents and occupancy in the Sunbelt will last, at least, through the end of 2025, if not into 2026. This weaker operating performance in the Sunbelt is, in turn, starting to weigh on asset values there, which provides a more attractive opportunity for us to acquire assets below replacement costs as we continue on our journey of growing our expansion market portfolio from 8% today to our 25% target. With the supply demand backdrop and our outperformance year-to-date, we are increasing our full year core FFO guidance estimate to $10.91 per share for a 2.6% increase relative to 2023. With the detail on Slides 9 and 10, the bulk of the increase is in higher NOI driven mainly by higher revenue with same-store revenue growth now projected to be 3.1%, up from 2.6% in our original outlook. Before turning it to Sean, I'd also like to take a moment to thank the team and the wider AvalonBay associate base, who continue to execute at a high level and above plan. It is energizing to see the organization executing on the priorities that we detailed at our Investor Day, a collective set of initiatives that we are confident will deliver superior growth in the near term and in the years ahead. And with that, I'll turn it to Sean to go deeper and provide his perspectives.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Ben. Turning to Slide 11. The primary drivers of our 90 basis points of revenue growth outperformance in Q1 were economic occupancy, which accounted for roughly 1/3 of the total outperformance for the quarter; and underlying bad debt, which represented another roughly 20%.
Occupancy was about 30 basis points higher than expected, an increase from the mid-95% range at the end of last year to the high 95s for the quarter. While we expected occupancy to grow during Q1, it increased more quickly than we anticipated, reflecting strength in the underlying demand for our primarily coastal suburban portfolio and very limited new supply. In terms of underlying bad debt from residents. We ended up about 25 basis points favorable to our original expectations for the quarter, with all the improvement being realized in February and March. January was in line with budget at roughly 2.2% [indiscernible] declined materially to 1.8% in February and again to 1.6% in March, which is roughly 60 basis points below our original budget. We experienced a similar dip in May of last year. The bad debt has been reverted to higher levels in June. Therefore, while we're encouraged by results in February and March, we need to see a few more months at these lower levels to feel confident that we'll experience consistently better performance moving forward. From a geographic perspective, the favorable variance to our initial expectations was more material in New England, New York, New Jersey, Seattle and, to a lesser degree, in Northern and Southern California. Moving to Slide 12. Key portfolio indicators are very healthy during Q1, and our portfolio is well positioned for the prime leasing season. In Chart 1, turnover remains well below historical norms, in part due to a very low level of move-outs to purchase a home. During Q1, only 7% of our residents moved out of one of our communities to purchase a home. It wasn't that long ago that we highlighted 12% to 13% of move-outs, purchasing a home as being low. 7% is extremely low relative to the long-term average of 16% to 17% and certainly reflects the favorable rent versus own economics in our established regions as Ben referenced earlier. Given the low level of turnover, availability has been relatively stable and supportive of above-average asking rent growth recently, which is reflected in Chart 3 and accelerating rent change, which is reflected in Chart 4. As expected, our East Coast regions delivered the strongest rent change in Q1 at 2.7% with the East Coast established regions trending at 3% range, while Florida was sub-1%. We experienced positive momentum in rent change throughout the quarter across the East Coast markets, which was particularly notable in Mid-Atlantic, while performance in the District of Columbia has been soft and volatile due to a number of issues, including the impact of new supply. The Northern Virginia and Maryland suburbs have demonstrated continued positive momentum. Rent change for the West Coast regions was 1.3% during the quarter, with the Seattle market leading at 2.8%, which further increased into the mid-4% range for April. While urban Seattle is still soft due to a significant amount of new supply and weaker demand, performance across our primary suburban portfolio improved meaningfully during the quarter. In Northern California, while the underpinnings of better performance are starting to appear, it's not yet having a meaningful impact on current performance. Rent change was flat for the quarter with a positive rent change in San Jose being offset by negative rent change in San Francisco and the East Bay. Transitioning to Slide 13 to address our updated revenue outlook for the year. We now expect same-store revenue growth of 3.1% for 2024, an increase of 50 basis points from our original guidance. The increased outlook is primarily driven by stronger lease rates as higher occupancy at the start of the year has allowed us to begin to achieve higher rental rates than we originally anticipated as we move into the prime leasing season. We now expect like-term effective rent change in the mid-2% range, about a 50 basis point increase from our original outlook. The second quarter should trend up into the low 3% range before decelerating in the back half of the year, consistent with seasonal norms. We expect renewals in the low to mid-4% range for the balance of the year, while new move-ins average roughly 50 basis points, which reflects the low 2% range for Q2 move-ins before experiencing the normal seasonal decline in Q3 and Q4. In addition, we're projecting a greater contribution from the improvement in underlying bad debt with a full year rate of 1.7%, down from 2.4% last year and slightly more rent relief. And finally, moving to Slide 14, you can see where we're projecting stronger revenue performance relative to our original outlook. We're expecting the most significant improvement in Seattle and New England, which outperformed our expectations in Q1 and accelerated further into April, with both regions delivering greater than 4% rent change followed by Metro New York. The Mid-Atlantic is expected to modestly outperform our original expectations, supported by stronger performance in Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland. Southern California is also expected to perform modestly better than our original outlook, and we haven't changed our forecast for Northern California. So I'll turn it over to Matt to address recent lease-up performance and our capital allocation plan for 2024. Matt?
Matthew Birenbaum:
All right. Thank you, Sean. Turning to our development communities. Slide 15 details the continued impressive results being generated by our lease-ups. The 6 development communities that had active leasing in Q1 are delivering rents $295 per month or 10% above our initial underwriting, which is translating into a 40 basis point increase in yield.
And this performance is being supported by strong traffic and leasing velocity with these assets averaging 30 net leases per month in the seasonally slow first quarter, which grew throughout the quarter to nearly 40 per month in March. This outperformance is driven by 2 primary factors. First, since we conservatively don't trend rents and report our development economics based on projected NOI at the time of construction start until the communities enter lease-up, there's usually rent growth during the construction period, which provides some incremental lift to our development yields by the time of their completion. And second, while we are pretty good at predicting how the market will respond to our latest state-of-the-art product offerings and new development, we do still frequently see some additional premium as the market responds to the unit and community features we incorporate into our designs. Turning to Slide 16. While it was a quiet quarter for investment activity with no closed transactions or development starts, our investment plans for the year are still very much on track. We brought 4 assets in our established regions to the market in Q1, looking to take advantage of a potential lull in the investment sales market as many owners were waiting for interest rate cuts before getting going with their disposition plans. All 4 are now under agreement at pricing, consistent with our initial expectations with a weighted average cap rate of 5.1%. We expect to redeploy some of the proceeds from these pending sales into acquisitions in our expansion regions in the coming months as we continue to make progress on our portfolio optimization objectives to increase our expansion market allocation to 25% over time. Planning for development starts is also proceeding as expected with our start activity this year concentrated in Q2 and Q3. We are seeing some helpful construction buyout savings in certain regions, which will allow us to preserve our targeted spread of 100 to 150 basis points between development yields and prevailing cap rates. And in our SIP book, we continue to be conservative but do expect to grow that business line modestly through the course of the year. Fortunately, the $200 million in commitments in the program today were all originated in the last 2 years, are geographically dispersed across our markets, concentrated in submarkets with less new supply pressure and have initial maturity dates that are still 2-plus years out. So we do not have any legacy overhang burdening our loan book. It's also been interesting to see some larger portfolio transactions start to gain traction just in the past few weeks. This illustrates the continued attractiveness of our sector to private the capital and perhaps marks a shift in sentiment that might bring increased deal flow as the year progresses. We continue to preserve dry powder on our balance sheet so that we will be in a position to take advantage of future opportunities that may emerge, if they are aligned with our strategic priorities and our unique capabilities. And with that, I'll turn it over to Ben to wrap things up.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Matt. Our results to date have exceeded our expectations, and we're excited for the momentum we have heading into the peak leasing season. Demand is stronger than originally expected, and our suburban coastal portfolio faces meaningfully less supply than elsewhere in the country. And we're confident that we will find opportunities to put our balance sheet and strategic capabilities to work to generate shareholder value.
I'll end our prepared remarks there and turn it to the operator to open the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Eric Wolfe with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
It's Nick here with Eric. Maybe just on the capital allocation and then rotation into the Sunbelt. You made a comment in the prepared remarks about seeing opportunities below replacement costs. And so I was just curious if you can quantify kind of that. Obviously, it's probably range, but kind of how far below replacement costs you're seeing on average then also the size of the opportunity you're seeing in terms of product, I mean, on the market in those expansion markets.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Sure. Nick, it's Matt. I would say the discount replacement cost is obviously going to vary to some extent based on the age of the asset. I mean, in theory, assets that are 10, 20 years old should be trading below replacement cost because there is some depreciation there.
But we are -- I'd say we are seeing assets that are 10 years old. It might be trading 15% to 20% below current replacement cost. We haven't seen kind of brand-new assets coming out of lease-up come to market yet at compelling prices. I think people are getting extensions on their construction loans, and there's a pretty active bridge lending space. So we would look at those as well. So younger assets, I would expect the discount to be a little bit less than that, but we haven't seen as much of that yet. The volume has been [ light ]. And that's one reason that supported cap rates honestly being lower than I would have thought they would have been, but there is a little bit of a scarcity premium. And on the one hand, we're taking advantage of that as a seller, and that's one reason we brought some assets to market early because we anticipated that might happen. But as a buyer, that's a little bit frustrating.
Nicholas Joseph:
Would you expect some of that product to start to come to market? Or do you think it's more -- owners right now will be more of a wait and hold? I'm just trying to understand how kind of the current supply and the rate uncertainty may impact kind of your acquisition strategy and maybe urgency into moving into these, if we fast forward a year or 2, and the supply picture has started to improve.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean, who knows? I would say that there is more volume coming. And if you talk to the brokers, they'll say they're pretty busy with [ BOVs ]. This is the seasonal time of the year when you start to see an uptick in transaction volume.
Q1 volumes were down over -- below Q1 '23, which was down a lot from Q1 '22. And transaction volumes are now below where they were kind of in '17, '18, '19. So I think you will start to see some pickup in what might be available. And certainly, from our point of view, we're staying disciplined about it. But we are hopeful that we might move into an environment where we'll be able to start to accelerate our asset trading activity a little bit. We haven't done that much in the last, say, 4 or 5 quarters.
Benjamin Schall:
Nick, I'll add a couple of comments, guess it's well put by Matt. I generally see as our window of opportunity being open for a decent period of time and 2 primary reasons
And then the second part is on kind of the capital world, which we're really just at the front part of the wave of maturities of deals done 2, 3, 4 years ago. So I agree with Matt, not seeing a ton today would -- also not seeing a ton of dislocation, but it is still early. And we think we're well prepared to take advantage of it for the right types of opportunities.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.
James Feldman:
Great. So I want to go back to a comment you made on -- I think you said rents and occupancy in the Sunbelt could last, at least, through '25. The pressure on rents and occupancy in the Sunbelt could last, at least, through '25 and possibly into '26. So first, I want to make sure I heard that correctly.
And secondly, can you just talk more about what gives you the confidence in saying that? And if you think about we've got spring leasing this year, then it slows down at the end of the year, then you've got spring leasing next year. I think a lot of people think things will get cleaned up by then. But your comments kind of indicate they probably won't. So just want to hear based on data you're seeing or what you're seeing on the ground of how you think that trajectory plays out.
Benjamin Schall:
Yes, Jamie, I'll start with a couple of comments. So one is just the sort of the facts and the known dynamics that exist. Supply in the Sunbelt, yes, it is going to be peaking later this year, but it is going to remain elevated into 2025.
Second known dynamic is we know when projects are -- we know which projects are under construction, you know when those projects are completing, and you know the period of time associated with lease-up. So that inherently takes you out another 12 to 15 months depending on the size of the project and the velocity of that lease-up. And then the third dynamic, and this gets into the impact on NOI is the rolling through of rent rolls over that period of time. And so when you then think about sort of the last dynamic and the last effective NOI impact, that gets you into that early 2026 type of time frame. It's the area where, in our minds, it's sort of -- it's one of those known industry dynamics. And to the extent the economic scenario has gotten better, but in a, call it, a slower growth economic environment, overlaid on high supply in certain submarkets, we expect there to continue to be pressure.
James Feldman:
Okay. And then are there specific markets? I mean I know we've heard Austin, and we were [indiscernible] as kind of the poster child of the weakness. But when you think about all the Sunbelt markets, I mean, you're painting a pretty broad brush. Is there some that really stand out that will be in pain for longer?
Benjamin Schall:
Yes. Austin would also be at the top of that list. Just look at percentage of stock coming online. That would be high up on the list. Generally, in the Sunbelt markets, the more urban-oriented submarkets are generally seeing the highest levels of supply coming online. And that's one of the reasons we've been conscious as we've been growing our expansion market portfolio to really push ourselves out further into those marketplaces out of a submarket or 2 with lower density product, lower price point. That is competing less directly with new supply.
James Feldman:
Okay. So it sounds like your Sunbelt expansion would still be mostly suburban, if you could find that.
Benjamin Schall:
It is. Yes, that's been a very conscious choice of ours. And we also think about it as complementing what we're buying with what we're going to be building. And so even to make the point further, what we've been buying tends to be slightly older product, lower price point, lower density products. Recognizing that our development, while it still will be suburban, will tend to be mid-rise and a little bit higher price point, once it comes to market. So we think about that as just our overall -- we talk about at a portfolio level optimization, but we also very much focus on it in terms of a market and a submarket perspective.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Matt, I just want to go back to the dispositions. You kind of highlighted the scarcity premium, but I'm curious if there was any specific factors related to the assets you sold sort of idiosyncratic factors that maybe benefited valuations you achieved? Or if you think that is reflective of valuations today? And then can you just share how deep the buyer pool was and whether or not there is financing contingencies?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. Well, the first thing I'd say is none of them have closed yet. So be able to provide more detail at the end -- on the second quarter call. But it's a pretty good mix. Three of the 4 assets are AVAs, so a little bit more urban than what we've been selling in the past, one in Jersey, one in Seattle, one in Boston, one in Southern California. So a good mix of geographies. And it continues to be a little bit of a bifurcated market.
So the ones -- the smaller deals, kind of less than $100 million, tend to be either private buyers, [ 1031 ] buyers, syndicators, little bit less institutional. And then when you get into bigger assets, that's where probably those buyers are using less leverage. And the cap rates are little bit lower if you can find -- if that's more of an institutional bid. But there's plenty of assets that are not getting that institutional bid. So it does really vary based on kind of where you are. And -- but one of the things that was a pleasant surprise is that even -- we have one larger urban asset, urban Boston, which is a relatively [ fair ] market. And the bid was probably deeper there than any of the others actually.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That's helpful detail. Just switching over to operations. Just wanted to hit on sort of the Bay Area commentary. You mentioned, I think, that the underpinnings of positive momentum were there. What's it going to take for that to translate into outperformance and sort of a little bit better and maybe less volatile fundamental backdrop? The Bay Area and then any other West Coast submarkets as well?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, so it's Sean. Good question and the question, I think, on a lot of people's minds. I think the way I describe it is, first, supply should not be an issue for an extended period of time. There are 1 or 2 assets in San Francisco as an example that are finishing lease-up.
But given the nature of the product, economics, timelines, that won't be an issue for a long period of time. It's really more on the demand side and making sure that I think for the most part, what we're hearing on the ground is that we really just do need business leaders to be more confident in bringing people back to their respective offices and opening offices in San Francisco. What's underneath that is making sure that the associate population for all those various employers is comfortable being in that market, kind of living [indiscernible] life issues. Certainly, the political dynamic has started to shift in a meaningful way. There seems to be some positive momentum there, but that takes time. So that's why I'd say that, that is probably the most important thing. Obviously, job growth matters, and it's been a little bit choppy. But we are seeing some good signs of life, particularly given the generative AI boom, so to speak. But it has not manifested itself into thousands of jobs showing up yet in these markets. And so I think the broad view around technology and that being the epicenter of sort of technology innovation is still present, more the confidence about bringing people back to work, particularly in San Francisco, I would say. We're starting to see signs of life of that in San Jose. There's more short-term demand than there has been for the last couple of years. That's an initial indicator that's positive. But it's sort of a mixed bag as it relates to San Francisco and certain parts of the East Bay.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And so just one quick follow-up there. I mean is that sort of sequential improvement, Seattle and Bay Area, are those -- given we weren't hearing you talk about this 3 to 6 months ago, I guess, is that year-to-date improvement in asking rents being driven by those West Coast markets specifically? Or is it just more broad and related to the lower turnover, et cetera, that you're seeing?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean as it relates to this trend at asking rents, that's primarily driven by the East Coast markets. And if you look at it on a year-over-year basis, the East Coast markets are up 2% to 3% versus the West Coast markets are up about 1% roughly. That's being supported by markets like San Diego, Orange County, parts of L.A. Certainly, Seattle has had a nice recovery.
We've been surprised, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, about Seattle. The trends and the firming in Seattle certainly seems to have sort of a greater foundation to it than what we've seen in the Bay Area just yet. And part of what's driving the effective rent change in Seattle in Q1 and into April is a pretty significant reduction in concessions. Concession volume for us, as an example, from Q4 to Q1, it was down about 70%. We incurred almost 900,000 in concessions in Q4 versus [ 275 ] in Q1 of '24 versus in the Bay Area, it was down about 20%. So you're seeing good trends, but I would say it's not being broadly supported yet by Northern California, more so the Southern California markets in Seattle as it relates to the West Coast.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.
Steve Sakwa:
Sorry. Sorry about that. Sorry. I guess on the Slide 13, the economic occupancy for 2024 is basically showing kind of no improvement. So I'm not sure what was in the initial outlook. But clearly, you had a 30 basis point pickup in the first quarter. And I think the [ comps ] actually get easier as time goes on. So I'm just curious, and given the top of funnel demand that you talked about being reasonably strong, I guess I'm just curious why you're not assuming maybe improved occupancy? Or is there something you're doing on the rate side that might keep occupancy growth at bay?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Steve, it's Sean. It's really 2 factors. One is what you described. We've seen sort of a faster improvement in occupancy. We experienced that in Q1. That is quickly translating to rate acceleration, which actually puts a little bit of pressure on occupancy.
And the other thing, if you think about it from a revenue standpoint with higher rates, the dollar value of each vacant unit is actually higher. So it doesn't contribute as much to revenue as you might think when you look at it from that perspective. Anything that is vacant is worth more, and so it does sort of weigh on the revenue side of it. But those are the 2 primary reasons. In terms of physical occupancy, we expect it to be roughly about a push by the time we get to year-end relative to our original guidance. And that's why it shows up that way on the slide.
Steve Sakwa:
Okay. And maybe as a follow-up, I think I heard -- I think you said that you were expecting about 4% on renewal growth, if I wasn't mistaken, maybe for the balance of the year. I don't know if I heard you say where you were sending out renewal notices for kind of the May, June, July period. But are those going out at substantially better than 4%, and you're assuming some discounting? Or could there maybe be some upside to that 4% number?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. You're correct. I did not state renewal offers. But renewal offers for May and June are around the high 5% range. So expecting them to settle sort of in the low to mid 4s is reasonable based on historical norms.
Steve Sakwa:
Got it. And then just lastly on development, Matt. You guys are starting a couple of new projects here, I think, in the second quarter. Can just remind us, what are you targeting on new projects today? I know that there's been some upside on the things you're delivering, but what's kind of the new hurdle in light of today's new interest rate environment?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, Steve, I guess, we -- there's actually -- it's not one number. There are different target yields for different markets and even down to different submarkets and also based on the risk profile of the deal. But we're generally looking for that 100 to 150 basis point spread to cap rates. What that's translating into kind of on average is probably a mid- to high 6s target yield. And then it's going to be lower in markets where deals that are less risky or markets where we expect stronger growth because ultimately, it's about the full investment return, the IRR. And it's going to be higher in markets that have the inverse of that.
And so where you see where deals actually clearing those today, we expect to start a deal in suburban Boston in kind of the mid 6s, which maps well to where cap rates are in those markets. We expect to start a deal in suburban Jersey, which is around a 7 because cap rates are higher in that market. And then Mid-Atlantic, it would also be around the 7, and then some of our expansion regions that might be a little lower than that, closer to 6.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Kramer:
Just wanted to ask about your expectations for West Coast markets. I think these are markets that lagged a little bit if I just look at your kind of market-by-market effective [indiscernible] growth in the supplemental. But they also have pretty high expectations for same-store revenue if I'm looking at your presentation correctly.
So I just wanted to ask you about kind of what's the delta there? Are there kind of outsized growth expected there in -- for the rest of the year that's going to bring same-store revenue to be one of the best-performing markets there, if I'm looking at your slide deck?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Adam, it's Sean. Good question. And one of the factors to keep in mind is what's changing in underlying bad debt across the markets. If you think about it, it was like rent change is one component, but changes in occupancy, bad debt, et cetera. And particularly for the Southern California market, I would say that is a meaningful contributor to total revenue growth in 2024.
To give you some sense in the first quarter, I think Southern California, roughly 40% of the revenue growth was related to just better underlying bad debt as we're -- those folks out, seeing the churn and then rerenting those units to people who are paying. So that is a driver. There's a table in the back. There are lots of attachment that gives you the change that we're seeing over the last few quarters in bad debt, and that may help you kind of map a little bit better.
Adam Kramer:
Great. And just maybe as a follow-up. You guys provided a really helpful kind of expectations for new and renewal growth for the whole year. And apologies if you've talked about this already today, but maybe just walk us through kind of what the updated expectations would be.
I think renewals prior were 4%. New was roughly flat, leading to 2% blended growth. Maybe just walk us through what the updated expectations are assuming with the new guidance that those may be a little bit higher than they were previously.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. What I mentioned in my prepared remarks is that we expect like-term effective rent change kind of in the mid-2% range, which is about 50 basis points above our original outlook. What I indicated is that the second quarter should trend up probably in the low 3% range before decelerating in the back half of the year.
As it relates to renewals, kind of low to mid-4% range for the balance of the year, while new move-ins averaged roughly 50 basis points, which sort of reflects maybe the low 2% range for Q2, before experiencing kind of the normal seasonal decline in Q3 and Q4. So that's kind of how we're looking at it right now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Part of your beat and guidance raise was due to better-than-expected capital markets activity. And I was wondering what component of capital markets outperformed your expectations. Last quarter, you gave a pretty good breakdown on that $0.29 headwind, which has improved slightly.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, John, this is Kevin. Really, the $0.02 from better-than-expected capital markets activity was primarily driven by a combination of favorable interest expense and interest income as well as slightly higher budgeted -- higher-than-budgeted capital interest expense. So it's really in those categories where most of the favorability was realized.
John Kim:
What about your cap rate expectations either on sales or investments?
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, I was referring to Q1. We didn't have any transactions that closed in Q1. So transaction activity cap rates did not really have an impact. As you look at the full year guidance, we expect basically due to adjustments in a range of things that fall with the capital markets activity such as buying and selling assets and then movement of interest rates on existing debt and additional debt activity that we have anticipated.
We anticipate getting $0.01 of the $0.02 back and being net favorable by $0.01 for the full year on capital markets, in terms of our core FFO relative to our initial outlook. So we're early in the year in terms of what we will do broadly in terms of transaction activity, capital markets activity. So haven't made a lot of adjustments, but there's been some movement that caused that additional $0.01 shortfall in the back half, back 3 quarters of the year that leave us sort of getting $0.01 of the $0.02 back later in the year on that line item.
John Kim:
Okay. My second question is on the SIP program, where you mentioned that you had a favorable vintage '22 and '23 originations. I was wondering when some of those '22 originations start to get paid off. And forward and reinvest some of the proceeds. What metrics do you look at or monitor whether it's exit cap rate or [ tenure ] or maybe supply that would make you more cautious on reinvesting in the program?
Matthew Birenbaum:
John, it's Matt. So the only deal that we have that matures next year '25 is a very small $13 million loan in Northern New Jersey, very stable, strong market. So all the other ones don't mature until '26 or later. So it wasn't necessarily kind of first in, first out, so to speak.
So it's still quite a ways out there. And we're still building the book. So we haven't really focused too much on reinvesting, getting that money back. We're still -- we're at $200 million in the program today. I think our long-term goal is for it to be around 400, 400 or 500. So we're hoping to grow that total balance maybe $75 million this year and then continue from there in '26. At some point, yes, we'll have to -- we'll face that revolving door where we start getting redemptions. But we're still, at least, a couple of years away from that.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Ben, I just want to explore a big picture topic you mentioned. You were talking about the differential between owning and renting in your markets is really wide. Rents are benefiting from that. Is there any historical time period where we could kind of look back at where the delta was this wide? And if so, just like how did it play out on the rent growth front?
Benjamin Schall:
I mean the rent versus own economics that we're seeing today are really unique, not something that we've seen. We've obviously, over time, seen small variations in that. But the combination of home price appreciation, particularly in our markets and the rise in mortgage rates has led to all-time levels, right?
I mean you're approaching where it's some of our markets 2x more expensive to own versus rent. And if we think about it kind of longer term and looking forward, I would frame it as that's an incremental cushion that we have that's supporting our demand on rental economics. So it may not stay as peak as it is today. Obviously, part of that is based on the trajectory of interest rates. But there's a nice cushion that should serve as a tailwind for us for a number of years.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Is there anything in your forecast like as far as rent growth goes? Or does your forecast assume any kind of like narrowing of that gap? Or would that be potential like upside? And maybe it's not just a 1 year dynamic, maybe it's multiyear. Just trying to think through [ potential ] upside from this.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean the forecast for this year reflected being a relatively stable level. Obviously, interest rates bounce around, prices bounce around. But in terms of the current year outlook sort of reflects generally where we are at this point in time have remained relatively stable.
Operator:
Our next question comes from [ Anne Chan ] with Green Street.
Unknown Analyst:
I'm just wondering have you seen any examples of things beginning to get more aggressive with property tax assessments of apartments to help fill the hole in budgets left by suppressed commercial real estate values in other sectors?
Sean Breslin:
Anne, this is Sean. I mean it's early in the calendar year for some of the assessment cycles that really are more heavily weighted towards kind of midyear and the back half of the year. What we have seen thus far is a little bit of an uptick in Washington State and Virginia.
We don't have insight into all the jurisdictions just yet. But in terms of our portfolio, that's what we're aware of. There's a lag as it relates to property tax assessed values. So our expectation would be there'll probably be more pressure on the Sunbelt based on the run-up that occurred sort of through COVID that's still working its way through the system before you see it in the next couple of years maybe start to move the other direction. So we haven't seen clear evidence of that for 2024 just yet, but that's kind of the high-level view.
Unknown Analyst:
All right. Appreciate that. And I'm just curious, what level of CapEx per unit should we expect in the next few years combined between NOI enhancing and asset preservation?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Anne, it's Matt. So our asset preservation CapEx has been pretty consistent over the last -- well, between '23 and '24, around $1,600, $1,700 a unit, which is, I guess, roughly 6% or 7% of NOI, 7%. The NOI-enhancing CapEx, that's where we really increased our investment or we're looking to increase our investment volume quite a bit. I think we invested about $75 million, $80 million last year across the whole portfolio, most of which I guess was same store. We're looking to double that this year.
A lot of that is driven by expanded solar production and by expanded the opportunity for the accessory dwelling units in California that we talked about it at Investor Day. And we think that's an opportunity that's out there for the next couple of years. So we're excited about that. And I would think that there will be the opportunity to continue to have those increased opportunities, at least, for the next couple of years.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.
Brad Heffern:
Yes. On the blended rate assumptions, the low 3% for the second quarter, maybe seems a little conservative given you would normally expect those blends to pick up further from here, and you're already at 3.3% in April. So is your assumed seasonality more muted than normal for the second quarter and for the rest of the year? Or am I perceiving that wrong?
Sean Breslin:
No, not really, Brad. I mean low 3%, 3.2%, 3.3%, somewhere in that ballpark. I mean we've seen asking rent growth kind of 5.5% or so through yesterday. That's played through just renewal offers that have already been made in terms of what our expectation is for rate growth. So it seems like somewhere in that range for the second quarter is reasonable. And then you will have to see how asking rent growth continues as we move through the second quarter.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. And then on concessions, you talked a little bit about the Bay Area and Seattle, but can you go through any of the other regions that have concessions and how they trended? I'm particularly thinking about the expansion regions, but anywhere else as well.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. What I would say, first, in terms of the expansion regions is we have relatively small portfolios in our same-store basket in those regions. So as you think of the expansion markets in Texas, for example, we don't have anything in Austin. There's only 2 assets in Dallas. We have seen -- at least in Q1, we saw a year-over-year increase in concession volume in Dallas. In the previous year, it was about 1/3 of all leases. It was roughly about half in Q1.
So Dallas -- Dallas is really a market, very large geography, broadly diversified, really depends on where you are. There are some submarkets where it's well over a month for almost every lease. There are other submarkets where it's half a month for some level of volume. So it really depends on where you are. If you move to the Denver market, it's really a story of urban versus suburban, as I think Ben referred to earlier. If you're in the urban submarkets where we have one operating asset, concessions are much more [indiscernible] as compared to the suburbs where we have most of our assets. And then in terms of our other expansion regions. In Charlotte, it's a similar story as Denver. We have some assets in the South end. Concessions are more pronounced there, average closer to 0.5 month for probably 50%, 60% of the leases versus you move to sort of the northern suburbs, it's quite a bit less. And then in Florida. Florida is a little more of an effective rent kind of market where people tend to price based on absolute rent and as many concessions for existing assets. Lease-up assets are different but existing assets, it tends to be a little more of a what am I writing a check for. And so they're most concerned about the lease rent than the concession. So that's a little bit more volatile, but we haven't seen a huge amount of concession volume. Again, I think that's more representative of the sort of market behavior than it is to our pricing dynamics.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho Securities. We'll move on to our next question. Our next question comes from Michael Goldsmith with UBS.
Unknown Analyst:
This is [ Amy ] on with Michael. Looking back, there have been periodic supply cycles in the South. So clearly, we're seeing supply starting to slow heading into '26. But as rents recover, how fast can development start to pick back up in the Sunbelt? And is that concerning to you as you look to increase your exposure there?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Amy, it's Matt. It is certainly true that there's less barriers. There's less regulatory barriers to entry in the Southern markets. And so supply is able to respond to demand much more quickly. And some of the supply kind of excesses you're seeing now are -- were a relatively quick market response to tremendous demand a couple of years ago that really started with COVID in some of those Southern or Sunbelt markets. So it is, I'd say, a shorter cycle, a more attenuated cycle. Demand comes, supply can respond quickly. But having said that, there is a lot of demand there. And the interplay between those 2 factors into our view on kind of our long-term portfolio allocation and trying to get to 25% there.
The other thing I would say is submarkets matter a lot. And there are -- even within some of these geographies and particularly the expansion markets that we selected, there are submarkets that do have some meaningful supply barriers. And those are certainly the submarkets that are more attractive to us, both for acquisitions -- and we're pretty good at unlocking those constraints on the development side. So you'll see that inform our portfolio strategy within each region.
Benjamin Schall:
Yes. I'll add to that. And as we're thinking about the opportunity set in the Sunbelt, we've got in the near term, the ability to buy below replacement cost and be at a good basis and find that attractive from a long-term hold perspective. We are increasingly also focused on bringing our strategic capabilities and particularly our operating model initiatives.
It's been driving a lot on growth for our existing assets, but we're increasingly bringing that to new assets that we bring into the fold. And as we get more and more density in the Sunbelt and our expansion markets, we expect that flywheel to accelerate. There is the land side and the opportunity with less competition in these markets to be finding attractive land structured appropriately, some of which will make sense to start more immediately and some of which could position us longer term to generate value. And then kind of a fourth driver of value for us is in a world where capital is less abundant, our ability to provide capital to other developers. And we've used that as a tool for growth in our expansion regions. And for sure, in today's environment are seeing a better quality sponsor, better quality real estate, better return profile there. So it's that combination of opportunities that we'll tap into to drive our longer-term expansion of those markets.
Unknown Analyst:
Great. And then just a quick follow-up on that. What are you seeing in terms of land cost currently?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Land costs?
Unknown Analyst:
Right. To acquire land, if you were going to buy.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. So it varies, obviously, a lot by region. In some regions, we have seen, particularly in some of our [indiscernible] regions, we have seen land prices come down significantly for motivated sellers. There's plenty of sellers kind of like the assets we're talking about, who are not particularly -- there's no time sensitivity, and they're holding out.
But one of the deals we actually highlighted at our Investor Day was the deal in suburban Boston in Quincy. That's the deal we're looking to start in Q2 in suburban Boston, where that land -- we were able to buy that land at probably 40% less than where it had been under contract before, say, in '21 or '22. So we are seeing that to some extent. In the expansion regions, land pricing has probably come off a little bit in Florida, where it had gotten incredibly aggressive. But we haven't necessarily seen significant moves down in land costs. Partially, I would say that's because in many of the expansion regions, the land is a much smaller percentage of the total deal cap than it is, say, in California or New York, where land might be 30%, 40% of your total deal cap. It moves a lot. It's very high beta. If you're doing a garden deal in Charlotte, land might only be 10% of your total deal cap. So it's not going to move the needle as much, and it's not going to be as sensitive really in either direction. So it's been -- land prices tend to be sticky in general. They've probably been stickier in those markets where, obviously, they were cheaper to begin with.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Alex Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So 2 questions here. First, just going to New York with the recent rent law updates. The office to resi conversions actually looks to be quite lucrative, not expecting you guys to take down an office building. But for your development capital program, does this represent a new opportunity for you, given that there's sort of a 2-year shot clock where the landlords have to apply for permits? So it seems like a lot of existing office landlords who may be contemplating this have a short window to act, and your capital may be attractive to them.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Alex, it's Matt. I would say no. Our developer funding program is really focused on expanding our growth in our expansion regions. So we're not looking to grow our capital investment in New York.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then the second question is your overall outlook just was impressive, certainly ahead of expectations that you guys provided a few months ago. There's a broader debate out there about soft landing, hard landing, what's going to happen to the economy. But none of the comments that you guys spoke about suggest that there's any sort of weakness out there.
I mean across all the markets, it seems like things are healthy. Is that a fair takeaway? Or are there -- is there anything that you feel from the different markets are seeing that would give caution towards later this year or what all the different regions are seeing suggest actually almost an improving environment?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex, this is Sean. I think the broad brush is relatively consistent of what you stated. But certainly, real estate is a local business here. And there are submarkets that are challenged for either demand or supply reasons or both.
As I mentioned a little bit in my prepared remarks, while the Mid-Atlantic is generally doing pretty well, that is driven by our suburban portfolio. The District of Columbia is quite soft for both demand and supply reasons. The same thing could be said about urban Seattle, downtown L.A. We have one asset there as an example. So I would say, broadly speaking, what you're indicating is correct. For the portfolio, we have coastal, suburban, primary customer base healthy. But obviously, there are exceptions [ where you are ]. And I would point to really some of these urban submarkets with plentiful supply, some still quality of life conditions that are challenging as a little more choppy. And then there are certain markets, still some of the Bay Area where there are signs of some job growth, but then there are still signs of layoffs here and there that you're hearing about in the media. So I wouldn't say everything is rosy, but the broad brush is it looks pretty good right now.
Benjamin Schall:
Alex, I'll just add briefly. We've highlighted the improved job picture, right, given the change in expectations from the beginning of the year. But there are crosswinds, Sean touched on a couple. And I would highlight the inflationary impacts on our consumer and their wallet. I mean those are very much there and true when you think about car loans, I'm coming up for renewal, when you think about the beginning of student loan repayment. So the outlook has improved, but I would still describe it generally as sort of our consumer facing a series of crosswinds.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Anthony Dowling with Barclays.
Anthony Powell:
Anthony Powell here. Just a question on the bad debt improvement you saw in the quarter. What drove that improvement? Was it the core kind of improving their process, getting quicker, resi coming back in current? Maybe more detail would be great there.
Sean Breslin:
Sure, Anthony, it's Sean. Sort of a combination of all those factors that you just laid out. And what I'd point to geographically, which might be a little bit of a surprise for people is most of the improvement was actually not in places like L.A., which have been sort of the poster child for this.
But we saw very good improvement in the broader sort of New York metro area. Underlying bad debt in Q4 in that region was 3.1%. In Q1, it declined to 2.4%. Boston was 120 basis points in Q4, a decline of 60 basis points. It was about 20 basis points of improvement in Seattle. So for all the reasons you mentioned, some [indiscernible] up on payments as well as the skip and evict process, sort of a combination of all those factors driving the improvement.
Anthony Powell:
Maybe going back to the New York law that was just passed. I guess you don't want to increase more capital to New York. Was that a comment on the office ready or just a broader comment? I wanted to see if you can maybe just close your views on both the rental provisions and also the development provisions in the [ wall ]?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean -- this is Matt. It was really just a broader comment. When you look at our portfolio allocation, our portfolio allocation to the New York Metro area, I think, is roughly 20% today. It has been -- and we've been on a journey to reduce that over time. That's one of the regions we're rotating capital out of as we redeploy capital into our expansion regions.
So first and foremost, we're just overweight that region relative to our long-term goal. And then there are -- when you talk about New York specifically, more of our investment in the New York region is going to New Jersey these days. We're finding very strong development yields, pretty good operating performance. And there is a regulatory overlay there, which it can be challenging, but it is not as challenging as New York State and New York City, and that does factor into our long-term view as well.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Linda Tsai with Jefferies.
Linda Yu Tsai:
In terms of the 7% moving out to buy a house, along those lines, wondering if you've seen any demographic shifts in the composition of your residents over the past year or so?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Linda, it's Sean. I wouldn't say anything terribly significant. The only thing that I could point to a little bit is as you might imagine, as winter, COVID, the [ roommates ], the volume of [ room rates ] across the portfolio has certainly declined. It has kind of come back up to some more normal levels, roughly, I would say. That would be the only data point that I really could point to for you.
Linda Yu Tsai:
And then on the better job growth being concentrated in lower-income residents. Is there any kind of read through for AvalonBay in terms of resident demand?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Sean, again. Not at this point that we've seen, other than certainly our lower price point assets in some of the markets, particularly on the West Coast, where we have a greater share of those assets are performing quite well. I think to Ben's point, there certainly are consumers that are feeling a little bit of pinch from what's happened with inflation, student loans, car leases expire, et cetera, et cetera.
And so certainly, those lower price point assets are performing quite well, in many cases, better than some of the higher price point assets in some of those submarkets. So it's really a market-by-market question. But overall, we have healthy demand and in some cases, maybe for the reasons you just described, maybe even stronger demand for some of the lower price points.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.
James Feldman:
Just quickly, I just wanted to get your thoughts on your debt maturities in '24 and '25. Obviously, a much larger maturity pipeline in '25 with $825 million of unsecured. But what are your thoughts -- like maybe can you talk to us about what's in your guidance in terms of refinancing? And is there any chance you'd pull forward the '25 maturities? And might that have any impact on your outlook if you did that? Just kind of what are you thinking about the markets in general?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. Sure, Jamie. This is Kevin. Maybe just to kind of provide some context, I'll just start with our capital plan for the year. It's not changed significantly from our initial outlook. And as you recall, what we identified then and it's still true today is that for 2024, we have $1.4 billion in uses, which consists of $1.1 billion of investment spend and then a $300 million debt maturity later this year in November, which has a 3.7% interest rate.
So that's the usage we've got for this year. Our sources are pretty straightforward and have kind of 3 broad parts, $400 million of free cash flow. We anticipate drawing down about $175 million of unrestricted cash that we had at the beginning of the year and ending the year with 2 25 in cash at the end of the year. And then our [ initial outlook ] contemplated about $850 million or so of external capital, which at the time we contemplated would be sourced through the combination of 2 debt offerings. We're early in the year, a lot can change, and we'll see what will happen. In our Q1 reforecast, we assumed that we do only about $700 million of incremental debt this year and probably use about $100 million or so of net disposition proceeds from the acquisition -- disposition activity that's underway. So not a lot of change. So 2 debt deals, we have $250 million of hedges in place that we intend to apply to our first debt deal. The $250 million are basically effectively struck at a 3.7%, 10-year rate. So if we were to do a small debt deal, we'd probably be looking at the cost of debt today, somewhere in the low 5% range versus an unhedged 10-year debt deal that would be more like [ 5 6, 5 7 ]. So we're in great shape. I mean it kind of goes back to Ben's initial comments. We have a terrifically strong balance sheet, lots of free cash flow, low leverage at 4.3x, and well-laddered debt maturities that typically range from $500 million a year to $800 million or so a year. Next year is a little bit more elevated, but it's still just over 2 points of our capitalization. So relative to the broader REIT industry, even that maturity is a modest one. That $825 million breaks down into a June maturity in 2025 at around 3.6%, and then there's another $300 million in November 2025, also at around 3.6%. So our maturities are spaced out roughly 6 months apart. They're relatively light and level across the spectrum. And so we're well positioned to kind of roll those debt maturities as they come due. We do not currently anticipate prepaying them. And certainly with debt rates where they are today, which is relatively unattractive compared to the expiring rate. It's unlikely we would pull that forward to retire them early. So we'll probably address those as they come due. And again, this is a pretty light year for capital markets activity, including debt, and we'll take things as they come.
James Feldman:
Great. That's very helpful. And then for the next year, would you put a hedge on early? And when would you want to do that?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. Jamie, it's sort of -- one of the -- hedging is something we do. We evaluate continually over the course of the year. We don't have rigid fixed plans to hedge X percent of debt maturity, in advance of its maturity. It's really a function of what do we anticipate doing in the current year and the following year? And how do we think about our evolving sense of the capital plan that we'll have for each of those years and what the opportunity set looks like in the treasury market for hedging.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Lewis with Truist Securities.
Michael Lewis:
I know we're already going long, but I have just one question. And it relates to a topic you talked a lot about, which is the Sunbelt versus the established regions and what 2025 and 2026 are going to look like. When I look at your Slide 8, 1.3% growth, unit growth in your established regions in '25 versus 2.5% in the Sunbelt. It's not really clear to me where the advantage lies there, right? In other words, what should that spread be?
Because once you layer demand onto it, if I'm just looking at households created versus units added, it looks to me like maybe your expansion regions are going to have better fundamentals than your established ones in '25 and more likely '26. So I'm just wondering, what do you think is an equilibrium for that difference in supply? It's just not clear to me that there's a big advantage there.
Benjamin Schall:
Yes, Michael, I'll make a couple of comments. So starts in the Sunbelt expected to peak at some point kind of mid this year, stay elevated as you get through kind of the middle of next year. And then given the reduction in start volume, starts to come down back towards more historical levels as you get towards the end of 2025. So I think that was sort of part of your comment there.
Now the impacts on markets as deals deliver, to my comments earlier, will be more extended. And then if you look further out, you're exactly right. It is both obviously demand and supply story. And for us, it very much leads into how do we think about our overall portfolio optimization. And broadly, that's the reason we're headed towards 25% in the expansion markets. We think that's a nice addition. Also continue to feel very strongly about the performance opportunity in our South region. So there's more into that we went into the Investor Day, but that is as we get into a more normalized environment, leading to how we think about our longer-term optimization goals.
Michael Lewis:
Okay. So if 2.5% supply growth in the Sunbelt next year, is that -- I mean it sounds like you think things are going to kind of gradually get better. But I mean, is that a concerning number versus the 1.3% established regions? Or are those pretty -- you think fundamentals in those 2 parts of your portfolio might start to look pretty similar next year?
Benjamin Schall:
I think they start to approach closer to historical norms for a period of time. Matt made the comment earlier about now the barriers to starting deals in the Sunbelt and the shortness of those market cycles. So it does factor into how do we think about our overall portfolio optimization.
Sean Breslin:
And Mike, one thing, I think, to keep in mind here is I'd be a little careful about isolating years as being very unique in terms of the delivery cycle and the impact on fundamentals. As Ben was alluding to earlier, what you see on that chart in terms of deliveries for 2024, where it does peak in the back half of this year, people will be leasing up. Putting those units into the market 12 to 13 months beyond sort of the initial delivery dates in terms of how they're leasing them up.
And if you think of the impact on pricing, you've got those deliveries coming in plus you have new deliveries that are beginning in 2025. So the units coming in to market takes a long period of time for them to lease up. And the impact on stabilized assets takes time as rents are reset to a new sort of market clearing price. As those leases expire, it has to roll through the rent roll. So when you sort of take the compounded effect, I think that's why we're saying that for 2025, we feel much better about our performance in the established regions relative to the Sunbelt. And that should carry into 2026, given the time it takes to lease up the assets and those new prices to be reflected in stabilized asset rent rolls, if that makes sense.
Michael Lewis:
Yes. '23 was a high supply year, too, right? Understood.
Operator:
And there are no further questions at this time. I'll hand the floor back to Ben Schall for closing remarks.
Benjamin Schall:
All right. And thank you all for joining us today. We appreciate your engagement and support, and we'll talk with you soon.
Operator:
Thank you. That concludes our call for today. All parties may disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Well, thank you, operator, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities fourth quarter 2023 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason. I am joined today by Kevin O’Shea, our CFO; Matt Birenbaum, our Chief Investment Officer and Sean Breslin, our Chief Operating Officer. We'd like to start by thanking our 3,000 AvalonBay Associates for delivering exceptional results in 2023. Your efforts and dedication are what make it happen, and your commitment to our purpose and culture makes us who we are as an organization. Thank you. As a brief recap on last year, as shown on Slide four, we achieved 8.6% core FFO growth for the year, a testament to our ability to grow earnings through unique internal and external drivers. Through the proactive management of our assets, same-store revenue ended the year up 6.3%, and NOI increased by 6.2%. For external growth, our developments underway continue to outperform with $575 million of completions across six projects, delivering outside stabilized yields of 7.1%. We're particularly proud of the results from our operating model transformation, where we are delivering enhanced value to customers and driving meaningful efficiencies. As highlighted on Slide five, our operating initiatives exceeded expectations in 2023, delivering $19 million of incremental annual NOI to the bottom line, which was $7 million or almost 60% higher than anticipated. Moving to Slide six and capital allocation, remain nimble in 2023, having shifted to being a net seller during the year, with four dispositions from our established regions for $445 million, $275 million of which we'd redeployed into acquisitions in our expansion regions. We also started $800 million of profitable new development during the year, including $300 million of starts in the fourth quarter at an initial projected yield of 6.7%. We also continue to build our structured investment business this year, in which we provide preferred equity or mezzanine loans to third parties for new multifamily construction. We're well positioned to underwrite this business given our development and construction expertise and our live proprietary data and we're fortunate to be building this book of business in today's environment, reflecting today's rates and asset values. The commitments we made in 2022 and 2023, which now total $192 million, are set to deliver an uplift in earnings this year and going forward. Our balance sheet is as strong as it has ever been, with a key metric summarized on Slide seven, providing strength as we manage the business and flexibility as we consider creative opportunities that may arise during 2024. Among a set of peers with strong balance sheets, we continue to experience some of the tightest credit spreads among all REITs, providing a meaningful financial advantage. Slide eight highlights our strategic focus areas for 2024. These focus areas draw upon our foundational strengths as an organization, while also recognizing our commitment to continue to evolve and our areas we are confident will drive superior growth over a multi-year period. Front and center are the next steps in our operating model transformation. At our Investor Day, we raised our target for incremental annual NOI to come from our operating initiatives to $80 million, $55 million of NOI from Horizon 1, and $25 million from Horizon 2. Second, we will continue to drive differentiated growth from our development and construction leadership. The near-term focus is on execution of our projects underway, ensuring they deliver outsized value for shareholders and while new start economics are challenging in certain of our markets, this is the type of environment in which we've typically found some of our most attractive development opportunities. Third, as a continued multi-year approach, we have set a target of shifting 80% of the portfolio to the suburbs from 70% today, and set a target of having 25% of our portfolio in our expansion regions, up meaningfully from 8% today and given the cooling of fundamentals in the Sunbelt, we believe we can make this transition at a more attractive basis than we were able to a couple of years ago. We're also making significant and very creative investments in the existing portfolio this year, ranging from apartment renovations to the creation of new Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs in certain markets. Finally, and as a follow-up to my comments about our balance sheet, we are confident that there will be opportunities for us to both utilize our balance sheet capacity and bring our strategic capabilities to bear, be it operational, development, or by utilizing our scale to generate value for shareholders. As we assess the year ahead and moving to Slide nine, our baseline expectation is for a slowing economic environment this year. As we have in the past, we start with consensus estimates from the National Association for Business Economics, or NABE, which forecasts positive but very modest job growth in 2024 of 55,000 jobs per month. This muted growth tempers housing demand, while other factors such as rent versus own economics should serve as a balanced apartment demand, particularly in our established regions, where it is now $2,500 per month more expensive to buy than to rent. Nevertheless, given mixed signals and what we believe is higher uncertainty in the economy and capital markets, our approach is to remain nimble and be ready to proactively adjust based on how 2024 evolves. In an environment of uncertainty, one known factor is new multifamily supply. In our established regions, we expect new apartment deliveries of 1.6% of existing stock in 2024, and expect this figure to further decline to 1.4% in 2025. Importantly, these figures are in line with historical averages for these coastal markets, and this is quite a contrast with supply dynamics in the Sunbelt, which will have twice the level of supply and this elevated supply dynamic in the Sunbelt is expected to continue at least through 2025, simply a function of the reality that it generally takes two plus years to complete and stabilize a new development project and so as we assess 2024, we expect to be relatively well positioned given the stable demand and limited supply outlook in our established regions, but are forecasting a slower year of growth. I'll now turn it to Kevin to provide an overview of our guidance for the year and the building blocks of earnings growth.
Kevin O’Shea:
Thanks, Ben. On Slide 11, we provide our operating and financial outlook for 2024. For the year, using the midpoint of guidance, we expect 1.4% growth in core FFO per share, driven by our same store portfolio and by stabilizing lease-up communities, partially offset by the impact of capital markets and transaction activity, as well as by slightly higher overhead costs. In our same-store residential portfolio, we expect revenue growth of 2.6% and NOI growth of 1.25% for the year and for our capital plan, we anticipate total capital uses of $1.4 billion in 2024, consisting of $1.1 billion in investment spend and $300 million in debt maturities. For our capital sources, we expect to benefit from nearly $400 million in projected free cash flow after dividends and to source $850 million in new capital, which we currently assume will be unsecured debt issued later this year. In this regard, thanks to our balance sheet strength and our A minus and A3 credit rating, we enjoy attractively priced debt today at around 5% on a 10-year unsecured debt that we can invest in development yielding in the mid-sixth range to support future earnings growth. We also project drawing upon $175 million or the $400 million in unrestricted cash on hand at yearend 2023, resulting in projected unrestricted cash at the end of this year of about $225 million. On Slide 12, we illustrate the components of our expected 1.4% growth in core FFO per share. We expect $0.15 per share of earnings growth to come from NOI growth in our same-store sources of growth with a $0.29 impact from capital markets in transaction activities. And with that summary of our outlook, I'll turn it over to Sean to discuss our operating business.
Sean Breslin:
All right, thanks, Kevin. Turning to Slide 13, three primary drivers will support same-store revenue growth in 2024. First, embedded rent roll growth of 1%, down approximately 50 basis points from where it was at the end of Q3 2023, which is consistent with historical trends, plus incremental lease rate growth throughout the year. Second, an outsized contribution of roughly 80 basis points from the projected 13% increase in other rental revenue, which is derived from our operating initiatives and third, about a 60 basis point improvement in underlying bad debt from residents from 2.4% in 2023 to an expected 1.8% in 2024. The cumulative growth from those three primary drivers is expected to be partially offset by a 30 basis point headwind from the projected $6 million year-over-year reduction of rent relief and a modest drag from net concessions and economic occupancy. To provide a little more detail on underlying bad debt trends from residents, we're expecting a 60 basis point improvement year-over-year, our forecast reflects an underlying bad debt rate of roughly 1.6% at year-end 2024, which is still more than double our historical pre-COVID rate. Moving to Slide 14, we expect revenue growth in our established regions to be more than double that of our expansion regions, which is primarily a function of the substantially lower level of new supply in the established regions and within our established regions, we expect better demand supply fundamentals on the East Coast as compared to the West Coast. Southern California is expected to produce the strongest same-store revenue growth, which is primarily the result of a substantial improvement in underlying bad debt on a year-over-year basis. Transitioning to Slide 15 to address our operating model transformation, we're tremendously proud of our team's focus and efforts over the last couple years, which have produced approximately $27 million in incremental NOI. We expect to recognize another roughly $9 million benefit in our consolidated portfolio during 2024. The key drivers in 2024 include Avalon Connect, our bulk Internet and managed Wi-Fi deployments, along with smart access features. In addition, we expect an incremental benefit from our shift to a new organizational model, which reflects neighborhood staffing supported by centralized teams. While we have specific plans for 2024, our focus in these areas and others will continue to deliver additional value for associates, residents and shareholders for years to come. Turning to Slide 16 to address our same-store operating expense outlook, we expect roughly 340 basis points of organic expense growth, another approximately 140 basis points from profitable operating initiatives, and roughly 75 basis points from the expiration of various tax abatement programs in the portfolio, primarily in New York City. As it relates to our initiatives, the 140 basis point increase is driven by 170 basis points from our Avalon Connect offering, which I mentioned earlier, partially offset by reductions in payroll. As I've noted in the past, the deployment of our Avalon Connect offering, which will ultimately enhance portfolio NOI by more than $30 million, will pressure expense growth during the deployment period. We expect to be fully deployed by the end of 2024, so the operating expense impact will diminish materially as we move into 2025. So now I'll turn it over to Matt to address our capital allocation activity. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
All right, great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 17, we're planning another year of accretive activity across all of our various investment platforms in 2024. We expect to break ground on seven new developments, representing $870 million of investment at a weighted average yield in the mid-6% range, grow our SIP business by another $75 million with rates on new originations in excess of 12% and expand our investments in our existing portfolio that we discussed a bit at our Investor Day, where we see opportunity to further increase our activity to roughly $100 million at yields of roughly 10%. In the investment sales market, activity levels are still low, but most market participants do expect a gradual increase in transactions as the year progresses. Our plan is to access this market as part of our portfolio management strategy, selling assets in our established regions and redeploying that capital into acquisitions in our expansion regions. We expect this activity to be roughly neutral on both a volume and return basis, buying and selling in equal amounts and at equivalent yields. As Ben mentioned, the dynamics of this trading activity look to be more favorable in '24 than they might have been in the recent past, as some short-term operating challenges in our targeted expansion regions may present the opportunity to acquire assets significantly below replacement cost. Of course, the market for all of our investment activities is highly dynamic, and we are prepared to pivot and adjust our plan in response to potential changes in the macro environment as the year evolves. Turning to our existing development underway, Slide 18 details the impressive results that continue to be generated by our current lease-ups. The four development communities that had active leasing in Q4 are delivering rents $260 per month, or 8.4% above our initial underwriting, which is translating into a 20-basis point increase in yield. As a reminder, in general, the rents we quote on our developments are current market rents as of the time we break ground, and we do not trend or update these rents until we achieve significant actual leasing velocity close to completion of the project. While market rents certainly didn't grow as much in 2023 as in prior years, there is still some lift to come when we mark the rents to market on the $855 million of lease-ups we expect to open throughout the course of 2024. We estimate this increase at roughly 5% based on where market rents are today at these specific communities, which would provide those deals with about 30 basis points of increased yield as well. And with that, I'll turn it over to Ben to wrap things up. Ben Schall Thanks, Matt. Slide 19 provides our key takeaways. We were very pleased with our execution in 2023 and expect to continue to be relatively well-positioned in a year of slower growth in 2024. We will continue to evolve and execute against our strategic focus areas, including harvesting tangible benefits from the investments we are making in the transformation of our operating model and on the capital front, we will remain nimble, adjusting to the environment as it unfolds, while also being on the lookout and ready to take advantage of accretive opportunities that may present themselves this year, opportunities where we can utilize our leading balance sheet and draw upon our unique strategic capabilities. With that, I'll turn it to the operator to open the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now be conducting our question-and-answer session. Our first question comes from the line of James Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
James Feldman:
Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I'd like to go back to Slide 14, and I was hoping you could talk us through what your blended rent outlook looks like in each of these regions or broken out by these regions and then if you could talk about how you think it might be different in the first half versus the back half of the year, just given the pace of supply coming online.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Jamie, this is Sean. Why don't I give you the sort of blended rent change we expect across the portfolio for the year, so that we can talk about all the individual regions. That's a lot of data. We might want to do that offline, but in terms of the broader portfolio, our expectation is to deliver rent change of roughly 2% in 2024, which would reflect renewals at roughly 4% and new move-ins at essentially flat and as it relates to the first half versus the second half, if you think back to 2023, where we achieved 3.4% rent change, a good portion of that rent change, a stronger portion was in the first half of the year. So we do expect to see some acceleration in rent change, all else being equal in the second half of 2024 relative to the first half, assuming that obviously the economic environment is consistent with our expectations.
James Feldman:
Okay, thank you for that. And then we appreciate the detailed buildup to your revenue and your expense side, but as you think about each of those buckets, where do you think there's the most variability? Where do you have the most opportunity to maybe push a little more? Where do you think you could pull back maybe on the spending side by the time yearend rolls around?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, no, good question. Taking them in the two pieces on the revenue side, obviously a significant driver is the macroeconomic environment and we provided and Ben referred to some of our assumptions. So we are expecting a slowdown given the roughly 2.7 million jobs that were produced in 2023 as compared to the current expectation for '24, being close to 700,000. So that's outside our control, but obviously we're well positioned to the extent things accelerate and we think we're also well positioned somewhat defensively given our portfolio if things deteriorate. So outside of that, I'd say what we would see is a more substantial improvement in bad debt would certainly be a tailwind. Over the last several months, bad debt rate from residents has sort of flattened out a bit and primarily as a result of what's been happening in the court system, residents that are behind getting free legal advice and things of that sort. So we started to see greater improvement in the court system in places like the greater New York region, parts of the mid Atlantic, etcetera, that would certainly give us a significant benefit outside of just the macroeconomic view and whether we were able to push rents harder or softer in the environment. On the expense side, a good portion of it is baked in terms of what we have. There's about two thirds of it are expected year-over-year increase is driven by number one utilities, which is really where our Avalon Connect offering comes through and that's a pretty embedded program we're on plan. We expect that to be where we thought it would be. Property taxes, there's a portion of that related to the pilots, but obviously to the extent assessments come in at different levels or rates throughout the portfolio during the year, that would certainly help us out. The rest of it is kind of ins and outs in different areas, and so I wouldn't expect a significant shift, but there are modest shifts from line item to line item that might move around with, payroll benefits and things like that.
James Feldman:
Okay, yeah, very helpful. I guess lots to keep our eye on. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Adam Kramer:
Hey, guys. Thanks for the time. Just wondering in terms of kind of puts and takes, the $870 million development starts, just kind of what can maybe drive that to the high end? What would cause you to maybe pull back and maybe push some of that out to 2025? And if you think about kind of timing during the year, what's kind of the view on those starts in terms of when they may, just generally take place over the course of the year?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, sure, Adam. This is Matt. As it relates to the pace of development starts across the year, it is more back half loaded. I don't think that we maybe have any starts in Q1 or maybe one. So, we'll see how that develops across the course of the year. It really is idiosyncratic, though, based on the timing, permits, buyout of various projects. So, the things that might cause it to ramp up or down is really just changes to the deal economics. If rents accelerate or degrade more quickly than we expect in any particular submarket where we're planning to start a deal or if hard costs surprise us either to the good or the bad, that could cause us to either pull some deals forward and start more or conversely push some deals further out.
Ben Schall:
Yeah, Adam, it's Ben. Just to reiterate, some of our key themes from prior conversations, and we remain very focused on the spread between our development yields and underlying market cap rates. That's the value we create, and we need to be appropriately compensated for the development risk and then the other component is obviously where we're raising the capital, both the source of it and the cost of that capital. So those are the higher level elements that we triangulate around, and then there's the deal specifics that Matt referred to.
Adam Kramer:
Great. Thanks, guys and just on the January like term effective rent change, I guess the new rent specifically, and not asking you for kind of each of your markets individually, maybe just at a high level if you could display, I don't know if you want to kind of go through West Coast versus East Coast versus kind of Sunbelt, maybe just kind of general trends breaking down that January new lease number I think would be helpful.
Ben Schall:
Yeah, why don't I give it to you by Coast. So on the East Coast, we're trending sort of in that low 2% range. The West Coast was modestly positive about 50 basis points, and the expansion region is essentially flat.
Adam Kramer:
Great. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Proceed with your question.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. Sean, appreciate the same-store revenue growth guidance breakout between the established and expansion markets. I think you referenced that that's primarily supply driving the delta between those two projections, but I guess if you remove some of the bad debt improvement, some of the other initiatives and just focus more so on that lease rate growth piece, how do those two regions stack up versus one another?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, probably the best way to look at it is I refer you back to the slide that we showed the revenue decomposition there and first, what I would say is that reflects, more than 90% of our portfolio coming from the established regions at this point, but in terms of just broader demand supply fundamentals, we definitely expect much better performance out of our established regions, generally speaking. The one, question that we have, I'd say, that we think we've reflected appropriately is in Northern California, which has been weaker for us recently and I think it's just a question of how the job environment unfolds. We think we've modelled that appropriately, but if you look at that slide, you can kind of see what's happening in Northern California. It is not benefiting nearly as much as Southern California in terms of the bad debt contribution. So I think on par, it's a little more reflective of apples-to-apples with our expansion regions. So overall demand-supply much better in the established regions, maybe a little bit of a question around Northern Cal.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And then just, just focused on kind of the urban versus suburban, you continue to kind of talk about this strategic focus of shifting into more suburban markets and sort of a preferred incremental investment there. So what's sort of the expectation for lease rate growth when you look at those two, urban versus suburban, for the year? Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Yeah, we haven't broken it out between urban and suburban in terms of the forecast. I can tell you in Q4, we certainly saw better growth out of our suburban portfolio, which was about 200 basis points. The urban portfolio was essentially flat. I did provide sort of the breakout in January as well from East and West, but in terms of urban, suburban, we've not traditionally broken that out. If you look at it on a blended basis, as I mentioned before, it was 2%. If you think across the markets, it's really kind of market specific is more the driver than urban, suburban in many cases. So for example, in the York metro area, we're expecting better growth out of this city and northern New Jersey, less growth really in Westchester, Long Island, Central Jersey. If you go to the Mid Atlantic, it's very different. We're expecting challenged growth in the district, but better growth in Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland. On the West Coast, fortunately we don't have a lot in urban Seattle, but urban Seattle is pretty rough right now, I would say. More of our north and east side portfolio is performing much better and then generally down in the Bay Area, I think we're all familiar with the challenges in San Francisco. We certainly expect it to lag in a similar theme in LA. So I think you have to kind of go through each market individually to look at it, but that gives you hopefully some color by region.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Do you think that 200 basis points in the fourth quarter is a decent proxy for what you see moving forward in the call it medium term?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, I probably wouldn't extrapolate that going forward right at this point. I think it's a good kind of point for where we were in Q4. We do expect based on what I just said, a lot of these suburban markets will hold up better in some of these specific regions, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it being a 200 basis point spread as you move through the full year.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. It sounds like seasonality is a little bit of a factor. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Eric Wolfe with Citi . Please proceed with your question.
Eric Wolfe:
Hey, thanks. I think at your Investor Day you gave an estimate around 175 basis points of annual earnings contribution from your development pipeline. I was hoping you could just give an estimate for the contribution this year and if there's just anything that might be influencing more this year versus a typical year and if it's just going to kind of be maybe a bigger contribution in 2025 as you lease up the communities that are delivering.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yeah, sure. Eric, this is Kevin. It's a good question and perhaps one we're spending a little bit of time on. Up front, I'll give you the punchline and give you a couple of ways to think about the earnings accretion this year from development undergoing lease up that produces an estimate of about $0.18 of accretion per share this year, give or take, which equates to about 170 basis points of earnings growth in 2024, which is consistent with the typical level of earnings growth we get from development in most years and in line with the 150 basis point to 200 basis point earnings contribution to growth that we outlined at Investor Day last November. So maybe just before we begin, a couple of contextual comments, which won't surprise you, but might be helpful just for the broader audience. First, as you know, when you look at our investment in capital activity, we do have a broad set of investment uses, even if development is our primary use of capital, and we have multiple sources of capital. So as a result, since cash is fungible, attributing specific capital sources to specific capital uses to isolate a discrete earnings impact in a period-over-period basis requires making some reasonable estimates and assumptions. Second, as you know, since we substantially match fund our development starts with long-term capital when we start those projects, and we started the $1.6 billion or so of projects under lease up two to three years ago, the reality is that we sourced much of that capital two to three years ago. So third, when you kind of go back and look at the capital we've raised over the last, say, three years, you'd find that to fund the whole business, we raised $2.1 billion at a blended initial cost of 2.9% in '21, $1.5 billion in 2022 at a blended initial cost of 4.1%, and $1.4 billion last year at a blended initial cost of 4.6%. So some portion of the capital in those prior years was used to fund the $1.6 billion that began lease up last year and is being leased up this year as well. Obviously, we have another 850 [ph] that's in the plan for this year at kind of roughly around a 5% cost of capital, which is relevant as you look at sort of earnings growth and so forth for your modelling purposes, and the reality is that capital isn't going to be sourced to pay for the development that's already completed in lease up. And so, as you look at the $1.6 billion in lease up that currently is around a yield of about 6% and if you just conservatively just look at this from an economic point of view, which is sort of the first way to look at this, and say you have $1.6 billion development at a 6% yield, and say it was funded with some portion of the capital, the $3 billion that we raised over the last two years at call an average 4.4% initial cost, you've got about 160 basis points of spread accretion on that development, which translates into about $25.5 million of annualized profit or about $0.18 of annualized growth, which in turn equates to about 170 basis points of earnings growth on last year's core FFO. The reality is kind of using that way, and the reality is that the lease-up profitability started to feather in last year and this year, but that's probably the best way to look at the earnings contribution from the lease-up activity underway by matching it with the capital that we likely applied to it. But if you're looking instead at the earnings impact on a specific calendar year basis this year, for example, against last year, and you're looking at the $0.29 of headwind that we call out on Slide 12 from our capital markets transaction activity and our earnings deck, certainly that may be a little bit longer conversation. Happy to take it offline with you or anyone else, but I think the short answer there is of that $0.29, you can probably attribute about $0.18 of that to funding our investment activity after you subtract the $0.12 associated with the lower interest income this year, ignore the $0.08 from the SIP activity, and then take the $0.11 of financing and refinancing costs and ascribe, say $0.07 of that to the refinancing of $600 million of debt last year and the balance of $0.04 to investment activity. So what you're left with to derive that $0.18 is about $0.05 from share count, $0.05 from net dispo activity, $0.04 from lower capitalized interest expense, and then $0.04 of the $0.11 of refinancing costs and financing costs that you see there in that slide. So that's the way, another way to get at the $0.18 that can give you a sense of comfort that the one way or another what you're looking at is about 150 basis points to 200 basis points of earnings growth contribution from lease up activity this year.
Eric Wolfe:
Okay. That's helpful. And then I guess just a quick one on the capitalized interest guidance. It looks like based on your guidance, the construction progress or development balance is going down by like $200 million. I'm just taking, what the interest is divided by your weighted average interest rate to get to that. But is that the right way to think about it and then I guess why would that balance be going down if it seems like spending is set to accelerate a little bit this year?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, no, I think that is the right way to look at it. I don't know the exact number, but we have capitalized interest rate -- interest expense going down by $0.04, which is about $5 million year-over-year and it's at a blended capitalized interest rate of 3.5%. So I think it is going down by a couple $100 million and the reality is we have, and this is the natural ebb and flow of construction and progress. We have more completions this year than deals entering new construction. So that'll oscillate over time and it creates a little bit of a period over period volatility in the capitalized interest expense calculation, but that's just the nature of that. We don't -- we start projects when they're ready to go, not at a completely constant evenable -- even rateable basis over the course of the years and there's a little bit of CIP decline from '23 moving into '24.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.
Steve Sakwa:
Yeah, thanks. Good afternoon. First, just on a clarification, I think at the Investor Day, you had talked about an earn in of about 1.5% and I think now you're talking about an earn in of 1%. Is the difference strictly just moving from like a September 30 or Q3 to Q4? Or is there something else that kind of went on in that stat?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yeah, that's pretty much it, Steve. If you think about it, a lot of our growth comes through the first nine months of the year, including short-term premiums and other activity that happens in Q2. Excuse me, Q2 and Q3 and then traditionally, it sort of decelerates as you go through Q4 and land in January.
Steve Sakwa:
Okay. And maybe one for Matt on the development. You talked about the $870 million and the mid-sixes. And it looks like about a third of the starts are going to be in your expansion market. So just how are you sort of sizing that up, just given kind of the supply issues that we're facing in many of the expansion markets today and you've also benefited from basically conservative underwriting with no increase in rents, but rent growth is obviously slowing. So I guess, does the mid-sixes provide much upside going forward if rent growth is relatively flat over the next couple of years?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yeah, Steve, I would say, and as I kind of mentioned in my prepared remarks, there may be less upside. Historically, if you look back over a long period of time, we tend to deliver yields that are 20 basis points to 30 basis points higher than what our initial underwriting is because we don't trend. Now, in the last two years, when rents were rising in double-digit rates in 2021 and 2022, that 20 basis points, 30 basis points was more like 70 basis points or 80 basis points, but that's why now when you look at, say, the deals leasing up this year, they'll have some of that wind at their back, but it's probably back to that kind of 20 basis points to 30 basis points that's more typical. And that's why we feel like there's an adequate margin of safety in there because we're starting them on today's economics with that 100 basis points to 150 basis points spread to current cap rates that Ben referenced. So the two deals we're talking about in expansion regions or the third of the starts this year in the plan happen to be in North Carolina. I think one is in Raleigh, Durham and one is in the Charlotte area and so you have seen rents, market rents in those markets decline a little bit in '23. So based on today's rents, there is more supply coming there. There's obviously strong demand too, and we're investing over the long term. These are 20-year investments, but I would say that margin of safety would suggest that if you start those next year, they're not going to be in lease up for a year and a half, two years after that. We feel pretty confident that we'll be able to hit our NOI numbers, if not still get a little bit of lift.
Ben Schall:
The part, Steve, I'd add to that is you think about this cohort of projects. Starts are definitely coming down this year for financing reasons, economic reasons, but deals that we can make sense of and that we can capitalize in an appropriate way have the potential to open up into a pretty nice pocket, pretty nice window when you look out three years from now. So tough to forecast a lot of other variables in there. And as you said, we're conservative in underwriting based on today's environment, but we do keep that in mind as well.
Steve Sakwa:
And just a quick clarification, the $870 million, is that mostly back halfway, did you think, in terms of start to the deliveries or kind of more late '25, maybe even into '26?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, that's accurate, Steve.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
John Kim:
Thank you. I'm a little bit confused on the earn-in question. So I guess my first question is, can you just let us know how you define that? It's obviously a non-GAAP measure. It's a relatively new metric within this industry, but I thought that the earn-in was kind of locked in at the end of the year on leases you signed last year and what that contributes to revenue growth this year and it doesn't really quite move after that. Your lease growth rates didn't really change during the fourth quarter. So yeah, I'm just questioning how you define that?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, John, I think it's footnoted on the slide, but just to be specific, when you start the year, it reflects essentially the rent roll or gross potential is a common term for the month of January relative to the average gross potential or rent roll that we had in place for 2023. So as I mentioned earlier in response to Steve's question, you tend to realize a substantial portion, if not all, of your rent roll growth in the first nine months of the year or so. It accelerates in the spring, peaks in the summer, and then starts to come down in the fall as a result of not only decelerating like-term rent change, but the mix from unlike-term rent change where you burn off short-term premiums and other things. So essentially, in Q4, you don't really see sequentially, if you think about it, any material growth occur during that period of time. So you might have eight months or nine months that you're up kind of an average of a point and a half, like as we were talking about, and the last two or three months is closer to zero and that's how you get closer to kind of the low ones. But we can certainly walk you through it in more detail offline if you like.
John Kim:
Yeah, absolutely. I think it's your peers don't define it the same way. So it's worth delving into a little bit. I'll do that offline.
Ben Schall:
It's also probably a timing issue. We described the point and a half as kind of where we were spot basis at the end of Q3. I know some companies sort of estimate where they think they might be in January and provide that information on their calls. We tend to provide on a spot basis.
John Kim:
Okay. My second question is on your initiatives, including Avalon Connect and the capital spend you have on that. How much of that do you expense versus capitalize?
Ben Schall:
For Avalon Connect specifically, the costs associated with those programs are essentially 100% expensed.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Josh Dennerlein with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Yeah. Hey, guys. Appreciate all the color on how the Avalon Connect flows to the same-store expenses this year. Could you remind us how it's going to flow through the revenue line item this year and what kind of ramp you're assuming?
Ben Schall:
Yeah. Josh, what I would do is refer you back to the slide on the revenue decomposition and that contribution of 80 basis points from other rental revenue. Almost all of it, not all of it, almost all of it is related to Avalon Connect driving other rental revenue up. There's also increasing trash fees and other things that are happening, but most of that increase is related to Avalon Connect.
Joshua Dennerlein:
So, I guess maybe on a quarterly basis, because it looks like one key of a big uptick, and then it kind of drops off. So, just kind of trying to figure out the quarterly cadence.
Ben Schall:
Yeah. Why don't we get back to you on that as opposed to going quarter-by-quarter on the call, if that's okay. We'll ramp up as we move through the year, for sure and essentially what happens is, think about it as mirroring lease expirations, because we push that through at the apartment level as leases expire. So that's the way probably to think about how we'll bleed through quarter-to-quarter at a high level.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe just curious on a breakdown for expense growth, kind of like, do the subcomponents like utilities, R&M. Could you provide just like your underlying projections for that?
Ben Schall:
Yeah. Why don't I give you some high level commentary, since that's a lot of categories to go through on the call, but sort of high level things to think about here; property taxes, overall, we're expecting year-over-year growth sort of in the mid 4% range. A substantial portion of that is being driven by the phase-out of property tax abatement programs, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks. Insurance, we are expecting another year of kind of double digit growth in insurance, given what's happening in the market, which, we can certainly talk about if you like. As it relates to utilities, Avalon Connect, I just mentioned, we're expecting utilities as a category to be sort of in the low double digit range and again, almost all of that is related to Avalon Connect. Core utilities are actually quite modest in terms of growth rate and a couple others maybe to mention are on the payroll side. We've essentially got a merit increase of 4%. That's about 90% of payroll. Benefits are going up about 6%. So those two combined are 420 basis points, but we're picking up about 100 basis points from our payroll reductions. So that will net out in the low threes and then the only other thing of note I would say, really, that's a little unusual, is in our office operations category, it's accounting for 20 basis points, 25 basis points of total expense growth, really related to legal and eviction costs that were somewhat elevated last year. We expect them to be elevated a little bit more this year as we continue to process people who are non-paying residents. So those are some sort of high level comments. Hopefully those are helpful.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Brad Heffern:
Yeah, thanks, everybody. Can you just talk about how the start of the year has looked so far versus the kind of normal trends for demand, rent growth off the seasonal trough, etcetera?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, happy to take that one, Brad, pretty much consistent with what we've outlined in terms of our outlook. And I would say relative to historical norms for January growth, it's modestly below. Sort of if you look at the change in asking rent in the month of January, say, for the five years pre-COVID as compared to this January, asking rents are trending up just at a slightly lower growth rate.
Brad Heffern:
Okay, got it. And then I know you get the blends already, but I was curious if you could give the underlying assumption for market rent growth across the portfolio in '24.
Ben Schall:
Yeah, we're expecting average asking rent growth throughout the year to be sort of in that 2.25% to 2.5% range and actual rent change in the portfolio would be roughly 2%.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Goldsmith:
Good afternoon. Thanks a lot for taking my question. You use a macro scenario from NAI [ph] of like about it seems like 1% GDP growth and 55,000 jobs per month. How sensitive is the rent growth to kind of your underlying macro forecast? Like said, another way, if the economy is better, how much more rent growth can you get in 2024? Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Michael, this is Sean. A little bit of a complex answer to that because it depends on a lot of assumptions. The things you would think about are how significantly different is it from our baseline forecast in terms of job and wage growth and where does it occur and when does it occur? So if we see acceleration, but it happens in August, it doesn't do a lot for us because we will have signed leases, through July, offers are out for August, September, October in some markets. So I would say it probably helps you as a better setup for 2025 if you saw that happen in the second half of the year. If we saw a significant acceleration in the macro environment in the next 60 days, as an example, beyond what we forecasted, that should play out better for us as we get into peak leasing season. I think you just have to remember that if silver market move in to market, kind of 30 days before they move in, as an example, but those renewal offers are in most markets from a regulatory standpoint, they're out 60 days to 90 days in advance and once it's out, you're not going back and saying, oops, sorry, I'm going to change rent and move it up.
Michael Goldsmith:
Got it. That's helpful. And then just based on current conditions, how far along do you think that we are in post-COVID recovery in the Northern California and Seattle regions?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, good question. When I talk about it in the context of maybe rent basis, I would say Northern California is still a long ways to go. We have rents that are essentially asking rents today that are down roughly 10% from pre-COVID peak levels. That's primarily driven by San Francisco being 12%, 13% below peak, which is, that's a pretty significant number and what I would say is that while I think we're seeing some green shoots in San Francisco in terms of what's happening with, say AI as an example, there's a long ways to go in terms of getting the sort of quality of the built environment at a place where people are comfortable, office leaders, business leaders, kind of calling people back to the office and/or people wanting to migrate to the city and be able to feel comfortable with what they're doing. So I'd say there is a lag there. How long it takes to play out, I think these things take a fair bit of time when you're talking about quality of life issues, crime issues, things of that sort. So I don't think this is necessarily a couple quarter type of issue. I think there's several quarters, depending on the political will of what happens to actually see it sort of trend the right direction for us in a more meaningful way. In terms of Seattle, I think a couple of things to think about as it relates to Seattle. Seattle rent levels for us are up about 8% from pre-COVID peak levels, but it is a very bifurcated market. The urban core of Seattle, whether it's right downtown, stuff like Union, Capitol, etcetera are much more challenged because of not only the quality of life issues that I mentioned that you have in San Francisco also in play there, but there is a meaningful amount of supply being delivered more in '24 than was delivered in 2023, which will compound the issue versus if you're mainly suburban, north end, east side, you're much more well-positioned. That's where the majority of our assets are in Seattle.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Richard Anderson with Wedbush. Please proceed with your question.
Rich Anderson:
Thanks. Good afternoon. Sort of an open-ended question, but see if you can get a response out of you. New York Community Bank yesterday had its debacle. Former Signature Bank, both of them had multifamily as part of their problem in terms of own losses and whatnot. I think we have to distinguish between rent regulated and market rate, but still, and rent regulated is really what's causing the problem. But I'm curious if you're seeing anything new on the ground from your point of view. Perhaps this creates business, sort of growth opportunities for you, but are there operating disruptions that are happening in neighboring assets as a result of all this, just sort of bad operating behaviors and kind of a distress situation? Are you seeing anything along those lines that we should be concerned about from this banking perspective, lending perspective?
Ben Schall:
Rich, we are not seeing significant distress in the system. You know, there obviously is the potential wave of maturities that's being highlighted by folks. For the most part, at least in our markets and the assets that we're spending time in and around, we're seeing lenders agree to extend out loans. We're seeing equity step in and put up more capital. Now, not all debt providers and equity providers are able to do that. So that does create the potential for some dislocation, but we're not necessarily seeing it of size. I'd say we're preparing to be ready to take advantage of it, but not seeing it at this point. Operationally, you know, the theme I would take you to is look back over, I don't know, this last cycle, last decade, world of capital being homogeneous. Capital is flowing to all types of players and generally is flowing at a similar cost to all types of players and so as we think about positioning going forward, there is an element of thinking about how we take advantage or step in opportunities for assets that are being operated by, less sophisticated players, players with less scale. And I'll kind of end on the theme of as we're thinking about the opportunity set out there, it is a combination of both places where we can bring our balance sheet to bear and bring our strategic capabilities to bear and we've spent a lot of time on our operating model transformation. It's got two impacts. It's one, it helps us drive internal growth, but we're also bringing those operational capabilities to our external growth.
Rich Anderson:
Great, great color. Thanks for that, Ben. Second question for me, you mentioned, and we all know 2X the amount of supply in the Sunbelt versus your established regions and yet you're still predicting positive revenue growth in your expansion markets and I think it was said January new lease rent growth in the Sunbelt is flat, not even negative. Maybe I got that wrong, but nonetheless, it sounds resilient from a dollar's perspective, despite the supply. Is that a good way to look at it? Relatively resilient, I should say. And/or are you thinking, well, 2025 could be materially worse in the Sunbelt as sort of the supply picture builds on itself and starts to impact revenue maybe to a greater degree next year versus this year? Is that the way you kind of think about the Sunbelt today?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Rich, this is Sean. But why don't we kind of parse the conversation into our portfolio versus the Sunbelt more broadly? What I indicated for our expansion regions in January is that blended rent change is essentially flat. If you were to parse that between move-ins and renewals, what you would see is that new move-ins are negative in the expansion regions down about 150 basis points as compared to kind of low to mid 3% sort of renewals. What I would tell you is that's primarily driven by some assets that we own in Charlotte in the South End, there are three assets that we acquired in that market a couple of years ago at a time where we loved the environment, great long-term neighbourhood, but we knew there was a fair amount of supply coming, sort of underwrote it that way. We're seeing the impact of that supply currently, as opposed to, say, Denver, where most of the pain and suffering is in the sort of urban core, much more significant pain and suffering given the volume of supply as compared to our broadly distributed portfolio across the suburban markets. So our portfolio, you kind of really, not a lot of assets. You really have to look region by region to understand it. What I would say more broadly about the Sunbelt, though, is certainly when you think about negative rent change playing through and what it does to revenue and NOI, the first thing that typically happens when you get into a much more competitive environment is people are starting to have weaker occupancy. We saw that happen in 2023 in terms of the leg down in occupancy, both in our established regions in the Sunbelt, but much more significant in the Sunbelt. That starts translating to much heavier discounting in terms of where people are marking their rents to try and occupy those units because some rent's better than none. That's what we've started to see in the last few months here and we'd expect that to continue as you roll through 2024 as those leases expire. So the most significant impact on both revenue and NOI would likely be, all else being equal, 2025 as you roll all those leases through the rent roll to that lower market rent. That's probably when you're going to see the most pronounced impact would be our view.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler. Please proceed with your question.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey, good afternoon. Two questions. First, maybe just continuing on with Rich's line of questioning, as you guys look to the Sunbelt, it looks like most of your product, I think, is more suburban. So is that is basically as you assess opportunities in the expansion markets, are you really just looking only at suburban or are you looking at urban and what I mean by that is it seems that a number of the urban markets in the Sunbelt have the same issues that we have in the urban coastal cities, meaning people don't necessarily need to live right next to the office or there may be life quality issues, etcetera. Whereas in the suburbs, it seems more fit for Avalon's development model and also closer to recreation and sort of a quote unquote, easier lifestyle, if you will. So just sort of curious how you're shaping out your Sunbelt strategy of urban versus suburban.
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. Hey, Alex, it's Matt. I would generally tend to agree with you that we are very focused on suburban submarkets. We're focused on our acquisition efforts on suburban submarkets, which have less supply and/or product that is not priced at the very top of the market, because that's a price point we can't really access through new development, but we can access through acquisitions and also, we're also focused on garden product because it's simpler to operate and these are markets with higher property taxes and therefore lower operating margins and one thing that kind of helps counteract that a little bit is garden product, where at least you don't have some of the same operating cost overhang that you would have in, say, high rise assets. So we are we are tending to favor suburban submarkets and I think when you look at the portfolios we've got so far in the expansion regions, they are actually outperforming those markets as a whole because of the assets that we own in the submarkets that we owned and Sean mentioned maybe one of the bigger exceptions, which is the south end of Charlotte, but that's -- those are almost the only urban assets we've got so far that we've bought so far in the expansion regions.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, and the second question is in the fourth quarter, it looks like you guys wrote off four development deals for $9 million in aggregate, but nothing changed in the pipeline that is the projects that are underway. So maybe just a little bit more color on it sounds like these deals were really in their infancy, but just maybe some color around what caused you to scotch these deals and where they may have been located.
Ben Schall:
Yeah, sure, Alex. We did have elevated write offs in '23 in general, and I think that's just a reflection of the fact that we have been as we've been talking about adapting our pipeline to reflect the changes in the economic realities, as asset values have dropped and cap rates have increased. So we're generally very focused on risk management. We keep a close eye on capitalized pursuit costs in every one of our deals. And our risk management has actually been one of the keys to us being able to develop profitably across multiple cycles over, really our 30-year history as a public company, 35-year. The write-offs this past quarter, actually, there was one project in Denver actually was an Urban Denver kind of getting back to your first point. The other one was a public private deal in California, and we've had a number of those where, the economics have just changed sufficiently that we didn't necessarily see a path to in many cases, we are able to recut the deal and get a path to a revised deal that does make sense. In those particular cases, that wasn't the case. So we had to let those go, but I would also just taken a big step back here that if you look at our total book of development rights, we currently have land on the balance sheet of $199 million and we have another $67 million in capitalized pursuit costs. So that's $265 million in total and we're controlling opportunity to build about 11,000 units with that investment, which is pretty strong leverage on that pursuit capital and I think, compares favorably to a lot of other both public and private players in the space. So it's that's kind of where it sits today and I'd say that we've gotten through a lot of the deals that were underwater and when we look at our pipeline going forward, we feel pretty good about it.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] And our next question comes from the line of Linda Sye [ph] with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Hi, thank you. With new rent growth in January at negative 1.9%, how much more negative with that trend and at what point might it turn positive if you're ending '24 flat?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, good question. What I would say is seasonally, rents start to pick up in January. Rent growth typically accelerates asking rent growth, this is as you move through the spring and into the summer. So typically what you would see is this would be sort of the low point of the year, kind of December, January, and then things would improve from here. So certainly, I mentioned, we're talking about basically getting flat for the year. So, we've got several months here where it will continue to improve, flatten out and then probably as we get to Q4, you would see it come back down and go slightly negative again, which is not uncommon in this kind of an environment. So you start to see sort of positive numbers as you get into Q2 and Q3.
UnidentifiedAnalyst:
Thanks for that. And then on Avalon Connect with associated costs going away and revenues coming online, if you want to isolate the impact of that for NOI [ph], like how much would that benefit '25 NOI growth?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, we're not providing any guidance as it relates to 2025 at this point. I did indicate what it was for 2024 as it relates to revenue and the impact on OpEx in my comments, my prepared remarks.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho Securities. Please proceed with your question.
Haendel St. Juste:
Hey there, good afternoon. Two questions for me. First is a follow up on your comments earlier in San Fran, Seattle. Can you outline what your blended rent expectations for the two markets are this year? It seems like your client Seattle is creeping over into the east side and Bellevue, where you have more relative exposure while demand and pricing power still seems pretty evasive in San Fran and maybe some color on the level of concession you're offering as well as what you're seeing competitors offer in those markets. Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Haendel, this is Sean. We haven't provided the market level detail for 2024, but thank you for some recent trend data. That's helpful. So for Q4 of 2023, Northern California overall blended rent change was down 2.8%, which is essentially down seven on new move ins and positive roughly 2.5% on renewals. In terms of Seattle, new move ins were down about 200 basis points and actually renewals were up about 200 basis points. I'm sorry, I misquoted that. The blended was 200 basis points. It was down one nine on new move ins and plus five nine on renewals and so we started to see a pickup in Seattle more recently, again, in that suburban kind of northeast east side sub markets, not downtown, which has been positive. People coming back to work from Microsoft and Amazon in particular having an impact on that and what I would say is we are more optimistic as it relates to what we expect in Seattle, given our portfolio in the Seattle market in 2024 as compared to Northern California for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Haendel St. Juste:
Any color on the impact of supply in Bellevue and any color on the concessions?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, in terms of the supply, Bellevue has actually been holding up quite well. Most of our portfolio, if you think of it, we have North End, we have a pretty core portfolio in downtown Bellevue and then also in Redmond. Redmond has actually been a little bit softer with the supply as compared to Bellevue, but I think it's related to concessions overall across the portfolio is most of the concessions that we experienced in Q4. More than 50% came from the combination of Seattle and Northern California, more skewed to Northern California for us relative to Seattle and it really is a sub market by sub market discussion. I'd say the most competitive sub markets in Seattle are two to three months free and that's urban core assets in lease-up today and are really close competitors. In the Bay Area, maybe two months would be the high end in Q4 is what we've seen and that's tapered a little bit in January, but pretty similar. So it really is kind of sub market by sub market assessment as to what you see.
Haendel St. Juste:
I got it. Thank you for that. And last one, just speaking overall on the transaction market, I'm curious, how do you characterize your conversation of late with potential sellers and their cap rate IRR expectations with some hopeful distinction between coastal and the Sunbelt? I was at National Multihousing this week as well, and it seemed to be still a fairly wide bid ask spread with buyers sticking to their guns and some waiting to sell in the back of this year and hoping that lower interest rates would drive lower cap rates. So curious kind of how those conversations are going. Cap rate IRR expectations in any color on coastal versus Sunbelt. Thanks.
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. Hey, Haendel, it's Matt. Yeah, there's still, I would agree, there's still pretty significant bid ask spread for many assets. We tend to describe it as a market of haves and have-nots and there are lots of assets that would fall into the have not category because those are only going to transact if the cap rate is significantly north of the debt rate and the buyer can get positive arbitrage and so that would be tertiary markets, that would be some out of favor sub markets and, I don't know if it's so much coastal versus Sunbelt as it is kind of primary markets versus secondary tertiary markets in terms of that distinction. There's still plenty of interest in certain Sunbelt markets for sure. The assets that are trading, there is money that seems anxious to get going and, what we're hearing anyway is the cap rate now has to at least be in the fives, and there's some debate about what the year one underwriting is, because in some markets, obviously, NOI is starting to decline. So that makes it a little tricky as well. But, I would expect you're going to start to see some transactions get signed up here in the next two months to three months at cap rates, maybe somewhere between five and five and a half. That's a pretty big range, but again, only for assets that are considered highly desirable.
Operator:
And we have reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I'll now turn the call back over to Ben Schall for closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
Great. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us today and we look forward to connecting with you over the coming months.
Operator:
Thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time.
Operator:
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Rob, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities third quarter 2023 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason, and thank you, everyone, for joining us. In keeping with our custom, we posted a presentation last night to accompany our earnings release. In addition to my opening comments, you will hear from Sean on our operating performance and revenue building blocks for 2024; from Matt on the significant earnings being generated by our development projects and lease-up; and from Kevin on the strength of our balance sheet. I want to start with my thanks to the AvalonBay team and our 3000-plus associates for delivering another strong quarter of financial performance and operating results. Particularly in the current environment of higher interest rates and uncertain cap rates, we are laser-focused on driving cash flow growth from our portfolio. The bottom line results from our operating model transformation led by our on-site and centralized teams and powered by our technology, revenue management and data science teams and proprietary systems continue to outpace expectations. Our strong operating performance also speaks to our portfolio positioning, which is 70% suburban and primarily in suburban coastal markets, which continue to benefit from a combination of steady demand and limited new supply. Turning to Slide 4 in the presentation. We grew core FFO by 6.4% in Q3, which was $0.06 ahead of our expectations. This outperformance was primarily driven by better-than-expected revenue growth, which positions us well, as we enter the traditional slower leasing season. As shown on the bottom of Slide 4, we have raised $855 million of capital this year at a 4.3% initial cost, which includes the drawdown of our $500 million equity forward, which we priced at $250 per share and with the remainder coming from asset sales that we've sold at an average cap rate of 4.7%. We completed three development projects in Q3, two in suburban submarkets in the Northeast and one in Miami at a 7.2% stabilized yield. As Matt will emphasize later, our lease-up communities continue to outperform our original expectations by a wide margin. These projects are funded with yesterday's capital, at yesterday's capital cost and are slated to generate outsized value creation and earnings for investors. We also started two projects this quarter, one in Princeton, New Jersey and one in South Miami, with projected yields in the mid-6% range. I will come back to our positioning on new development and capital allocation at the end of our prepared remarks. In Q3, we made $50 million of commitments under our structured investment program or SIP and feel fortunate to be building this book of business in today's environment with these new commitments generating an attractive 13% return. Slide five provides the breakdown of our Q3 revenue outperformance relative to guidance from the end of July with a 30 basis point uplift from higher-than-expected occupancy, 20 basis points from higher rates and 10 basis points from improving bad debt. Turning to slide six. We've exceeded and raised guidance three times this year. We now expect core FFO to grow 8.6% in 2023, which is 330 basis points above our initial expectations for the year. Same-store revenue growth expectations are up 130 basis points. Expenses are down slightly, leading to NOI growth of 6.3%. And with that, I'll turn it to Sean to comment on the favorable demand and supply drivers in our markets and provide a fuller operating update.
Sean Breslin:
Thanks, Ben. As we start to look forward to 2024, I thought I'd provide some initial thoughts on two topics. First, I'd like to highlight a few macro factors that will support the performance of our portfolio in the coming year. And then second, share a few building blocks as it relates to the outlook for 2024 revenue growth specifically. Starting on slide seven, we believe our portfolio is well positioned as it relates to rental affordability, particularly as compared to other regions of the country and single-family for sale product. In Chart 1, you can see that rental affordability in our established regions is actually better than pre-pandemic levels, given the strong wage growth that's been experienced over the last few years. And in Chart 2, difference between the cost of owning the median-price home and median rent in our established regions has increased by roughly 10x if you look at the first three quarters of 2023 relative to the average during 2020, which certainly makes apartment living in a more attractive option in these regions. We've already seen the impact of this trend in multiple data points. For example, the volume of existing home sales in our established regions has declined by roughly 25% over the past year. And in our own portfolio, the percentage of move-outs to purchase a home has dipped below 10% this year well below the mid-teens long-term average. Moving to slide eight. Our portfolio is also relatively insulated from new supply particularly as compared to the Sunbelt. In our established regions, we expect new multifamily deliveries of approximately 1.5% of existing stock. And in the specific submarkets where we own assets, new supply is projected to be roughly 1% of stock. This bodes well for revenue growth in all market cycles, but is a particularly valuable attribute of our portfolio, if we experience a weaker economic environment during 2024. Transitioning to slide nine, I'd like to highlight four specific building blocks for 2024 revenue growth. First, the embedded growth in the rent roll from leases we've executed during 2023 stands at approximately 1.5%, which is above our long-term average at this point of the year. Second, our current loss to lease is roughly 2%, led by the East Coast at about 2.5%, while the West Coast and expansion regions trailed behind at approximately 1.5% and 70 basis points respectively. Third, we continue to drive incremental revenue from our operating model initiatives. For example, the September revenue from our Avalon Connect offering was about 40% greater than the average monthly revenue for the first nine months of the year and that monthly revenue run rate will continue to grow during the last two months of 2023 and throughout 2024. Lastly we're expecting a continued tailwind from the normalization of bad debt. During the first half of the year, underlying bad debt averaged approximately 2.7% as compared to the Q3 average of roughly 2% and we expect continued improvement as we move through 2024. The benefit from an improvement in underlying bad debt will be partially offset by the loss of rent relief we've recognized in 2023, but still be a net meaningful benefit for 2024. Taken together these building blocks should support healthy revenue growth during the upcoming year. So with that, I'll turn it over to Matt to address our lease-up activity and structured investment platform. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Thanks Sean. Turning to slide 10. Our lease-ups continue to deliver outstanding results, laying the foundation for strong future growth in both earnings and NAV. We have five development communities that had active leasing in Q3 and those five deals are leasing up at rents that are $485 per month or 17% above our initial underwriting. This in turn is driving a 90 basis point increase in the yield on these investments to 7.4% far above any estimate of current cap rates and even further above the cost of capital we sourced to fund these deals back when they broke ground several years ago. After a relatively light year of deliveries in 2023, we do expect to see a significant increase in our apartment completions in 2024, which will provide incremental NOI and FFO as these communities reach stabilization. Slide 11 provides an update on our structured investment program where we initiated two new investments last quarter and $52 million at an all-in average interest rate of 13%. As we've discussed on prior calls these are three to five-year investments where we provide capital to merchant builders that sits above the construction loan but below common equity in the capital structure. We're still early in the build up of this new line of business and expect it to continue to grow to roughly $400 million over the next few years, providing a nice tailwind to earnings growth as these dollars get invested and start earning a return. We're also fortunate that we're able to underwrite most of this business in today's more restrictive environment providing a strong risk-adjusted return particularly for the latest additions to the program. And with that I'll turn it over to Kevin.
Kevin O’Shea:
Thanks Matt. Turning to the next few slides. We continue to enjoy tremendous financial strength and flexibility both from a balance sheet and a liquidity perspective. Specifically from a balance sheet perspective as you can see on slide 12, we enjoy low leverage with net debt to EBITDA of 4.1 times, which is below our target range of five times to six times. Our interest coverage ratio and our unencumbered NOI percentage are at near record levels of 7.5 times and 95% respectively. Our debt maturities are well laddered with a weighted average years to maturity of 7.5 years. And our development underway is nearly 100% match-funded essentially with yesterday's lower cost of capital, which in turn helps ensure that these projects provide earnings and NAV growth when they are completed and stabilized. In addition from a liquidity perspective as shown on slide 13, we continue to maintain a high level of excess liquidity relative to our open commitments for development and structured investment products as of quarter end. Specifically we enjoy $1.5 billion of excess liquidity. And so as a result, we continue to enjoy tremendous financial strength and stability and the flexibility to pursue attractive growth opportunities that may emerge across our investment platforms in the coming months. And with that, I'll turn it back to Ben.
Ben Schall:
All right. Thanks, Kevin. We have consistently maintained a strong balance sheet throughout cycles. And as a result, we are well prepared for the current environment. As we have shown over the past couple of years, we proactively adjusted our capital sourcing and capital allocation activities based on changes in the environment as emphasized on slide 14. We locked in our equity forward in early 2022 to pre-fund future development activity. We shifted in the second half of 2022 and in 2023 to be a net seller of assets with a portion of the proceeds being utilized to fund acquisitions as we reshape the portfolio and the balance to fund accretive development. And we have continued to be responsive in adjusting our development start activity, reducing starts last year and this year as our cost of capital changed. As we've emphasized, we are 95% match funded on our development underway, which means all of that capital has already been raised at an attractive initial cost and allows us to deliver projects in 2024 and 2025 that will generate significant earnings and value. On a go-forward basis, we have raised our return requirements on new development. For a standard development deal, our target return was in the low to mid-6s in the middle of the year and is in the mid- to high 6s today. These target returns are up over 100 basis points since last year with the goal of underwriting 100 to 150 basis points of spread between development yields and market cap rates. We expect to be in the lower development -- we expect to be in a lower development start environment in the coming quarters and with spreads at the tighter end of this range after a number of years of outsized development profit margins. And while in the current environment we're focused on maintaining our balance sheet strength, we do believe that we are well positioned given our low leverage, ample liquidity and unique strategic capabilities to capitalize on opportunities that might result from market dislocations. In the near term, while volumes are modest, we're able to deploy capital at double-digit returns through our SIP program. Slide 15 concludes our prepared remarks with our key takeaways. We continue to deliver strong operating results with tailwinds specific to our suburban coastal markets incremental NOI to come from our developments and lease-up and all supported by a fantastic balance sheet. And with that, operator, please open the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. At this time, we will be conducting a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Eric Wolfe with Citi. Please proceed with your question.
Eric Wolfe:
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I think you said that you raised your development yields, that's underwritten to be mid to high 6s. Just curious why you think that's the appropriate level? And what percentage of your future development pipeline with that criteria? So if you just take your rights pipeline and everything else what percentage would be started under that criteria?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hi, Eric. It's Matt. I guess I can speak to that one a little bit. As Ben mentioned, we're really trying to preserve that spread of 100 to 150 basis points between cap rates and development yields. And so mid to high six is a reflection of where we think. It's very hard to know where spot cap rates would be today. I think that we had a pretty good sense of where they were over the summer when transaction activity has started to pick up with the most current rise in rates. It's a little bit of a guess but if you think cap rates are maybe in the mid-5s then that would translate into development yields in the mid to high 6s to preserve that spread. It does vary by product type and by region of course. But -- so that's really kind of the thinking behind that. And as it relates to what percentage of the current book meets that threshold it's actually hard to say because things are moving around so much. And what we found is that until we have CDs permits in hand hard drawings to bid on the street we don't really know where hard costs are today. They are starting to come down but you don't necessarily realize that on an estimate that you really want to realize that when you're ready to go. So, what I would say is we have plenty of deals that do clear that hurdle. And indeed we just started two deals this quarter. We're in the mid-6s. And we have at least a couple more that could start over the next couple of quarters that we think are kind of in that position. We do have some that on the most current underwriting from six to 12 months ago will probably fall a little bit short of that. And in many of those cases, we're hoping that with some value engineering maybe some changes to the land economics with the landowner and changes in hard costs that by the time those deals are ready to go they will meet that.
Eric Wolfe:
Understood. That's helpful. And then you gave some good detail on the building blocks for same-store revenue growth for next year. Obviously the one piece that's missing is just your expectation around what market rents will do. Then I know it's too early to provide that but I was just hoping you could give us a sense for the process that you go through in terms of figuring that out whether you're building up or down? And then sort of if you were to do it today if you just have a sense for what market rate growth would look like?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Eric it's Sean. Good question. Good crystal ball question I guess I'll characterize it as. But we sort of do two things. We have a macro view and then there's sort of a grassroots bottom-up approach. From a macro perspective in terms of providing commentary today, that's probably where it's been a time which is -- based on what we know today we would anticipate that from a demand standpoint things would decelerate as we move into 2024 just given what we've been seeing in terms of the expectation for slower job and wage growth and other potential headwinds as it relates to whether it's oil prices, obviously, interest costs, student loans, et cetera et cetera. There's a number of macro factors that appear to be more headwinds. We take a really good look at the native consensus forecast for a number of macroeconomic variables at multiple points throughout the year. But certainly when we get into January, the latest forecast helps drive our outlook for 2024 like it does for pretty much every calendar year. And we line that up with what we're seeing on the ground in terms of what actually is going to deliver as we rescrub our supply pipeline et cetera to try and estimate what affected market rent growth would be based on the algorithms we use. So, it really is again a sort of macro top-down as well as a bottoms-up approach depending on the variables that you're looking at. In terms of today it's hard to provide an estimate other than as I mentioned we would expect a softer demand environment in 2024 as compared to 2023 based on the current sort of consensus outlook for macro variables.
Eric Wolfe:
Got it. That’s helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Thank you. So, more near-term I guess has the moderation in lease rate growth been partly strategic as you sought to backfill some of the occupancy you lost around midyear? And then you've just kind of continued to build occupancy into the softer part of the leasing season. Or is this more related to the pockets of softness across the portfolio like in Northern California, it looks like and then also in some of your expansion markets?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah. Austin good question, I'd say, it's kind of a mix of those answers frankly. At the early part of the third quarter, I would say it was more a reflection of our efforts to build occupancy which was successful in a number of markets. Combined with I'd say one or two places that continue to remain saw often even a little softer as we got to the end of the third quarter. And that was certainly important to Northern California is the primary region where we experienced that. So really a combination of two things as it relates to what you saw in rent change through the quarter as well as into October.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And then just on the external growth side or just investment side. I mean, how are you feeling about the size of the development pipeline? And based on what you do know today do you think that -- as those deliveries and completions kind of pick up next year are you going to be able to maintain the size of the pipeline in 2024? Or do you think your dollars in dry powder are better spent on new acquisitions just -- given the risk reward profile and some of your strategic goals of getting into those expansion markets?
Ben Schall:
Austin, I'll start with that. It's Ben. So on the developments we have underway we do have strong conviction that those are going to continue to create meaningful earnings and value. And we obviously got good visibility there on when they're going to be delivering. And as we head into 2024 and 2025 do expect a fairly significant ramp-up of that activity. It may not be quite at the same outperformance levels that we've seen over the last year but still expecting strong performance out of that pool. As we think about new capital and the decision-making process there on the development side I think we've been very clear. We want to make sure if we're going to undertake new development that there's a sufficient profit margin relative to underlying market cap rates another way of saying we want to make sure there's sufficient profit margin to where we could buy an asset. And in today's environment there's, been opportunities in both. There are certain markets and certain projects that we've been able to structure for new development where we're able to obtain sufficient spreads and there are other markets and you saw this in some of our acquisition activity over the last quarter to, as an example in Dallas where we're able to buy assets below replacement cost and start to build the portfolio in those markets. So it's a multifaceted approach. We're fortunate in that we have multiple levels to grow overtime. And as we've emphasized what's on us as a team to make sure that we continue to stay flexible in that approach and change our approaches depending on what's happening in the market environment as well as what's happening with our cost of capital.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
John Kim:
Thank you. I wanted to ask on leasing trends in some of your markets, specifically Northern California which looks like the lease growth rates kind of nosedived in September and October. And that diverged from Seattle which is a similar market in terms of tech job growth where you saw an improvement. But can you just discuss the demand picture? And why there was such a difference in performance in those two markets?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah. John its Sean. Good question. There's, a couple of different answers to that. So, first, as it relates to what you saw in Seattle which also occurred by the way in the Mid-Atlantic and Denver is that we're starting to get into a period particularly as we get further into the fourth quarter here where the comps are easier on a year-over-year basis. And that's a reflection of the step-up that you saw in rent change in those three regions in a more meaningful way particularly in Seattle as you may have noticed. Whereas in Northern California most concentrated in San Francisco, I would say, which is only 30% of our current portfolio. Things did soften more so particularly as we got to sort of mid-September into October and that's what's reflected in the rent change, you saw as it continue to tick down through the quarter and then more meaningfully into October. And I think there's a couple of things there. One is San Francisco just to pick on it since everyone seems to like to lately it's -- there's a number of different headwinds there as I think we're all well aware of probably not the best time of the year to be seeing some elevated demand there. It's just not the case. And there's not really a great reason for people to be coming back to the office at this point still. So fundamentals have remained weak and they did get weaker as we moved through the quarter into October. So trying to know exactly what's underneath that other than weaker demand overall. It's hard to be precise, but I'd say, we did not see the same level of weakness in Seattle and you combine that with the year-over-year comp in Seattle and that's why you saw the uptick there. So Seattle is still not strong. But on a relative basis compared to last year for example there was a lot of short-term leasing activity throughout the year and then burned off in the third quarter. Put more pressure on rates at the end of Q3 and Q4. We didn't have a lot of that short-term demand in 2023, and therefore, the year-over-year compensation is easier. So not to get too far into the weeds, but that's some insight into what you saw in a place like Seattle as compared to Northern Cal.
John Kim:
That's very helpful. My second question is on bad debt, which you discussed has improved this year and is likely to be a tailwind in 2024 earnings. My question is how much of an improvement can you see from the 2.1% pre-resident relief funds that you got this quarter? And in particular Southeast Florida was surprisingly your worst-performing market in bad debt. And I was wondering if you could provide some commentary on that.
Sean Breslin :
Sure. So on the first question as it relates to bad debt, so 2023 if you look at the beginning of the year to sort of where we're trending today just sort of rough justice there's about 100-basis-point improvement in underlying bad debt roughly 3% down to sort of trending around 2% today. We've seen improvement across almost all regions Florida kind of being the outlier as you noted. But I think what we've seen in 2023, there was meaningful improvement in a market like Southern California, which started the year at roughly 6% and now we're below 3%. As compared to some other regions has certainly improved, but it improved at a more modest rate. So as we look forward to 2024, I think the expectation for continued improvement is there, but it may be at a slightly lower rate than what we experienced in 2023 given the meaningful improvement that we experienced in Southern California. And now we're down to some regions like New York as an example where things are moving a little more slowly. So the pace of improvement throughout 2024 may be slightly lower than what we experienced throughout 2023 if that makes sense. But the other thing to keep in mind is that we will have some meaningful improvement but it will be partially offset by the loss of rent relief that's going to be call it, roughly $7 million that we're not expecting to recognize in 2024 that we did recognize in 2023. So these are some of the building blocks as it relates to bad debt that hopefully are helpful. As it relates to Florida specifically, what I would tell you is where we've seen elevated bad debt, and frankly, it's been beyond our expectations. It's really been in Miami and Fort Lauderdale, the West Palm Beach market has held up kind of where we would have expected it would have been, but it has been elevated in the other two markets beyond what our expectation was.
John Kim:
Great. Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Yeah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Adam Kramer:
Hey, guys. Thanks for the time. Wondering where you're sending out lease renewals for -- after November and December at?
Ben Schall:
Yeah, Adam, we sent them out at 6% for November, December, which is relatively consistent with what we quoted for where we were for the 2 months of Q3 on the last call. We have seen in some markets a little more degradation in terms of the committed offer to realization, but it's still within sort of the 150 to 200 basis point range what we're seeing renewals come in at 4% to 4.5%, depending on the more recent time period you're looking at.
Adam Kramer:
Got it. Helpful. Yeah. And then maybe just another quick one. Just remind us kind of where -- or in the most recent quarter, where what the percent of move-outs to buy a home was?
Ben Schall:
Yeah. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, has been trending below 10% all year. It's about 9.5% in Q3. I think we're roughly 9% for Q2. So it has been trending down. As I mentioned, the long-term average is kind of in the mid-teens, and it's been as high as the sort of high teens kind of pre-GFC.
Adam Kramer:
Great. And maybe just one last quick one for me, if that's okay, which is just on the bad debt kind of progression and not ask me for kind of a specific time frame or number necessarily. But if you think about kind of the recovery path back to pre-COVID levels, first of all, I guess, is that kind of the goal to kind of -- or is it achievable, I guess, to kind of get all the way back to pre cover levels? And then kind of what's the rough kind of time frame for getting back there?
Ben Schall:
Yeah. Good question. In terms of pre-COVID levels, which are typically call it, 50, 60 basis points for us, the question is whether it's going to be a new normal or not. I think probably the industry expectation is given various regulatory changes that have occurred in most markets across the country that it might be ideal to get back to 50, 60 basis points, maybe 70, 80 is more realistic. I don't think we really know yet. And in terms of the time to get there, certainly, what I would say is I don't believe we'll get back to full stabilization by the end of 2024. I would expect it to carry into 2025. And what we really need to see is a little more movement as it relates to cases moving through the courts, particularly in markets like Maryland, D.C. and the Greater New York region. As I mentioned earlier, we've seen significant progress in Southern California. 6% bad debt down sub-3% now. We haven't seen anything like that in terms of percentage improvement in some of the other regions I just mentioned.
Adam Kramer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Pawlowski with Green Street. Please proceed with your question.
John Pawlowski:
Thanks for taking the question. Just a follow-up on the -- just the delinquent tenant conversation. As you work through the backlog, evictions and long-term delinquent units, do you expect a meaningful acceleration in repair and maintenance costs next year?
Ben Schall:
Yeah. Good question, John. We can. We have seen some of that this year as reflected in what we've posted in terms of cost because there's yeah, just greater damage in the units. And obviously, you might do billing damage receipts back to the resident, but then you're pretty much immediately writing it off because you're not collecting it. So I would say that, that has been elevated this year, and I would expect that along with legal and eviction costs to also remain elevated in 2024. It may not be a significant growth rate from 2023 to 2024 but it should remain elevated in both categories.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Sean, one market level question. Can you just give us a color – some color on the large sequential revenue decline in D.C. proper this past quarter?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, D.C. proper there's a number of issues there. As it relates to primarily, what you've got is sort of a seasonal issue. We have probably three assets there that have exposure to the student population near AU or other universities. And so you typically see that occur sequentially during that quarter and then it bounces back in Q4. That's the most meaningful component. There are other miscellaneous things as it relates to supply and number of submarket and other things that you could overlay on top of that but by far the sequential change for the student population is the most meaningful one.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator:
Our next question is from James Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
James Feldman:
Great. Thank you. I guess for my first question, can you just talk more about the acquisitions both in the quarter and the October acquisition? I guess, what I'd love to hear about is how distressed were the sellers – how much did pricing move before you decided to buy the assets? Just any color on what the market looks like in pricing?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. It's Matt. I'll speak to that one. So again, just taking a step back here we sold $445 million worth of assets this year including one – our last dispo, which will close at the end – close next week. And those were at a kind of a blended average cap rate in the high 4s. And those were kind of sold and priced throughout the year better pricing earlier in the year, softer pricing later in the year. We bought three assets for about $275 million, all in the last 60 days. Those cap rates were more like mid-4s. And I would say in no cases where the seller distressed. One of those cases we did assume some debt, which probably gave a little boost to the price. So – and all of those assets, if we – if they were to price in today's market would certainly price at a higher cap rate than that I don't know how much higher. But same with the dispose. And again what happened is we pivoted to being a net seller of assets so we sell first. And in many cases we're holding some of those proceeds for a 10/31 exchange and that's informing kind of our appetite on the buy side. So we were net sellers of $200 million or really more like $230 million after you factor in the assumed debt in terms of the cash proceeds we realized from it. The other thing I'd say is when you think about what we bought versus what we sold, it is a good illustration of what we're doing with our portfolio allocation. We sold the four assets out of our established regions they were on average 25 years old. We sold them at an average price of $450000 a unit and the average rents on those assets was $3300 a month. The three assets we bought were in Dallas and in the Greater Charlotte area. In all three cases, there are assets where we are able to add value through our operating platform in many cases. It's part of getting to operating scale in those regions. So we think that – while the cap rate is the mid-4s the yield is more like a 5. Between some value add, we're doing a little bit of light value-add with washer dryers and some hard surface flooring, but a lot of it is just bringing it onto our operating platform, as we get economies of scale in those regions. And those three assets on average are seven years old. We paid on average $245,000 a door, which is below today's replacement cost as Ben mentioned and average rent of $1,700. So a much more affordable price point which we think has a much better growth profile.
James Feldman:
Okay. Thank you for that. I mean M&A commented this morning that they're seeing developers cut rents, so that they can get occupancy up and get assets ready for sale, if they're having debt maturities. So I guess, sticking with kind of the distressed line of questioning, I mean do you think that's coming your way in your expansion markets? And then similarly, as you think about the SIP book over the next few years, I know you mentioned $400 million, but do you think this environment helps you accelerate that? And do you have a view on maybe what you could do over the next 12 months? And what kind of yields?
Ben Schall:
Jamie, it's Ben. I'll step in. We're not seeing distress at this point. We do expect there to be some dislocation that comes through the system. And on the buying side, a couple of different areas in which we're hunting. One is what Matt talked about places where we can be adding to the density of our portfolio assets and nearby, other assets places where we can add incremental value by bringing the operating initiative activity over to our acquisitions, so that's very much top of mind. Another potential pool and we've been staying close to potential opportunities here are deals and lease-up that maybe are coming up against nearer term loan maturities. What we've been seeing there to date is situations where equity capital is putting more equity into those deals, effectively recapitalizing them and/or lenders who are agreeing to extend out those loans. And so, what you're finding is the borrowers and lenders are agreeing to say extend, it out you get the step-up in the interest rate not going to be a lot of cash flow generated off of the asset, but better to extend there, get the asset fully leased then monetize it, at least for the types of assets in the markets that we're looking to acquire in. Now, that won't be the case right for all types of equity. There's going to be equity that doesn't have the ability to put in more capital and it won't be the case for all types of lenders, right? There's only certain profiles of lenders that can extend out. So, it's an area that we are staying close to. Quickly on kind of two other areas of opportunity, one on the land side. So our developers as Matt talked about today are actively reworking our existing pipeline, recutting deals, restriking deals. We're also out looking for new land opportunities. And the current capital environment and our expectations for what that capital environment will be over the next year, we expect to see opportunities there. Apparently, there's going to be less competition from merchant builders in those markets. So, it'll be selective, but that could be a fruitful area. And then the third area of opportunity is providing capital to the third-party developers. And we have two programs there, DFP and SIP. We'll be selective. But for sure, in terms of the quality of sponsor, that's approaching us the quality of the real estate that they have under control and the return profile of those deals, all of that is enhanced in this environment. And so that's another place that we can deploy capital accretively.
James Feldman:
So, on the SIP, do you have a sense of how much you can deploy over the next year or so?
Ben Schall:
So, in the SIP, it's -- we have a target of building that book of business up to $300 million to $500 million over a couple of year period. Given the financing markets, it is tough for deals to pencil, but there are some that do. We are very selective. These are deals we're underwriting not to own them, but to be comfortable owning them if we need to. And in places where we can get a 13% return; we think that's a pretty attractive source of capital. So it's an area of focus. I wouldn't necessarily say it's an area we're looking to accelerate activity. We want to build that book up in a measured way over the next couple of years.
James Feldman:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Goldsmith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Goldsmith:
Good afternoon. Thanks a lot for taking my question. My first question is on customer behavior. Can you provide a little color on traffic, the percentage of people looking to move out to buy homes? And just if you're seeing anything about residents doubling up. And related to that, I believe it seems like a long time ago but November, December of 2022 was particularly weak and then it rebounded in -- early in 2023. So how are you thinking about the last three months? Do you expect the trajectory to repeat as it did last year, or should we see some better growth in the fourth quarter here on the easier comparisons? Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah Michael, it's Sean. I'll take those. So in terms of customer behavior, I'd say the trends we've seen this year have remained relatively consistent. As I mentioned earlier in response to a question in my prepared remarks move-outs to purchase a home is well, well-below long-term averages sub-10% and has been below there for some time now. So not surprising given everything you're experiencing in the single-family for sale market in terms of run up in values and REITs and now the slowing market, et cetera people not terribly inclined to purchase a home and renting is not only more affordable but if you're a risk-off mode you may not want to consider it anyways. Nothing else notable I would say in terms of customer behavior at this point in time. As you noted, the year-over-year comp does get easier as we proceed further into Q4. So a little bit of that as I mentioned in October as it relates to the uptick in rent change in the Mid-Atlantic, Denver and Seattle regions. And we do expect rent change to somewhat stabilize as we look at November and December. And while it won't be anything that's super terrific in terms of a significant rebound as an example, it should be more stable than what we experienced last year based on what we know today.
Michael Goldsmith:
Thanks for that. And my follow-up question is related to taxes. The New York City tax burn off was a significant factor in the real estate tax. What's the expected impact going forward? And how should we think about real estate tax for the expansion markets versus the coastal markets?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah. Good question. As it relates to property taxes, which are about 35% of our expense structure we do expect another elevated year of tax pressure in 2024, most of it related to the expiration of those tax abatement programs that we experienced this year. And the level of impact next year will be relatively similar to 2023. As it relates to tax rate, or just tax growth in the Sunbelt or our expansion regions versus the saves regions independent of the exploration of the tax abatement programs. Certainly I would expect more pressure in the expansion regions and the Sunbelt in general given the significant run-up in values that they have experienced over the last three years relative to the established regions. I think that's pretty clear. There's always a lag effect. So the question is just, which market, which submarket tax jurisdiction et cetera, but certainly expect more pressure in those regions as compared to our established regions, which is still the majority of our portfolio.
Michael Goldsmith:
Thanks for that, and good luck in the fourth quarter.
Sean Breslin:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Yes. Hey, guys. I appreciate the disclosure on the two new product starts 6s. And then also how you're kind of doing that with the projects in lease-up right now to 90 basis point higher spread. Just trying to...
Ben Schall:
Hey, Josh we're getting a lot of feedback on the call.
Joshua Dennerlein:
[Technical Difficulty] I am sorry.
Ben Schall:
Why don’t you dial and we will get you back in the line.
Joshua Dennerlein:
That’s okay. I am sorry. [Technical Difficulty]
Ben Schall:
Joshua, if you could call back in – there is still static – line to the next participants, Okay.
Operator:
The next question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.
Steve Sakwa:
Thanks. I just want to circle back on the development. So are you guys planning development starts in the fourth quarter, or is it up in the air? It sounded like Matt you had some things that would pencil on that high six maybe seven range. But I'm just not sure if you actually were starting anything in the fourth quarter. And if we think about 2024 starts would those most likely be back half weighted to give yourself some time to kind of see how the economy plays out here?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes Steve yes we may well start a deal in the fourth quarter that would be on similar economics to the Q3 starts. Again we're 95% match funded on development underway today. So if we have deals that we think make sense we think we do have some room there. So I wouldn't be surprised if we have a similar level of start activity in Q4 to Q3 maybe whether it's one or two deals I don't know. When we think about 2024 I think you're probably right. It probably is more back half weighted based on kind of how the capital markets evolve and kind of our access to and pricing of new capital that would fund that business. But we've been in a again for us if we track to roughly $800 million in starts this year or maybe a little bit under that that would be a pretty light year for us and certainly lighter than what we expected going into the year which was the same last year. So we're at a pretty modest level of starts volume relative to our kind of long-run capacity and averages and that's a response to what we're seeing in the markets but I don't think we would view that as a significant level.
Steve Sakwa:
Got it. And then just secondly on expenses they've come in a little bit better than what you originally guided, but still kind of elevated in the six-plus range. Just as you think about the puts and takes into next year how do you maybe see expenses trending? What might be a little bit better and what overall might be still headwinds into next year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Steve, it's Sean. I can take that one. I mean we do expect 2024 to be another somewhat elevated year primarily due to a few factors I can touch on. One I mentioned earlier property taxes which is about 35% of our expense structure. We do expect it to grow at an elevated rate due to the expiration of those tax abatement programs that I mentioned previously. The pilot burden in 2024 the burn-off there is relatively similar to 2023 before we see it begin to step down in 2025. Utilities, which is about 12% of the expense structure the continued implementation of our AvalonConnect offering which is a profitable endeavor. We're expecting kind of $25 million of incremental NOI from that program, but it is a burden on OpEx growth as it's being implemented and we do expect that to be continuing through 2024 as well. And then two other sort of pressure points really are going to be insurance even though it's only 5% of OpEx. It's still a difficult market. We'll be trying to mitigate that pressure through the use of our captive and other strategies to help offset it relative to market growth rate, but it's still may be elevated relative to sort of normal trends. And then the last one is the repairs and maintenance and legal costs, which I mentioned earlier is a result of continuing to move out sort of the nonpaying residents and puts pressure on turn costs legal and eviction cost et cetera. Some of that will be offset by continued benefits from the initiatives particularly on the payroll side of things. But certainly, we won't be able to offset all those other macro trends that we'd see occurring in 2024 similar to 2023.
Steve Sakwa:
So not to maybe put words in your mouth Sean but it sounds like the 6.3 I don't want to call it a run rate but it doesn't sound like there's a lot of nonrecurring that would really burn down. It sounds like expenses could be kind of in that ballpark for next year or maybe a little bit better but elevated I guess relative to history?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I think the elevated relative to history is the operative statement there. I think that's appropriate. There may be a little bit of relief in some areas. Like in utilities we should have some better contracts in 2024 relative to 2023. But we still do have the AvalonConnect offering. Again, it's profitable but moving through the year. So I think your phrase is generally in the ballpark.
Steve Sakwa:
Okay. Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Connor Mitchell with Piper Sandler. Please proceed with your question.
Connor Mitchell:
Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for the time. So my first question you guys talked about distressed deals in the environment a little bit. So, I guess, I was just wondering when you guys approach distressed deals taking over private deals how does it compare for the underwriting of those deals versus your internal underwriting? Are the assumptions similar, or do you guys have to make a lot of adjustments? And maybe also that can relate to the SIP program you were discussing earlier about how you underwrite those in the case you have to take over projects?
Matt Birenbaum :
I guess, I can try and take that one. It's -- we underwrite everything more or less the same which is we develop our own view of what we think the NOI is going to be and where we think the asset value would be. And so in the SIP frequently almost always the sponsor will provide a projection of NOI that we think is overly optimistic. And again, we have a lot of data that we can leverage to do good underwriting in these programs and the fact that we own and operate assets and have real rent rolls and everything else in all of these markets is one reason why we think that this is an appropriate place for us to invest and a prudent way and leverage our capabilities and our proprietary data. So we get their underwriting. We kind of -- I won't say we throw in the trash but we do our own underwriting. And based on that we come up with our own view of where we think the NOI would be for that asset very similar to, if it was an asset we were developing. And then we build in a margin of safety on that when we think about how high we're willing to lend in the capital stack under the expectation that again we're going to be paid back out of an asset sale in the back end. And we are prepared to step in at our lender basis. And have the view that if we have to step in at our lender basis, because they can pay us back that would not be a bad outcome for us from an investment point of view the basis we would be in that asset. So there are some assets we just wouldn't lend on, because we wouldn't be prepared. We wouldn't want to own them really under almost at any price. So that's one of our screens in the SIP. As it relates to acquisitions or development, it's kind of the same. We'll just look at where we think the deal should underwrite. And based on that we'll formulate a view of what we think is worth and make an offer and see if we can tie it up.
Sean Breslin:
One maybe just to add one thing, I'm not sure this is exactly where you were going but we do try to apply what we think is sort of a market-based underwriting given our standards. Matt was mentioning earlier, we may be buying a deal of what we think is -- we'll pick a number of 4.5 cap five cap 5.5 cap, above when we bring it on our operating platform we made use of 50, 60, 70 basis points from our own sort of operating platform. We would not underwrite the benefit of it being on our platform and have that reflected in the value of the asset. It would be based on sort of a standalone asset with sort of market-based underwriting with our scrutiny of it if that's where you're going.
Connor Mitchell:
Yeah. I appreciate that. That's great color. And then my second question and apologies, if you guys have already mentioned this, but how much of the improved earnings outlook is driven by developments versus operations?
Kevin O'Shea:
I mean in terms of -- Connor, are you talking about the third quarter update relative to the midyear reforecast? Do you have a page in our earnings release that we'll detail that for you and it is on Page 5? And you can see there that as you recall our midyear reforecast for core FFO for the year was $10.56. It's now $10.63 so $0.07, increase. If you kind of go down the line there you can see that $0.04 comes from improved same-store residential revenue $0.01 from improved same-store residential OpEx and then there are some puts and takes in terms of overhead and other that get you the additional $0.02 there.
Connor Mitchell:
Appreciate it. That's all for me. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question is from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Brad Heffern:
Yeah. Thanks. So you guys reported a negative 80-basis-point newly spread in October. I'm curious how that compares to normal for this time of year and just generally how things are progressing versus the normal pre-COVID seasonality?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Brad, good question. I don't know if there's a normal per se for October. But I mean generally what I would describe for rent growth throughout the year is that a typical seasonal bell curve. We typically see rents went up from January to July or August a 7% range or an average year and then they decelerate down by 4% or 5%. For this year, if you look at it sort of on average point-to-point from January through year-end you might see effective market rent growth in the 2.5% range somewhere in that ballpark. And what I would say in general about what we've seen in the back half of this year is slightly less seasonality across most markets with one exception being Northern California that has been more seasonal than normal relative to its history.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. Got it. And then I think in the prepared remarks you talked about hard costs and said that you're not really seeing cost savings in bids, but you expect to see them when they actually start going? Can you give us some color of where you think real hard costs in real life have actually gone?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure Brad it's Matt. I guess I'll speak to that a little bit. It is very regional. So, where we've seen hard costs come down say compared to this time last year, we've seen it a little bit here in the Mid-Atlantic maybe 5%. We've seen it in Boston maybe to a little bit more significant degree 5% to 10%. And I think we are starting to see it in Northern California, where it's just been very, very soft for a while now. We have not yet seen it in Seattle. We haven't yet seen it -- maybe a little bit in Austin but costs went up so much there that it's not I would say super meaningful yet. So, we haven't necessarily seen it as much in the Sunbelt markets yet Denver, Southeast Florida, but we think that it's coming there. And I would caveat that by saying for us and others that's what I was saying before. The best data is where you have a deal that's ready to go and you really can hard bid it. And we don't have deals that were hard bidding in every region at this very moment. So, it's hard to tell until you're at that place. So, we're getting kind of discrete data points. And where we have them it's very helpful because we do think again kind of like with the rents that gives us a little bit of an informational advantage to have a real sense for what's going on in real time. But it really does vary based on the regional dynamics within each region.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Anderson with Wedbush. Please proceed with your question.
Rich Anderson:
Thanks. Good afternoon. Just a question on expansion market and the process to getting in there. The word was used staying flexible about an hour ago. And I'm wondering does the methodical way by what you're growing there offer you -- is that what's the word keeping you informed I guess and allowing you to pivot one direction or another. Or if you had a chance to do it perfectly in one fell swoop and everyone would stand up and applaud the transaction if you could get there all at once tomorrow would you do that? So, how committed are you? And a related part of that question is how is the Sunbelt performing not so much relative to the urban coastal areas where everyone knows that. But how is it performing relative to your expectations? And is it getting is it even more interesting to you even though it's underperforming relative to other areas of the country at the present time?
Ben Schall:
Hey Rich it's Ben. Let me make a couple of comments. First in terms of our long-term framework of moving 25% of our portfolio to our expansion markets that remains. Primary drivers of that; one the recognition that our core customer our knowledge-based worker is in a more dispersed set of markets. And second we can take what we do well bring it to those markets in order to generate incremental value for shareholders. In terms of pacing and timing, we are seeing softness. We're starting to see some dislocation in our expansion regions and we see it as a potential opportunity. It's an opportunity to potentially be buying assets below replacement cost which we have started to do and in a development market that maybe has less players in it or players that don't have the same access to capital or the same cost of capital that we do to be able to selectively step into some attractive development opportunities there. There could be -- you fast forward I don't think it's today where we'd be looking to accelerate our movement given where our cost of capital is, but there could be an environment at some point over the next couple of years where something more substantial does present itself and that could make -- that could at that point be the right risk-adjusted return decision. So it's on our radar. We're continuing to grow through our own development through acquisitions and funding of third-party developers and we'll keep our eyes out for larger opportunities as well.
Rich Anderson:
A follow-up question is to Kevin perhaps. The 4.1 times leverage the target of 5% to 6% I mean, how do you ever get to that target anytime soon given the rate environment? And maybe one way is debt assumption, which was a part of a transaction you mentioned earlier. Is there any realistic lift to 4.1 in this environment, or could there be transactions here or there where you add debt at reasonable costs through your transaction activities? Thanks.
Kevin O’Shea:
Sure. Rich, again, it's Kevin. So I appreciate the comment. It's an interesting question. We discuss and debate internally here. As you point out we are 4.1 times net debt-to-EBITDA levered relative to a five times to six times target range which is sort of a -- it's been a long-term target range that we've had for more than a decade, which speaks to sort of a normalized environment. If you look at 4.1 times, it's benefited from cash. If the cash weren't there we'd be kind of in mid-4s just as a further contextual comment. But more broadly, if you look back at the last four years or so, I don't think anyone would agree we've been in a normalized environment from the pandemic and its effects as it's moved through. And as you think about how things have played out this year we are at that low four times leverage level in part because of our capital decisions over the last few years. And this year's capital plan where we've essentially will have paid off about $750 million of debt this year and brought in about $750 million of new and recycled equity from the equity forward and the net disposition activity that's deleveraging and not necessarily reflective of a normal year but -- so this wouldn't have been our capital plan normally but it has proven to be the right capital plan for this year. And what that does is it gives us financial flexibility to deal with an uncertain and volatile capital markets environment liquidity and strength to deal with an environment where we may wish to be patient in terms of additional capital formation given the recent rise in debt rates. And I guess to the point that you're getting at it also gives us leverage capacity. To the extent we wish to seize upon certain investment opportunities whether they are in our established markets or in our expansion markets that we view as attractive where we can bring the strength of our balance sheet to bear and potentially rely on a greater than normal level of debt that may be attractive relative to those opportunities and lean into the balance sheet and generate some growth in that regard. So we are certainly willing and able to get to that five times to six times leverage in the right circumstances. I will note that there are sometimes when we've gotten there in less than desirable circumstances such as three years ago in the pandemic when -- we actually were 5.4 times net debt to leverage EBITDA in Q3 of 2020, but that's sort of preparing the balance sheet for a downturn. So given where we are it's a low leverage level, but we think it's appropriately, so because it gives us strength to deal with potential challenges that could happen ahead as well as strength to deal with potential opportunities that we hope will be in front of us.
Rich Anderson:
Okay. Great color. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho. Please proceed with your question.
Haendel St. Juste :
Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. I appreciate the color earlier on the renewals for October, November color on October new lease rates. But I didn't catch if you did provide them your expectations for new lease rates into the year-end. So maybe some color there on then what would that imply for a full year 2024 earning? Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. It's Sean. Just -- I didn't provide specific insight into the expectation for new move-in lease rates in Q4. The one data point we did provide is that renewal offers went out in the 6% range. And similar to what we've been seeing in the last few months, I would expect them to settle sort of in, call it, 150 to 200 basis points dilution off of that, so kind of 4% range maybe 4.25%. One thing to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier is the comps do get a little bit easier in November and December, and that's why in markets like the Mid-Atlantic Denver and Seattle you saw an uptick in rent change in October. So all else being equal we expect sort of relatively, I'll call it, stable glide path through year-end as it relates to lease rates. The earn-in -- we provided kind of a snapshot of the earn-in on the slides that we presented or posted last night at about 1.5. My expectation based on what I know today is that may soften a little bit between now and year-end but haven't necessarily put a number to it yet.
Haendel St. Juste:
Thanks for that. Can you give us an update on the loss of lease in the portfolio and perhaps where it has in Lewis?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, that was posted on the slide as well. We recorded loss to lease roughly 2% led by the East Coast markets north of 2 and then the West Coast and expansion regions trailing roughly 1.5 points and around 70 basis points in the expansion regions.
Haendel St. Juste:
Okay. Thank you. And then last one and then apologies if you want to touch on this, but are there any markets that you commented that you're seeing an acceleration in concessions or perhaps more aggressive lease-up for merchant developers?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. The one market I mentioned a couple of times earlier that has been softening more recently is Northern California, most notably San Francisco but to a lesser extent San Jose as well.
Haendel St. Juste:
Perfect. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Anthony Powell with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Anthony Powell:
Hi. Good afternoon. I guess a question on the expansion region loss lease of 70 basis points, which is maybe better than you would think given all the concern about supply growth in some of these markets. Is any one market driving that positive loss to lease? And do you think space markets could be a positive attributor to your same-store revenue growth next year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, good question. I'd say, what -- where it's coming from for the most part is a blend of Southeast Florida and what we've experienced a little bit, that's going to be coming online in the Texas market where it's a more challenging environment is in Charlotte, which as you may have noted the expansion region rent change is negative. That is effective with the Charlotte market. Three assets. In the south end of Charlotte, there's a lot of supply coming online there. It's a great submarket. We love the submarket. When we bought the assets, we knew there would be a fair amount of supply in the first two or three years of ownership, which is what we're experiencing today, but we believe we acquired them at good values. So it's probably a little too early to tell you what 2024 is going to look like there specifically. But anything that's coming through will probably be Texas and maybe a little bit in Southeast Florida and really not much if anything. And we might even be in a gain deli situation in Charlotte.
Anthony Powell:
All right. Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Sure.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Hey, guys. I'm back. Hopefully, you can hear me now.
Ben Schall:
Yes
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay, good. So just my question I just was curious because it looks like you're underwriting the new starts at a mid-6s, but you're achieving call it mid-7s on your stuff and current lease up? Just kind of what would get us up to that mid-7s going forward, or is there just some kind of element of conservatism built in?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, Josh it's Matt. So the way we underwrite is we don't trend anything. So the reason why the current lease-ups are exceeding pro forma by so much, by 90 basis points is -- I mean basically, it's got to be one or two things. It's either rent growth between the time we started construction and the time, we leased it up which -- that is what it is in the current situation. Or in some cases, we were just too conservative in our initial underwriting. And even without market rent growth the offering that we put out there, got a bigger premium to the comps than what we had underwritten because we're pretty conservative in general. So when you think about the deals we're starting now and you ask where are they going to stabilize two to three years from now, when they lease up, the reason why they might outperform we might get a little bit of hard cost savings, that's certainly possible based on what I was saying although, we tend to buy it out pretty quickly. Or it could be rent less between now and then, or it could be just kind of a more favorable response from the market. So on average, over the long run, we tend to outperform by more like 20 to 30 basis points. So that's pretty consistent, but it will vary based on where we are in the cycle.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay. Interesting. And then I'm not sure if I missed it, but did you guys disclose October occupancy? I know you put out the right growth.
Sean Breslin:
I don't believe we did, but we're trending in the same general range in terms of economic occupancy kind of in that 95.7% range or so.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate the time.
Sean Breslin:
Take care.
Operator:
We have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Ben Schall for closing comments.
Ben Schall:
Thank you and thank you, everyone for joining us today. We look forward to connecting further with you in November. Talk soon.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and we thank you for your participation.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Doug, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities second quarter 2023 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I will start with an overview of our outperformance in Q2, speak to the limited new supply in our markets as compared to most other markets and then provide additional color on our guidance raise, our second raise of the year. Sean will speak to our underlying market fundamentals, including the progress we are making on bad debt and provide a further update on our operating model initiatives, which are exceeding expectations. And then Matt will highlight the continued outperformance of our new projects in lease-up and summarize our recent transaction activity, including the sale of three assets at a 4.7% cap rate. Our balance sheet is as strong as it has ever been with total liquidity of $3 billion, and Kevin is also here with us for Q&A. Turning to Slide 4 in the presentation that we posted yesterday. We achieved second quarter core FFO of $2.66 per share, which equates to a 9.5% growth as compared to last year and which is $0.07 per share higher than the Q2 guidance that we provided in April. I’ll speak more to the underlying drivers of that outperformance in a second. We completed two new developments this quarter and started one new project. And as a reminder, early in Q2, we completed the exercise of our $500 million equity forward, capital we raised at $245 per share and has subsequently been investing safely at rates in the low 5% range. In terms of our outperformance in Q2, it was primarily revenue-driven with same-store revenue growing 6.3% or 110 basis points higher than we had anticipated, as shown on Slide 5. Lease rates and other rental revenue were modestly favorable to our prior guidance, partially offset by slightly lower occupancy. The most significant driver of the favorable variance was underlying bad debt, where we have been successful as our landlord rights have been reinstituted of getting back and re-leasing apartments that were previously generating no revenue. As we look forward, we continue to expect our portfolio, which is two thirds located in suburban coastal markets, to benefit from significantly less competitive new supply coming online than in the Sunbelt and other parts of the country. Slide 6 shows the magnitude of this differential, where starts in our established regions have remained stable over time, while Sunbelt starts have increased 50% since 2020. The ramification of this activity is that in 2023, new apartment deliveries will be almost 4% of existing stock in the Sunbelt as compared to only 1.5% of stock in our established regions. And this meaningful differential was set to continue in 2024. Moving to Slide 7. We are raising our full year guidance for core FFO to $10.56 per share, which equals a 7.9% increase over 2022. As a reminder, we increased guidance by $0.10 in April to $10.41 per share, which was attributed primarily to Q1 outperformance and the earnings benefit of accelerating our equity forward. The second increase of an additional $0.15 per share incorporates our outperformance in Q2 and reflects our latest revenue and expense forecast for the year, including improved expectations for bad debt. As part of this updated guidance, we have increased our same-store revenue growth expectation of 6%, kept expense growth constant at 6.5%, and the resulting same-store NOI growth outlook of 6% is up 175 basis points at the midpoint. For bad debt, we are now assuming underlying bad debt of 2.3% for 2023, an improvement of approximately 50 basis points from our initial estimates. As it relates to operating expenses, while the midpoint of our guidance remains the same, we expect lower payroll costs driven by our innovation efforts and lower repair and maintenance and property tax expenses to be offset by higher legal, eviction and bad debt costs as we reclaim apartments from nonpaying residents. The further breakdown of the increase from $10.31 to $10.41 and now to $10.56 per share is shown on Slide 8, with $0.14 coming from same-store NOI. We also continue to adjust our capital allocation approach based on the changing external environment. While our developments in lease-up continue to perform exceptionally well, we have raised our acquired returns on new development starts given our increased cost of capital and focused on maintaining 100 to 150 basis points of spread between underlying market cap rates and our projected development. Based on these factors and as part of our guidance update, we have reduced our expected level of starts in 2023 to 775 million from 875 million. On the transaction side, as part of our portfolio repositioning, we continue to take the tack of selling assets first, locking in that cost of capital and then pursuing acquisitions in our expansion markets. Given this cadence and given that we are remaining selective on the acquisitions that we pursue, our guidance now assumes that we’ll be net sellers of assets this year with expected dispositions exceeding acquisitions by roughly $200 million. And with that, I’ll turn it to Sean.
Sean Breslin:
All right thanks, Ben. Continuing to Slide 9 to address recent portfolio trends. We’ve experienced a steady improvement in underlying bad debt primarily due to nonpaying residents leaving our communities. In Q1, underlying bad debt was about 20 basis points better than we anticipated. In Q2, that favorable spread grew to approximately 65 basis points and represented an underlying rate of 2.3%, which was roughly 70 basis points better than Q1. The elevated volume of nonpaying residents moving out, which is certainly a favorable trend, led to an increase in turnover and modest decline in physical occupancy. Based on what we’re currently experiencing, we expect a continued steady flow of move-outs associated with nonpaying residents over the next few quarters, which will further reduce underlying bad debt. As I’ve noted in the past, our historical bad debt range is 50 to 70 basis points. So based on the Q2 rate of 2.3%, we’re still approximately 170 basis points away from reaching what we might consider normal levels, which bodes well for revenue growth in future quarters. Moving to Slide 10 to address our updated revenue guidance, we increased the midpoint of our same-store residential revenue growth outlook of 100 basis points to 6%, which is supported by three primary drivers. The first is better-than-expected underlying bad debt, which is projected at a full year rate of 2.3% versus our original outlook of 2.8% and consists of 2.7% from the first half of the year and roughly 2% in the second half of the year. The second is a higher-than-projected average rental rate, which is primarily based on what we’ve already achieved through July combined with the rent growth we expect to realize for the balance of the year. And the third is an increased contribution from our innovation efforts, which is helping to drive our projected 16.5% increase in other income for the full year. We expect economic occupancy to be modestly below our original expectations, trending in the mid-95% range in the back half of the year as we continue to recover homes from nonpaying residents. All our established regions are projected to perform at or above the high end of our original revenue growth estimate except for Seattle, which is projected to be modestly above the midpoint. Additionally, our East Coast portfolio is projected to outperform our West Coast portfolio by approximately 200 basis points for the full year 2023. Transitioning to Slide 11, we continue to make meaningful progress related to our reimagined operating model. As we indicated at the beginning of the year, we expected an incremental NOI benefit of approximately $11 million in 2023, which is on top of the roughly $11 million we realized in 2022. Currently, we expect to exceed our original 2023 objective by $4.8 million for a total incremental benefit of almost $16 million for the full year. The material drivers of the positive variance include the faster deployment and resident adoption of our technology services offering and the accelerated realization of staffing efficiency resulting from digitalizing customer-related processes. I’d like to thank our operating and technology teams for their continued effort to drive our reimagined operating model and look forward to sharing more about the next iteration of it in future quarters. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Matt to address development.
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 12, our lease-up communities continue to deliver outstanding results, laying the foundation for strong future growth in both earnings and NAV. We have five development communities that had active leasing in Q2, and those five deals are delivering with rents that are $520 per month or 18% above our initial underwriting. This, in turn, is driving a 70 basis points increase in the yield on these investments to 6.6%, well above current cap rates in the mid- to high 4% range and even further above the low 4% cost of capital we source to fund these deals when they started construction, consistent with our match funding strategy. Looking ahead, we expect to start leasing on an additional six communities before the end of the year, many of which are positioned to exceed our initial projections by a significant margin as well. As shown on Slide 13, with most of our development communities still early in lease-up or yet to open, we have clear visibility into a substantial future earnings growth stream from this book of business. Over the next six quarters, we expect to deliver an additional 3,600 homes, which are entirely match funded today, and which will drive incremental NOI growth and NAV creation on completion. To provide some additional insight into the transaction market, a summary of our recent disposition activity is shown on Slide 14. While we were able to close on three asset sales in the past few months, transaction activity is still relatively muted with total sales volumes off roughly 70% from 2022 levels. In general, cap rates on the assets that are selling tend to be below prevailing debt rates, although there are also listings that are not proceeding to closing due to a bid ask spread between seller and buyer. We were pleased with the results on these transactions and we’ll look to redeploy a portion of the proceeds into some limited acquisition activity in our expansion regions as we resume our portfolio trading and continue to make progress on our long-term strategic portfolio allocation goal of a 25% weighting to our expansion markets. And with that, I’ll turn it back to Ben.
Ben Schall:
Thanks Matt. To wrap up, I want to thank our 3,000 AvalonBay associates for their efforts and dedication and delivering very strong results in the first half of 2023. As an organization, we have also incorporated our ESG activities into much of what we do, and I’m proud that we are delivering on these initiatives with tangible and measurable progress across all of our key ESG metrics as shown on Slide 15. And as more fully described in our 12th annual ESG report, which we issued last Monday. Our final Slide number 16 summarizes our key takeaways for a very successful quarter. And with that, I’ll turn the call back to the operator to facilitate questions.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will be conducting a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Eric Wolfe with Citi. Please proceed with your question.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Good afternoon. It’s actually Nick Joseph here with Eric. So we saw the news that you were released from the RealPage litigation and it sounded like from other participants that this kind of case typically takes many years. I was wondering if you could kind of walk through the rationale that you provided that got you released and I guess, dismissed without prejudice. And then is this the end of it or are there other related cases that are still outstanding that involve Avalon?
Ben Schall:
Yes, thanks Nick. And for the wider group, what Nick’s referring to was the legal update that we provided in our earnings release yesterday. And as you pointed out, we are pleased we’ve been dismissed from that class action lawsuit. Nick, at this point, given its ongoing litigation in the wider industry, we can’t make any additional comments above what we included in our disclosure in the earnings release. The filings in the case are public. They’re out there, the extent that you or others want research the matter further.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. And is that the only case or were there other, I know there were a handful of kind of related cases. Is this – was this everything?
Ben Schall:
We were dismissed from the consolidation of the class action lawsuits.
Eric Wolfe:
Great. It’s Eric. Just a quick one on development, I think that I know you mentioned that this year you were seeing a little bit less accretion from developments versus history just with less developments delivering. Just curious historically, how much accretion have you generated per year from development and would you expect to get back to that in 2024?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey Eric, it’s Matt. I guess, I can speak to that one a little bit and then I don’t know if Kevin wants to talk to the longer term trend there, but I mean, probably the easiest way to think about it is that as that slide showed, we’re looking at 3,600 deliveries over the next six quarters. That’s about 200 deliveries a quarter and that’s – I’m sorry, 200 deliveries a month. And that is probably double the pace of what we’ve done over the last year or so. So, we’re going to be getting twice as many apartments that we’re going to be bringing online and ultimately generating NOI out of it.
Kevin O’Shea:
Hi Eric. Thanks for that. This is Kevin I mean, obviously the level of accretion is a function of the volume of activity that we have underway and start and complete and the relative spread relative to our cost of capital. And so you kind of – you can look historically what that has been if we’re – historically we’ve often started at our current size level, maybe a billion and a half, maybe a touch less. We certainly aren’t doing that this year as you know. But at that run rate at 150 basis points spread that generates, probably about 150 basis points or so, give or take of incremental core FFO growth per year. Obviously that moves around as things are delivered and as volumes change and spreads change, but that’s just one way to think about that.
Eric Wolfe:
That’s helpful, thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc. Please proceed with your question.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Hey, good afternoon. As it pertains to lease rate growth trends, can you share a little bit more detail around how new lease rate growth trended in the second quarter to get to the 2.8% July? And then for renewals, how big is the spread been between asking rates and take rates? Because I think I recall in recent months you were sending out notices in the 7% range and it seems like maybe the take has come down a bit. Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Austin, this is Sean. Happy to talk through that a little bit. First on your second comment as it relates to renewals, the spreads do move around throughout the year and throughout various cycles. And so when we originally talked about offers kind of going out the 7% range and where we ultimately settled, you’re talking about spreads that are within normal tolerances, typically 150 basis points or so. Sometimes a little bit less, sometimes a little bit more. I’d say July was slightly wider. Q2 is slightly narrower. So I think we’re in the relevant range as it relates to renewals, given the knowledge that it does move around depending on specific market conditions as the year evolves. As it relates to the first part of your question as it relates to move in lease rates we did provide a breakout for the quarter as it relates to move-ins versus renewals, which is at the footnote on the bottom of that attachment. And as it relates to how that’s trending going forward, what I’d say is that we were pushing pretty hard on rate through the first two quarters of the year. As we started to get back more inventory from those non-paying resident homes, we started to see the new move-in side begin to tick down, which is really what started to reflect in July, which was coming in at 2.8% for new move-ins as compared to what we experienced during the second quarter. So that’s where we started to see a little bit of softness. But in terms of sort of baking the red roll for the full year and how it carries forward into 2024, I think we’re in pretty good shape based on what we realized through June and even July, frankly, even though we did see some deceleration on the move-ins – new move-ins side of particular in July.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And so just unpacking that as it relates to the guidance, you – I think you said your rent growth assumption in 2023 was revised hire to reflect the growth route by, but the back half lease rate growth, is that unchanged to versus the original guidance? I guess can you just share what that revised rent growth assumption is for the year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Here’s how I describe it is we expect the average lease rate for the portfolio for the full year to be about 70 basis points higher than originally anticipated. Most of that is the result of what we have already achieved in terms of the expirations that we had through the month of July that are then cumulatively carrying forward through the balance of the year and our original outlook, we talked about the fact that we expected some modest deceleration in rent change as we moved through the back half of the year that’s still the base case assumption for us, but what we’ve realized through the first seven months of the year has been strong and will carry us forward through the balance of the year and that’s how you get to that 70 basis point higher average lease rate for the full year.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That’s helpful. Thanks for the detail.
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Adam Kramer:
Hey guys, just wanted to ask about bad debt. Look, I think Slide 9 does really good job kind of giving the monthly trends. But it looks like July, what wasn’t disclosed. But I think given the commentary and kind of the occupancy, the physical occupancy disclosure in the bottom left of that slide, it looks like that kind of fell in July. And just wondering if I should kind of read that as a sign of, hey, look a bad debt it kind of continued to trend lower in July or maybe some – I’m missing something there and kind of extrapolating the occupancy into a bad debt read.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean we haven’t provided July bad debt data just yet because it hasn’t been fully closed out. We provided some preliminary estimates for July as it relates to rent change and things of that sort, which is what was included. So I think what probably is the easiest way to think about this is first half our underlying bad debt rate was 2.7%. In the second half, we expect it to be 2%, which reflects 2.2% in Q3 and dropping down to 1.9% in Q4. As it relates to occupancy, occupancy is correlated with the change in bad debt as we see skip and evict activity throughout the portfolio. So where we are for the second half of the year, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks is an expectation that economic occupancy will average roughly 95.5%, which is modestly below our original expectation, but is congruent with the fact that we are getting back more non-paying resident units that we anticipated that’s flowing through the turnover into occupancy but is also helping bad debt. So the two are correlated and so the expectation is again kind of mid-95s for economic occupancy in the second half based on our forecasted receipt of those non-paying units in the second half.
Adam Kramer:
That’s super helpful. Really appreciate that. And just maybe on kind of I guess a little bit of a follow-up to Austin’s question, but just on the new move-in like term effective rent change, it looks like a bit of a decel [ph] I think the 2Q number is really strong, a little bit of a decal going into July. Is that a year-over-year kind of comp issue? Is that a mix issue just with which leases kind of came up in the month? Is there maybe something else that’s kind of driving that, that decel?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I think the primary driver is what I was referencing as it relates to Austin’s questions, which is, we pushed hard on rate as it related to the first two quarters of the year. As you may recall, the eviction moratorium for LA expired at the end of March. So as we processed cases, we started to see more availability come into the portfolio in the latter part of the second quarter. And therefore, we started to ease on rates to then prompt more velocity in terms of leasing velocity of those incremental units. And so what you’re seeing on the new move-in side in particular is in places like LA as an example, where there is more inventory coming back to market. As we get into July, we wanted to push that inventory through the system, get it turned, get it released, get it occupied before we get into the slower and softer frankly fall winter seasons. So that pressure on new move-in specifically is to help spur leasing velocity to absorb more inventory than normal as a result of those non-paying units coming back to us.
Adam Kramer:
Great. Thanks again for the time, really appreciate it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
John Kim:
Thank you. On your bad debt, I just wanted to clarify is the 2% in the second half of the year on a gross basis or net of the resident relief funds you may expect to get. And then how long do you think it takes to get to a more normalized level? I think you mentioned 50 to 75 – 50 to 70 basis points was kind of normalized.
Ben Schall:
Yes. John, the 2% I mentioned is the underlying bad debt, ignoring the impact of rent relief, so to clarify that one. And then in terms of duration, I mean, it’s a good question. We essentially process about, call it, 1,400 skips and evicts the first half of the year. Our expectation is for roughly similar pace, maybe slightly more on the second half. And but based on the number of outstanding accounts that we have at this point in time and the pace of activity, particularly in a state like New York, which is moving more slowly. I do expect it to carry through into at least, I’d say, the first half of 2024. And then as you start to get to the back half of 2024 and 2025, I would expect to see normalization based on the pace we’ve experienced thus far.
John Kim:
Okay, great. Thank you. Second question is on operating expense, I think you mentioned lower property taxes as part of your expectations for the second half of the year. Is that related to Washington state or are there other markets that are driving the lower taxes?
Ben Schall:
Yes, Washington state is a big chunk of it, John.
John Kim:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alan Peterson with Green Street. Please proceed with your question.
Alan Peterson:
Hey guys, thanks for the time. Sean, maybe a little bit more of a longer term question for you. You guys are ahead on a lot of the operation initiatives, particularly on the labor efficiency side. Does that start limiting the opportunity set in 2024? And if possible, could you quantify what the margin expansion opportunity is in the portfolio if it were fully optimized?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Good questions. So as it relates to the operating initiatives, when I talk about them first more holistically. At this point, based on what we have projected for 2023, we’ll be about halfway through our plan as it relates to achieving about $15 million in incremental NOI with the balance of that to come through 2024 and into 2025. Beyond that, there are other things that we’re investing in that we haven’t talked about in significant detail as it relates to the use of AI, which you started several years ago and have been in R&D mode and other areas of the business, some other automation efforts and various other things that will help drive additional value NOI to the portfolio, which we would – we will be happy to talk about as we get further along with those. But I would say, as of right now, if you think about what’s coming in the way of NOI assume there’s another roughly $25 million or so to come as it relates to 2024 and 2025. That’s kind of the high level summary where I’d leave it, that includes more than just the staffing side of it. That includes all of it, that’s underway at the moment.
Alan Peterson:
Appreciate that. And then just transitioning to the transaction market, Matt, across the conversations you’re having with owners and brokers, are you expecting more distressed opportunities to appear within your established markets or in your expansion regions today?
Matt Birenbaum:
There’s not a lot of distress that we’re seeing out there yet in multi of any kind, honestly. I think if it shows – my guess is, it would be more likely to show up in some of our expansion regions where people were buying maybe with short-term value add business plans, where maybe they were borrowing short-term floating rate debt, thinking they were going to invest some money and improvements get a rent roll pop and then flip the deal out. So that business plan is not working for folks the way it had been. So there could be some pressure there or some kind of larger portfolios that people may have bought at a higher leverage point. There was just more of that transaction activity happening in the Sunbelt than in our coastal region. So maybe that means there’s more opportunity there if some of that goes sideways, but it’s pretty speculative.
Alan Peterson:
Appreciate that. Thanks for the time, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sanket Agrawal with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.
Sanket Agrawal:
Hey, good afternoon guys. Thanks for taking my question. So as you saw that you guys brought development starts down by $100 million, so we just wanted some color on that. Like does it fall through the next year or like, did you guys cancel on couple of projects regarding that?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey, it’s Matt. I’ll speak to that one. Yes, it was really just one project that honestly, the returns got a little too tight relative to what’s happened with cost of capital and asset values. So I wouldn’t read too much into it as it relates to next year. We have a pretty robust pipeline, so we think we have the opportunity to increase our starts activity next year if things go the way we hope they will. So that was really just a deal specific situation there.
Ben Schall:
Overall, this is – I just – this is Ben, just to add a couple of comments on our framework here. Overall, like you’ve seen from us the last couple of years, the discipline that we’ve had both around adjusting our capital allocation approaches based on the changing external environment, including our cost to capital, and then also a discipline around maintaining the spreads that we want between underlying market cap rates and our stabilized development yield. So when you hear Matt talk about a deal that we’re moving from the system, that’s us having those hard conversations to make sure that we feel like there’s sufficient value being created for shareholders.
Sanket Agrawal:
That sounds right. And I had a follow-up to that. Like we were talking a couple of guys on the private side and they said that developers have pulled back on the development team. Do you guys see the same things on the ground? Are you guys pulling back on development side or something like that?
Matt Birenbaum:
I think if you’re talking about kind of personnel and overhead, we have seen a lot of the private merchant builders start to cut back in some markets, particularly the markets where start activity had been really elevated, some of the really hot markets. We have not been in that position. Fortunately, again, we’ve had a relatively measured pace of start activity really for the last three or four years relative to our long-term kind of averages. And we’re across a number of different markets and a lot of our markets honestly are less volatile. And so if you look at actually where our starts are heavier right now, at this moment, it tends to be in some of those northeastern markets where things didn’t run up quite as hot and they’re more steady kind of in a more stable environment as well. So we’re not seeing those same kind of overhead pressures.
Sanket Agrawal:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Jamie Feldman:
Great. Thank you. Sticking with that last comment about the northeast markets, I mean, you’ve been particularly well positioned in both northeast markets and suburban the last couple years. How long do you think that outperformance of those markets can continue? And what are you watching that’ll continue to give you confidence in that situation?
Ben Schall:
Jamie, I’ll make a couple of comments. As we think about the prospects for the various markets, and particularly our established regions versus the Sunbelt markets, the supply dynamics in our minds are going to continue to be a factor and a factor at this point into 2025. And that’s just simply a function of start activity, the time it takes to then complete those deals and then the lease up of that activity coming through the system. So this will be something in our minds. And particularly if we are faced with an environment of flat or softening demand, the reality is those markets and sub-markets with higher level of supplies in our minds are going to face a softening operating environment.
Jamie Feldman:
But I guess – yes, I mean that’s helpful in terms of the data to watch. But like northeast has been incredibly strong versus other regions. What do you – what gives you confidence that it’s going to continue? Or do you think like it does start to revert to mean at some point?
Ben Schall:
I think we feel fairly confident on the demand and supply dynamics in our suburban coastal markets and that includes the northeast. On the demand side, there are elements of rent versus owning economics today, which stay very prevalent. And to some degree are – if you look at the rent versus own spreads, the northeast has some of the highest levels there. It could be $1000 more a month to own a home versus rent a home given where you see home prices go and borrowing costs run. And those are markets where it’s very difficult to build new single family supply, right, once that part of the process starts back up. So yes, I think we – that’s a factor gives us confidence. And then as you think about kind of reversions to long-term means, the northeast and other suburban coastal markets just haven’t had the run-up that we’ve seen in other markets. So there’s an underlying stability there that also gives us confidence.
Sean Breslin:
Jamie, one thing I would just add to that to give a specific example, if you think of Boston, which is a market that we’ve been in for a very long time, very active developer. Certainly, there have been very good demand drivers there as it relates to a number of different industries, highly educated workforce, good income levels. Our predominantly suburban portfolio is pretty supply protected. Most of those towns have fulfilled their 40B affordable requirements. So there’s not a lot of developments in the pipeline. That’s the kind of environment where we can be successful in development, but also our existing portfolio is pretty insulated as it relates to exposure to supply and tends to produce solid growth. So that’s a good example of one of those markets. If you think of New Jersey, parts of New Jersey, we’re the first development going in, in 30 years. So while it may not have the growth rate on a stabilized basis that is as attractive as some West Coast markets when they’re really moving along, the additional yield on that development and the total returns are quite attractive. So we’ll continue to allocate capital there. So those are a couple of good examples as to why we think those markets are attractive.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. That’s great. Very helpful color. And then you talked about having, I think you said the best balance sheet in your history, $3 billion of liquidity. The SIP activity was relatively light in the quarter. It sounds like from your comments on the Q&A that you’re not seeing a lot of distressed activity out there. Just how do you think about putting capital -- more capital to work in that SIP book? And can you talk about the actual transaction you did during the quarter? Or what’s in the pipeline? Maybe that will give us a sense of where distress might be coming? Or am I reading too much into that?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, sure. This is Matt. I can speak to that. And I would say the SIP business is not a distressed business. Basically, we are lending to developers who are building multifamily assets, very similar to the multifamily assets that we build and own and operate. And we’re just providing capital between the first mortgage construction loan and their equity. And where there’s been distress is in the lending world. And so the amount of proceeds they can get off that first construction loan are lower than they would have been a year or two ago. And therefore, they either have to put in more equity or borrow a little bit more money from somebody else. So in that sense, what we’re seeing that’s changed is, we’re going lower down the capital stack. So we’re lending from maybe 50% to 75% cost instead of 60% to 85% cost like we would have been doing a year or two ago. And we are happy with the fact that we’re just building that book of business today, and so we can underwrite it in today’s environment. The deal that we just closed on is a suburban garden community in Charlotte, actually fairly near the DFP deal that we started construction on in the first quarter, north of Charlotte. And that’s with a sponsor who is really first-class sponsor who actually have a DFP deal working with as well that we hope to start next year. So it’s a repeat business situation. And that’s pretty representative of the type of business that we’re looking for. That rate is kind of 12-ish, yield is around 13, a little bit more higher than 13. Just given the fees involved, that would have been 10 as opposed to 12 or 13 if it had been a year or two ago. So we are seeing a lot of inbound inquiries on that program. The challenge is finding deals that underwrite, just given kind of where asset values are relative to replacement cost. And that’s part of what we’re seeing in terms of developers finding it much more difficult to put their capital stack together, which ultimately is slowing start activity. But the good news is, we have our pick of the litter and really top quality sites and sponsors. The challenge is finding deals that underwrite because we’re not really bending in terms of the quality of the underlying collateral and how high it will go in the capital stack to lend against it.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. Have you set a limit on how much you’d want to do that, assuming or did come your way, whether it’s a balance sheet or anything else?
Matt Birenbaum:
Our long-term goal is to have that plan be a $300 million to $500 million book of business and build that up over the course of several years. I think today, we’re at a little bit less than $100 million in commitments total. So, we’ve got room to run there.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Dennerlein with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Josh Dennerlein:
Hey guys, thanks for the time. [Technical Difficulty] what’s driving the thinking behind that decision?
Ben Schall:
Josh, you cut in and out on the question. Can you repeat that, please?
Josh Dennerlein:
Yes, sorry. You mentioned in your opening remarks, you’re now a net seller in guide. What’s driving the thinking behind becoming a net seller this year?
Ben Schall:
Part of it’s just been our approach and we made this shift last year to selling first the market. There’s uncertainty there. There’s not a lot of capital that’s in play. So we wanted to take some assets to market, execute on those, lock into that cost to capital and then make the decisions around how we’re going to redeploy that capital. We are remaining pretty selective today in terms of our new buying activity. And part of that is, while to Matt’s point, we’re not expecting distress. Our view is that over the next six months to 12 months, there likely will be a greater set of motivated sellers and potentially in our growth areas, in our expansion markets that could be particularly true. If you take a softening operating environment and combine that with a capital environment where capital is less abundant that could provide some attractive opportunities for a platform and a balance sheet like ours.
Josh Dennerlein:
Okay. Appreciate that color. And then for guidance, what are you guys assuming for new lease rate growth in the back half of this year? Does it turn negative at any point on 4Q?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Josh. This is Sean. We didn’t provide specific guidance as it relates to new lease rate growth, excuse me. Well, we did say at the beginning of the year, which I would just reaffirm now, is that we did expect to see solid rate growth for the first half, which we have realized, and then begin to see some modest deceleration and blended effective rent change in the back half of the year. And I think that’s appropriate at this point in time in terms of where we are and what we’re seeing in terms of the inventory come back to us from some of the [indiscernible] I think that’s appropriate.
Josh Dennerlein:
Thanks, Sean.
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler. Please proceed with your question.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey, good afternoon. So two questions. First just going back to the RealPage, Ben is – are you guys totally out of any RealPage related litigation or is this just the consolidated? I’m just, sorry, just want to get clarification. Is this just a consolidated case or are there other litigations that you guys are still party of related to this RealPage?
Ben Schall:
There are no other litigations related to the RealPage that we’re aware of that we have not been dismissed from.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, thank you for that. Second question is on your outperformance of the developments, I’m assuming a lot of this is based on your land basis. So as you look at your, the options that you’ve struck on your development land pipeline, how many more years do you think that you’ll have above average development returns based on how much rents have moved? Just sort of curious, is this just a one or two year phenomena? Or do you think this could be several years where your developments are outpacing traditional because of where you bought the land versus where rents are now?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, Alex. It’s Matt. Really the outperformance that we’re talking about is relative to our pro forma when we start the job. So the land price is already baked in there. It’s really about the rents and the fact that we had rents run up pretty significantly over the last two years, at a pace particularly in some of these locations, again, some of these suburban coastal locations that were well above trend. We don’t trend rents in the first place. So whenever we quote a yield, it’s the yield as if, it’s at today’s NOI, today’s cost, and then we don’t remarket until we’ve leased at least roughly 20%. So it is a little bit of a unique moment in time in the sense that we started those jobs. The hard costs were good because we bought them out kind of at the trough, if you will really maybe in front of when some of the hard cost inflation that we’ve seen kicked in. But we enjoyed it on the rent side. So the going in yield on those, the underwritten yield I think was maybe a 5.9% and the rent growth has driven it to a 6.6%, so that’s the 70 basis points of outperformance. When you look at the deals, the next six deals to start lease up as I mentioned, those deals also should have a pretty significant lift because again, there was a nice runup in rents between when we started them and when we’re going to start leasing them. So we still should beat pro forma on those, maybe not by as much, but by a nice margin. And then when you start thinking about the deals that we’re going to start in the next however many quarters, there it’s more about just is it a good land basis? And is it a good hard cost basis? And are those underwriting to an initial 5.8, 5.9 [ph]? No, we’re now looking for mid-6s typically, given what’s happened to the cost of capital.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Sure.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Brad Heffern:
Hey, good morning, everyone. Matt, can you talk about how construction costs have trended of late? And what you’re underwriting for increases in the future when you’re underwriting new deals?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. I guess to the second part, how we think about the future, again, we tend to look at everything on a spot basis, so today’s NOI, today’s hard costs. Now there are some deals that we have in our system, which we signed up in the last couple of years that are thin at today’s hard cost. And so in some cases, we are making the decision to continue to invest modestly in those deals to get them ready to go to see what happens to hard cost by that time because the reality of it is, it’s very difficult to know where hard costs are until you actually have a deal ready to bid and subcontractors see that it’s real. Ideally, there’s even some demo or something going on so that, everybody is constantly asking them if I had a job to build today, what would it cost, but that’s different than I do have a job ready to go today. I have the permits in hand; give me your best number. So what we’ve seen is in some markets, particularly again, some of those markets that maybe didn’t see quite the same excesses in terms of subcontractor capacity, again, particularly in the Northeast – suburban Northeast, where a lot of our dev starts are, we have seen costs come back maybe 5% to 10% and we’ve enjoyed some buyout savings on some of our more recent starts. And so once we bought that out, then that is reflected in the way we underwrite the next deal in that region. There are other regions where hard costs, it seems like they’re flattening out, but they haven’t fallen yet, particularly some of the regions that saw – were just really struggling to keep up with all of the demand and all of the elevated start activity over the last couple of years. I would put Austin in that category. I’d put Denver into that category. I’d actually put Seattle into that category, where we saw hard costs run up a lot and have not yet come back to us. And so we’ll see. We’re certainly hoping that they do. We’re seeing start activity start to slow down in those regions, but that may take a while before that plays through.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. Thanks for that. And then maybe for Sean; you say in the slides that two-thirds of the increase in turnover in the second quarter was driven by recapturing the delinquent homes? What’s the other one-third and is there anything unusual in there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, good question, Brad. Nothing terribly unusual kind of it’s a mess here and there across different categories, but nothing that stands out as sort of oh, there’s a – there’s something going on as it relates to relocation or things of that sort. Home condo purchase is still less than 10%, which is a historic low for us. So there’s not much else in there other than sort of the normal stuff, family status, roommate changes, nothing else material I’d say.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. Thanks.
Ben Schall:
Yes.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Goldsmith:
Good afternoon. Thanks all for taking my questions. On Slide 10, you show the performance of the rent growth in different markets, and what’s clear is that the expansion regions are kind of at the lower end of where you initially projected compared to pretty much every other market is at the higher end. So when you think about the expansion markets, does this – the fact that it kind of ended up being kind of at the lower end of your initial projection, change your view on the rate of expansion? Or how quickly you want to move there? And just your thoughts about diversifying the portfolio overall? Thanks.
Ben Schall:
Yes. Thanks, Michael. I’ll make a couple of comments. One, reaffirm our goal of moving 25% of our portfolio to the expansion regions over a period of five or six years. We’ve talked before about some of the drivers behind that, too, just quickly to call out. One, our core customer, the knowledge-based worker, we recognize is in a more dispersed set of markets today than they have been in the past. And second, just think about an expanded playing field to take what we do well across operations, development to those new markets in order to create value for our shareholders. In terms of kind of pace and execution, goes to my comment earlier in the call, could be an opportunity here where there are some attractive – more attractive opportunities for us to enter into those markets, given some operating softening and given there’s not a lot of other institutional capital that’s active today. And so we’ll continue to be selective, but I think we’ll have the choice of what we want to own. On the acquisition side, we’ve been tending to focus recently on assets that we think are going to complement our development portfolio in those markets. And so it’s had us looking at acquisitions that are generally a little bit older in nature, lower in density, lower in price point with a particular focus on micro locations that we expect to have more limited supply coming. And then on the development side and gets in the land and the conversation we’re having around construction costs, our hope is construction costs will start to come down. There are merchant builders who were accumulating large portfolios of land, and we are starting to see some of those deals come back. And so selectively, and I talked about this last quarter, we – in Boston and a recent deal in Florida, we’ve been able to take land back at 30% to 40% from where it traded a year ago. So those are the types of opportunities that we’re looking at, but this is a longer-term vision, and we remain focused on moving in that direction.
Michael Goldsmith:
That’s very helpful detail. And my follow-up question is just on the performance of the suburban versus urban, are you seeing any differences in terms of how the tenant is reacting or kind of how the consumer is positioned in these markets and how that has translated to the results in those two different types of regions? Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Good question. And nothing unusual in terms of underlying trends that indicate any significant movement. I mean, we may – that may be different over the next two, three quarters. We are hearing more about people being called back to the office. Obviously, the Amazon announcement, which would have some impact on the – not only urban portion of downtown Seattle, but also urban Bellevue, where they have a large campus. So I think it’s probably not a broader urban, suburban trend other than as it relates to where people are going to work. If it’s a suburban job center location versus an urban building, that would be something that in the future may shift things a little bit one direction or another, but it’s a little too early to tell.
Michael Goldsmith:
Thank you. Good luck in the back half.
Ben Schall:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Powell with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Anthony Powell:
Hi, good afternoon. Just a question on some of the markets, where you’re getting back the apartments. You mentioned New York is one where it’s moving a bit slower. Are there any other markets where you’re seeing either delays or obstacles in getting back units?
Sean Breslin:
I’d say New York is really a little bit the outlier at the moment in terms of the processing of cases, whether it’s Long Island or city or Westchester, it’s just moving – everything is moving more slowly. The backlog is significant, but it’s also significant in L.A., and L.A. seems to be moving along a little faster. So those are really the two markets and maybe to a lesser extent, a similar phenomenon is in the District of Columbia. We’re seeing things move more slowly. So I’d say New York is probably the outlier to the slow end followed by DC in terms of what’s going on. The rest of them is sort of just chipping along.
Anthony Powell:
Got it. Thanks. And maybe a more basic question. When a tenant skips or is evicted, are they eligible for a new market rate apartment? I’m wondering where these people are going and if we’re going to see like lower demand overall for apartments given the elevated activity in this area across the industry in the past few months.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, it’s a good question. Different companies use different types of screening criteria, so I can’t really speak to the market specifically on that subject. That really is something that from an industry perspective, you acquire a lot of conversations in terms of how people screen their applicants to make that decision.
Anthony Powell:
Are you seeing any more doubling up at any time as maybe some tenants who are living apartments have to live with roommates or anything like that in your portfolio?
Sean Breslin:
Not any significant trends. That actually went the opposite direction through COVID. And we haven’t seen a significant trend indicate people are doubling up.
Anthony Powell:
All right. Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, you’re welcome.
Operator:
There are no further questions in the queue. I’d like to hand it back to Mr. Schall for closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
All right. Well, thank you for joining us today, and we look forward to speaking with you soon.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Doug and welcome to AvalonBay Communities’ first quarter 2023 earnings conference call. As a reminder, this call may contain forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday’s afternoon’s press release as well as in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. I’ll now turn the call over to Ben Schall, Chairman and CEO and President of AvalonBay for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thanks, Jason. In terms of key themes for this quarter, I will start by reviewing our strong start to the year and describe why we believe our suburban coastal portfolio is particularly well-positioned. Sean will discuss our operating performance and relative strength as we enter the peak leasing season. Matt will comment on the evolving development market and detail the differentiated earnings stream that our developments currently underway set to provide. And Kevin will review our strong financial position and highlight the advancements at our industry-leading centralized service center we utilize to drive revenue and operating efficiencies. Turning to our presentation, starting on Page 4, we continue to meaningfully grow earnings in Q1 with core FFO increasing 13.7%. A significant part of this uplift is related to the roll-through of leases signed last year. We also continue to grow rents during Q1 with like-term effective rent change of 4.1%. For the quarter, we exceeded core FFO guidance by $0.05, with the $0.01 of revenue primarily attributable to better-than-expected collection rates from residents, $0.03 due to lower operating expenses and $0.01 related to interest income and other items. In early April, we drew down the proceeds of our equity forward, which we entered into about a year ago, at the spot price of $255 per share. A couple of items to highlight here. First, the additional cost of this $500 million of capital is in the low-4% range. As was originally intended, we’ve allocated this capital to development projects underway, which are projected to generate development yields of 6% or more. So when we talk about funding our underway development at yesterday’s capital cost, this almost 200 basis point spread is what we’re referring to and leads to significant value creation for shareholders as these projects stabilize. The second aspect of the drawdown of the equity forward is unique to the current environment in which we can earn outsized returns on cash. We weren’t originally planning to draw down the equity forward until Q4 of this year, but we executed it now and have invested the cash at 5%-plus interest rates with extremely strong banking partners. On a net basis, the incremental income on this cash is projected to increase 2023 core FFO by approximately $0.03 per share, after factoring in the incremental shares outstanding. We, in turn, increased our full year core FFO guidance by $0.10 to $10.41 per share at the midpoint. The breakdown is as follows
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Ben. Continuing with Slide 7 to address market trends, effective rents in the East and West are up about 10% from pre-COVID levels but took very different paths to get to the same point. Rents on the West Coast, which have historically been more volatile than the East, declined sharply in 2020 escalated significantly in 2021 and the first half of 2022 and then softened consistent with seasonal norms in the back half of 2022. Rents on the East Coast experienced a more modest decline through COVID and have grown steadily since Q1 2021 with very modest seasonality in the back half of 2022. And consistent with historical norms, both coast posted positive sequential monthly rent growth during the first quarter. From a year-over-year growth rate perspective, the West Coast continued to decelerate during Q1 and while the East Coast shows signs of stabilization, bolstered by slightly better growth in absolute rent levels since the beginning of the year. Moving to Slide 8 to address trends in our same-store portfolio. Key performance indicators were healthy during Q1 and remained so heading into the prime leasing season. Our availability was in the low-5% range during the quarter. Turnover, which was relatively stable during the quarter, was lower than Q4 2022 as the volume of residents leaving our communities to purchase a home declined by roughly 25% sequentially and about one-third year-over-year. Occupancy increased about 30 basis points from Q4. And as noted in Chart 4 on Slide 8 and also in our earnings release, Brent change improved from 3.7% in January to 4.9% in April. Additionally, our portfolio average asking rent has increased about 3.5% since the beginning of the year, up 4% on the East and about 3% on the West and is slightly ahead of our original expectation. Also, renewal offers from May and June went out at roughly 7%. I’ll turn it over to Matt to address development now. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
Alright. Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 9, our lease-ups continue to deliver outstanding results, laying the foundation for strong future growth in both earnings and NAV. We currently have 4 development communities that had active leasing in Q1, all of which started construction early in the pandemic, before rents had started to rise meaningfully. As a general rule, we do not update our projected rents on lease-ups until we open for business and start to gain leasing velocity, at which point, we mark those rents to current market levels. For these four deals, we have seen an increase of $485 per month or 17% above our initial underwriting. This in turn is driving a 70 basis points increase in the yield on these investments to 6.7%, well above current cap rates and even further above the cost of the capital we source to fund these deals, back when they broke ground consistent with our match funding approach. Looking ahead, we expect to start leasing on an additional 7 communities before the end of the year. We have not yet marked the rents on these projects to current market, but in general, the locations in which they’re located have seen similar increases in market rent since we started construction, providing a great opportunity for further lift in their results as well. As shown on Slide 10, with most of our communities – development communities still early in lease up or yet to open, we realized just $10 million of the total projected $142 million in NOI from the entire development booked in Q1. This leaves over $130 million of incremental NOI to come as these assets complete construction stabilize. And as for the prior slide, that total NOI figure is also likely understated, given only 4 of those 18 total projects have been marked to market today. Turning to Slide 11, as we look to future development starts, we are certainly starting to see shifts in the development market in response to the Fed tightening of the past several quarters. Among our competitors, many planned projects are being postponed or abandoned as third-party financing becomes scarce and cut. And some of these drop-laying contracts are starting to come back to the market with much lower pricing expectations. We’ve already been able to take advantage of several of these situations with recent additions to our development rights pipeline, and we do expect to see more as the market adjusts. The slowdown in starts in turn is starting to impact the construction market, where we are finally starting to see some retraction in subcontractor trade pricing after 3 years of outsized increases. An environment where capital is scarce and certainty of execution becomes more critical, both to land sellers and subcontractors, plays well to our strengths as both the developer and the general contractor. And we have traditionally seen some of our most profitable investment opportunities when these more challenging cyclical conditions have prevailed. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Kevin for an update on the balance sheet and the CCC.
Kevin O’Shea:
Thanks, Matt. Turning to Slide 12, as we look ahead, our balance sheet remains exceptionally well positioned to provide financial strength and stability while also giving us the flexibility to continue funding attractive growth opportunities across our investment platforms. In this regard, we enjoy low leverage with net debt-to-EBITDA of 4.6x, which is below our target range of 5x to 6x. Our interest coverage ratio and unencumbered NOI percentage are at near record levels at 6.9x and 95%, respectively. And our debt maturities are well laddered, with weighted average years to maturity of about 8 years. In addition, as disclosed in our release, we also enjoyed tremendous liquidity of about $2.8 billion today, with no borrowings under our $2.25 billion unsecured credit facility and an additional $0.5 billion from just having settled our equity forward that we originated a year ago. As a result, we don’t need to tap the capital markets for an extended time, and we are well positioned to lean into our balance sheets to take advantage of future investment opportunities that may emerge in our markets over time. On Slide 13, we highlight our recently announced agreement to provide back-office financial administrative support to Gables Residential’s portfolio of 25,000 apartment homes from our centralized customer care center, which we established in 2007 to create operating and scale efficiencies and supporting our own portfolio while enhancing our resident customer experience. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the entire AvalonBay team that brought this business relationship to Gables across the finish line. We highlight this achievement for several reasons. First, because we are genuinely excited to be able to extend these services to a highly respected multifamily company such as Gables and to its residents; second, because this agreement demonstrates the appeal of the innovative capabilities that we’ve created in the 16 years since we established the CCC; and third, because we have embarked on extending those capabilities in a way that allows us to create additional value for AvalonBay shareholders by offering to support services to other institutional multifamily owners now and in the future. As a reminder, we are not offering property management services under our agreement with Gables, nor do we intend to do so. As all business and operational decisions related to AvalonBay’s and Gables’ portfolios will continue to be managed separately by each company, rather we are providing back-office financial administrative support to Gables . And then finally, from an economic and guidance perspective, while we are not disclosing the specific terms of our agreement for confidentiality reasons, the near-term earnings accretion from this agreement is relatively modest and was included in our initial outlook given back in February 2023. With that, I’ll turn it back to Ben for closing comments.
Ben Schall:
Alright. Thanks, Kevin. Page 14 summarizes our key takeaways and focus areas. We’re pleased with our start to the year expect our portfolio to outperform as we look ahead; and also mindful that these are the types of environments, particularly in an environment in which capital is generally less abundant in the industry, to selectively take advantage of opportunities in order to create value for shareholders. With that, I’ll now ask the operator to open the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Eric Wolfe with Citi. Please proceed with your question.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. It’s actually Nick Joseph here with Eric. Kevin, you mentioned the agreement announced last week with Gables. I recognize you can’t talk too much on the specific terms of that. But if you could talk more broadly about, is this a one-off deal? Are you looking to scale this business? What sort of margin and economics could you derive from it? And then I know this is in the third-party management contract, but would that be of interest as well for other property owners?
Kevin O’Shea:
Sure. Thanks Nick. I’ll start and others, Ben or Sean may want to chime in. In terms of the go-forward view of this, we’re certainly excited to have this agreement in place. And without getting into the specifics of the economics, I mean, the impact is, at the moment, fairly modest, if you just think about the relative size of our business and our main value creators outside of operations and development and so forth. But we are excited to have it in a place that is accretive. There are, from a contribution point of view, healthy margins, for sure, that make this worth the while. As to the future potential, we’re certainly hopeful and inspired to do more business like this, but we are not proactively looking for that new business right now. We’ve just completed this transaction, of course, with Gables. So – but we do hope looking ahead to be able to do more business like this over the time. And we think it does make sense for us to do it because over time, because it allows us to scale and more fully invest over time and an important capability that allows us to further differentiate ourselves from our peers. So there’s a lot more I could go into there, but maybe I’ll just pause there. And I don’t know if Sean or Ben have anything else to add.
Ben Schall:
Yes. I think as well, but I’ll add a couple of things, and thanks for the question, Nick. I would connect for you this step as the kind of next continued evolution, both of our operating model journey but as well as the role that the CCC and centralized services are planned for us. And so part of the appeal, in addition to the revenue and profit opportunity with Gables, we are increasingly handling more services, at least in part and at a centralized way. And this relationship allows us to make continued investments. Think about technology, process people that we think can then accrue to the larger platform here at AvalonBay. So it’s a nice next step in our overall operating model journey and we’re excited for this first step and potentially future clients going forward.
Eric Wolfe:
Hey, it’s Eric. Maybe just a follow-up there, you said that the initial sort of impact was included in guidance and wasn’t, frankly, that large. I guess how many units would you sort of have to manage before it would become a sort of more material part of your earnings stream? And then just to make sure that I understand the last part of your answer, I think you are effectively saying that you can sort of invest in your platform, invest in technology and even though that the financial contribution above that might not be that big, you are effectively allocating those costs to other parties. Is that the right way to think about it or did I misunderstand that?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes, Eric, let me kind of take a stab at it a little bit. I can’t really give you, I mean, an answer what number of units would have to be under this kind of an arrangement for it to be material. It probably depends on what you think is material, I guess, to some degree. I think the way we look at it is from a slightly different perspective, not the immediate financial impact, but it’s kind of been alluded to what this sort of thing does for us to continue our journey to create the leading operating platform in the business. And so we’re in our 17th year with this experience. And I think that we’re pointing this out probably for two reasons. One, to your question about what this can do, the more you do this for not only yourself but for others, the more you can reinvest in that business create a better platform in and of itself over time, that even draw, for our own sake, when we started, we weren’t at our current size of, whatever, 80,000 apartment homes when we started this in 2007, we were quite a bit smaller. And it has gotten better itself over time. We’ve really fine-tuned and honed the CCC so that it’s substantially better than it was even back in 2007 and 2010 and has done a number of things you can see on the slide here for us over time. I mean one thing it did is when we had the Archstone transaction, we were able to add 20,000 units in 30 days. So that bespoke that speaks to sort of the ability to scale quickly when you’ve got that capability centralized in-house. And the other reason why we think it’s worth highlighting for you, apart from the fact that it is a relatively modest financial significance today, is the fact that a highly respected institutional multifamily owner, such as Gables, by entering the screen with us after its own due diligence on us and our center does provide external validation of the strength and the economic value of the capabilities we’ve created at the CCC over the past 16 years. And we think that’s something that’s worth emphasizing to our investors, given the increasing importance of generating alpha in our operating platform through innovation, which we’re continuing to do across the entire business at this point.
Eric Wolfe:
Thanks for all the detail.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.
Steve Sakwa:
They were pretty back-end loaded for you guys this year. I am just curious given Matt’s comments about costs starting to come down, but the economy is potentially weakening and rent growth is slowing, how those potential starts are kind of shaping up for you? And what I guess are you looking for higher hurdle rates today and maybe in the back half of the year than you were say 6 months ago?
MattBirenbaum:
Sure. Hey, Steve, it’s Matt. Yes, so our target yield or going in initial return on new development has been rising really over the last year as we saw cap rates rise and cost of capital rise, both debt and equity. So our target yields were probably in the mid-5s, mid- to high 5s last year. And now they’re kind of in the mid-6s, low to mid-6s, depending on the geography and the risk associated with the deal. So our start activity for the year is as the – it is probably a little more back half weighted just by the way the – as time goes by, we’re going to see more buyout savings on our hard costs. So in some – that probably plays to our advantage a little bit. And we can play that a little more aggressively given that we act as our own general contractor, 90% of our development, which is a little different than I think many others. So – but when I look at our development starts that are slated for this year, that’s about where the yields are. They are probably in the low 6s. And you have to kind of look at the geographic mix and the risk profile of those deals to kind of weigh the profitability of each one, which is what we do. But again, we’ve been pretty consistent in saying we’re continuing to look for that 100 to 150 basis point spread on new starts. And frankly, the stuff that we started last year and the year before, the spreads are well wider than that, which was kind of highlighted on the slide.
Steve Sakwa:
Yes, I guess maybe to ask it maybe a little differently. I guess what risk or what probability would you put that you don’t hit the starts number for a host of reasons? Or do you feel reasonably confident that costs are coming your way and even if rent growth slows a little bit, that you’re still able to kind of achieve the returns you need to kind of put that – put those starts into the ground?
Kevin O’Shea:
I feel I’m pretty confident about it. When I look at the starts for the year, we started one in the first quarter. We have one that we’ve just started. It will be a second quarter start, a third one where we have all of our final budgets, and it’s been approved through our investment committee. So that’s 3 of the 7 rate starts we have planned for the year. And when I look at it, the other ones, I’m feeling pretty confident that we should track that, unless something very unexpected happens.
Ben Schall:
Steve, maybe a little bit more to your question about how is our development approach changing. And we do have a fairly fulsome development rights pipeline. And Matt’s talking about our near-term starts, which are fairly baked at this point. But the next set of deals, right, in that pipeline over the next couple of years, part of what we’re going through right now is very effectively reworking those deals, right, to reflect today’s environment. And given what’s happening with some of our competitors, some of the formerly active developers there, sellers are starting to increasingly acknowledge that the environment has changed. And so that’s leading to land repricing, that’s leading to more attractive terms. It’s allowing us to control high-quality real estate, relatively limited upfront costs. So, all those dynamics continue to run in our direction.
Steve Sakwa:
Okay, great. And then maybe just one question for Sean. On – you talked about, I guess, the renewals going out around 7%. And I know you don’t provide a split between new and renewals and you kind of just provide the blend. And April was a nice uptick. I guess given that we’re going in the spring leasing season, how – I guess, how much confidence do you have that kind of the May and June numbers might look like April? Could they be better? And I guess what markets are you seeing the most strength and weakness?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Steve, good questions. Maybe I’ll provide a little of a high-level commentary as it relates to renewals versus new move-ins and a little bit about trends. But in the first quarter, what I’d say is if you look at the blend there, renewals were kind of in the high 5s, and new move-ins were sort of in the mid-2% range. And then in April, renewals were sort of in the mid-5s, but new move-in, just given the seasonality of rents, has kind of moved up into the mid-4s, just to give you some perspective there. And our expectation is that consistent with what we talked about on the first quarter call, that we would see the best rent change kind of in the first quarter, and then it would begin to decelerate. But that’s dependent upon what happens with growth and asking rents as we move through the year. So our expectation is still consistent with what we communicated in Q1, is that we would see Q1 perform well, and then we would start to see some moderation, both in rent change and in overall rental revenue growth. And that’s still the expectation. And part of that, you got to have to keep in mind is on a year-over-year basis, the headwind associated with the reduction in rent relief becomes far material as you get into the second and third quarter, and that will create some moderation from a rental revenue growth perspective. But as it relates to rent change, based on what we know today, I would say, as you get further into the second quarter, we would expect that to begin to moderate more so than what obviously we saw in the first quarter.
Steve Sakwa:
Great. Thanks. That’s it for me.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc. Please proceed with your question.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks, everybody. Going back to Gables for a minute, I guess, I’m curious what sort of precipitated the discussions with Gables? And whether or not you pursued any other potential portfolios to add to the CCC platform? And while understanding you’re not handling the property management, could we see these partnerships lead to a feeder for future acquisitions?
Ben Schall:
Yes, Austin. On the first piece, short version of it, there were some existing relationships across the firms, which sort of started the conversations. We then went through a pilot with Gables on a smaller portion of this portfolio to test it, both for them and for us. And on the heels of that, we both decided to proceed given the benefits that were being realized. And then to your last piece, no, this is not an acquisition type of approach or angle here. This is much more focused on operational benefits.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Understood. And then going back to development, I recall some tables you provided over time showing kind of IRRs on development. And certainly, recall coming out of the GFC, there were some really attractive returns over time. So given what’s going on with the availability of bank financing, the more attractive land and input costs, I guess, it seems like a unique opportunity today. So how are you thinking about ramping development as quickly as you can to maybe capitalize on what’s going on today?
Matt Birenbaum:
Austin, it’s Matt. I can speak to that a little bit, and Ben maybe want to as well. But – so the good news is we have a – we’re controlling a lot of really good real estate right now for very modest upfront investment. So we’ve kind of been operating the platform in anticipation of a potential opportunity emerging like this really for the last couple of years. And we’ve added quite a lot to our pipeline over the last year or 2. We’re controlling, I think, 40 or 41 potential deals with pretty modest land on our balance sheet. I think it was $180 million. At the end of the quarter, the total investment, including capitalized pursuit cost, is only around $235 million or $240 million. So we have – and a lot of those options are not yet at the point where we have to make a decision about are we going to close? Are we going to – as Ben mentioned, there are some conversations going on with some sellers about these deals were struck in a different environment. So I think we’re well positioned. I wouldn’t say it’s quite there yet. It’s not like development economics are screening value yet. We kind of have to see where asset values settle out, and that’s the other side of this, is what’s going on in the transaction market, which is still pretty muted deal volumes. But we do have the ability to ramp it up if we see that emerging kind of later this year, particularly when we look to next year. The other thing is, as I mentioned, we are starting to see the moderation in hard costs, particularly in some markets where start volume has come down. There are other markets where that’s coming, but it’s not here quite yet. So we’re watching that very closely every day. And that’s the other opportunity that we will see. There are some markets where we think it’s going to come down more. There is other markets where it’s going to take a little more time. But over – particularly the next 4 or 5 months, as we have more deals out in the market actively bidding, we will have a much better sense for where hard costs are going. Because what we’re finding today is if you have a job that you’re going to start in a year and you’re showing preliminary drawns, you’re not getting particularly attractive pricing. But if you have a job that’s truly ready to go, you’ve got a permit in hand, subcontractors can see some early site work and they have a hole in their production schedule, that’s when you’re seeing the more aggressive bid.
Ben Schall:
Two areas I’d emphasize, One, just on the point of our relatively limited land holdings, when you look across our peer set, our landholding numbers is below a number of our peers, despite kind of our ability to execute at higher development levels throughout cycles. So we’ve got some room in there. The second part is in an environment right now, we recognize we need to be selective about that. But in places, it could be markets we know really well, have nearby operating communities, places where we can bring our platform into, we’re finding opportunities there in our expansion markets for some high-quality land deals that are falling out of contract, ability to step in. And yes, there have been a couple of situations where land is getting repriced at 30% to 35%, where it was priced 9 months ago. If we can step in and control that land with relatively limited cost to look out a couple of years, and we think that will accrue some significant benefits.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Thanks for all the detail.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Adam Kramer:
Hey, guys. Thanks for the questions. I just wanted to ask about bad debt. It looks like 500 basis points on kind of a gross basis in the quarter. Just wondering – I know you have a really helpful kind of market-by-market breakdown there. So just wondering kind of how you’re thinking about gross bad debt over the next few quarters? And is there a chance that this could be kind of abate – some sort of a tailwind going into next year if this does return to – maybe it doesn’t return all the way to kind of normal pre-COVID levels, right, but just you give some year-over-year improvements on that number?
Sean Breslin:
Sure, Adam. This is Sean. Just a couple of comments on that. First, as it relates to bad debt during the quarter, the sort of uncollectible portion from our residents, as we think about a sort of underlying bad debt, came in at around 3%, which is about 22 basis points better than what we anticipated. And that’s the $0.01 that Ben basically spoke about in terms of what we picked up in the first quarter. Moving forward, for the balance of the year, we’re expecting Q2 through Q4 to average roughly 2.7%, starting at about 3% in Q2 and then sort of trending down throughout the year in terms of that underlying sort of bad debt percentage. So that’s how the sort of trajectory looks as you move forward. Different markets are doing different things. We saw some nice improvement in New York – the Greater New York region in the first quarter. It was responsible for about half the variance in the quarter, about third in Southern Cal and then kind of sprinkled across the other markets as well. So overall, we were pleased with what we saw in the first quarter, but it doesn’t necessarily make for a trend just yet, and we will be able to revisit that mid-year once we have a better sense for how things are playing out as we move through the second quarter as well.
Adam Kramer:
Great. That’s really helpful, and I appreciate the clarification around the 300 basis points. I was wrong on my higher number there. I appreciate that. Just as a follow-up. Is there a chance that you can kind of have a – I guess, kind of more of a one-time in nature, but kind of a benefit from residents who kind of true up, right? Who not only kind of pay current on rent but also pay prior periods that they had, that they were delinquent on and hadn’t paid? Is it possible you can kind of see a one-time benefit from that?
Sean Breslin:
Adam, what I’d say is anything is possible. I don’t think that is probable based on the resident behavior we have seen thus far. So I would not anticipate that. To the extent that we, all of a sudden, cash started ringing in from people who haven’t paid, that’s not necessarily what we’ve expected in our guidance, it would be a bump. But I would not expect that as a likely outcome.
Adam Kramer:
Got it. Really helpful, guys. Thanks for the time.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
Chandni Luthra:
Hi, thank you for taking my questions. Could you talk about concessions? What are you seeing across your markets, particularly on the West Coast and perhaps even on your expansion markets? And how has the trend been in the last 19 days? Have things gone worse? Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Sure, Chandni. This is Sean. Happy to answer that. First, in terms of Q1 activity, across all the leases we signed in the quarter, which was about 16,000 leases, the average concession is less than $200. So very, very modest. Obviously, more concentrated in certain places. What I would tell you is about 30% of the concession volume that we experienced in the quarter in terms of leases that were captured were spread across Seattle and the Bay Area, particularly in San Francisco. So that’s where most of the volume is, frankly. But if you look at concessions over the last few weeks, just to give you a little more recent data, less than 10% of the transactions that we’re executing are seeing a concession. And again, it’s more concentrated in those two areas, San Francisco and the Pacific Northwest, where in those markets, you’re 30%, 40%, 45% of the leases, depending on submarket or getting some type of a concession. So those are the two places where we’re focused on at the most in terms of moving volume, but it’s not a significant issue elsewhere.
Chandni Luthra:
Noted. And then as a follow-up, last quarter, you laid out cap rates in the mid- to high-4s range. What are you seeing right now? And at what levels would you think that it would become appealing enough for you to dive in?
Matt Birenbaum :
Yes. This is Matt. I guess, I’ll speak to that one. So what we’ve said of cap rates and then our own trading activity, I think what we’re seeing is that there is a bifurcated market. There are a lot of assets that are not trading. Those that are, I would kind of put them into two buckets, kind of the haves and the have nots. The haves, which is highly desirable assets in locations, either markets or submarkets that are on a lot of investors’ lists. For growth, those assets are still trading in the mid-4s cap rates. I think, in fact, I would have – if you’d asked me 90 days ago, I probably would have said high 4s, but – and we do have some assets actively in the market today that hopefully will close during Q2, and we have at least one that’s in that haves category, I would say, that’s probably more of a mid-4 cap rate. Now when I say cap rate, I’m not necessarily talking about the yield. I’m talking about kind of the market convention, the way they report a cap rate, which includes a management fee and a CapEx allowance and the buyer’s property taxes. The other side of the equation is the assets that maybe have a little bit less of a interest that have a less deep pool of bidders. And there, the have nots, you might have one or two that are seriously interested. And there, I’d say cap rates are probably more like low 5s. And so call that range anywhere from 4.5 to 5.25. And we may have an asset or two that’s in that latter category as well that’s currently working in the market. As it relates to our own asset trading activity, our plan for the year was to be net neutral. But to – really, we started last year saying, we were going to sell first and buy seconds. So that to the extent we’re trading out of assets in our established regions into our expansion regions, we would know what the cap rate and pricing was on the asset that we were selling, which in turn would inform our appetite on the buy side. So now we do have a couple of dispositions that are in process. And so we are going to be looking here over the next quarter or two to reinvest that capital into potentially some acquisitions in the expansion regions. So we would expect – I don’t know if anything is going to close on the acquisition side in Q2, but it is our plan to kind of resume that forward trading.
Chandni Luthra:
Appreciate all the color. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of John Pawlowski with Green Street. Please proceed with your question.
John Pawlowski:
Thanks for the time. I just wanted to follow-up on the conversation around the state of the development market and the bullets you lay out on Page 11 of the investor deck. Ben, I know you threw out like a 30% to 35% reduction in land value comps. Is that representative of the market right now? And like is the volume of these broken sites meaningful right now? Or we’re just getting started on the repricing?
Ben Schall:
I think we are still early. There are more sellers than less who are actually willing to give current contracts to the time, right, extend out and see where it heads. But we are starting to see some situations where deals are breaking. And the two situations I was referring to had buyers who are relatively motivated. And when they are looking at on the landscape, this goes to Matt’s comments about our ability to execute our – that we don’t need to rely on construction financing, right, to execute projects today, those buyers are going to own the margin, look to somebody like AvalonBay to contract to – contract with. So that’s – yes, I’d say that’s the kind of the general environment. Our expectation is that there is more to come. Starts are – we’re expecting to be down substantially this year. And a big part of underlying all of this is you look out at the private market environment and the merchant builders who have been very prolific, their ability to get capital for new construction deals is just very challenging. And the cost of that capital has also expanded out significantly, right? So on a relative basis, this is one of the parts that we’re starting to see. While our cost of capital has gone up or in our cost of debt borrowing has obviously gone up from the 2% range to 5% range, the private market players, if they can get construction financing, those senior mortgages are at 7.5% to 8.5% now, right? And that’s before putting on some preferred equity or mezz and that’s before getting to equity, right? So our relative advantage in a period like this, we think, is we’re relatively well positioned. And so selectively, we’re going to start stepping into some of these types of opportunities.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. On that point, I’m just curious if you guys have any internal theories on why we haven’t seen a more precipitous falloff in permitting and start activity? I mean the credit markets have been volatile for a while, and they have been tightening for a while. And I know they are down a little bit more in your markets. But I’m just curious if you got to have any internal views on why we haven’t seen the relief yet in the permitting and starts data.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, John, it’s Matt. It’s – I ask Craig Thomas, my Head of Market Research, that question every month when the permit numbers come out. It is a little bit of a head scratcher. I mean, I think in the fourth quarter, a lot of that was probably capital that was committed and have been lined up. And then a lot of the start – a lot of the permit and even start activity I’ve come to learn is not kind of what we would think of as our product, as much of half of it is other things. Affordable housing production is actually running pretty high right now. There was a lot of one-time money through some of the COVID relief funds, which has gotten out there. So that could be inflating it a bit. But – and in some cases, people may be pulling permits and then getting bids and not liking the numbers they are seeing. But it is a little bit of a head scratcher, I would agree with you.
John Pawlowski:
Okay, thanks for the time.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Jamie Feldman:
Great. Thank you. I guess as you think about potential acquisition opportunities, do you think there could be some portfolios or platforms out there for acquisition? Or do you think it will be kind of singles and doubles on the land side or on the asset side?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hi, Jamie, it’s Matt. I would expect, it’s probably more of the latter. Usually, portfolio transactions, unless somebody has some kind of – unless they bought a portfolio and put a lot of short-term debt on it all, which would be pretty unusual, our portfolio – usually sellers selling portfolios, it’s more opportunistic. And those things happen when there is an abundance of capital. And go back 3, 4 years, there was kind of a portfolio premium. Today, you talked about – I think, on the last call, there is a portfolio discount just given the capital markets. So we haven’t heard of anything like that. And I guess I’d be a little surprised.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay, thank you. And then as you think about the suburban versus urban assets, whether it’s the April data or your views on what’s to come in spring leasing, any thoughts on how they are performing versus each other and versus your expectations? And what we can see going forward – expect going forward?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Jim, it’s Sean. What I would say is that, yes, generally, things were in line. The rent change that we experienced in Q1, that’s gave out 10 basis points better than what we anticipated. And if you double click through that and look at urban and suburban, again, very, very nominal variances. Certainly, as we move forward, particularly if we get into an environment that is weaker from an economic standpoint, we do feel very good about our suburban coastal portfolio, given the exposure, new supply is quite a bit less than what we are anticipating in urban environments. So, I would say, kind of as expected right now. But as you look forward, depending on how the environment unfolds, we would probably pivot more towards suburban assets outperforming.
Jamie Feldman:
Suburban assets outperforming?
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. Alright. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
John Kim:
Hi. Thank you. I know you talked a little bit about Gables already, but I was wondering how big you think this revenue opportunity could be as far as offering this kind of office – back-office support functions for other operators?
Ben Schall:
John, yes, we haven’t sized it yet at this point. We went through the pilot, as I described. We want to get to our first third-party client fully implemented. We get a little bit further out. We will start thinking about the profile of additional clients and even further down the road, thinking about where it could come, but we are not at that stage yet.
John Kim:
Okay. And where do you see the most attractive opportunities, whether it’s the broken deals that you talked about in the presentation versus mezz or other ground-up developments?
Ben Schall:
Yes. I will hit maybe on three areas, and Matt can add in because he and his teams are living and breathing this. First is the development side, which we talked about. Second is on acquisitions, and this gets into – we do think our relative trade, selling out of the established regions and into the expansion regions, is more attractive today. We have got a couple of assets now that hopefully, we will sell over the next couple of months. And so when we look to deploy that capital, the types of situations we can be looking at are could be deals in lease up, right, which are harder to finance for most buyers today, could be a place where we can bring our platform to bear for a particular reason, nearby asset. But generally, in this type of environment we are not doing a ton of buying and selling. On the buy side, we are going to be looking for places where we can add and create some incremental yield on those acquisitions over the first couple of years. And then the third category that I would highlight goes broadly to the theme in a world of capital is less abundant. We believe opportunities will present themselves to us. But it also makes our capital more attractive, right. So, you think about our programs, the developer funding program, our structured investment program. And we look out over that book of business, and we think we have the ability, stronger sponsors, stronger quality real estate, better returns. So, that’s another place where we can selectively put capital to create value.
John Kim:
Very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Dennerlein with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Josh Dennerlein:
Yes. Hi everyone. Thanks for the question. Kind of go back to the opening remarks about the development pipeline and how you don’t mark to market the yield until they are impacted lease-up, does that imply that the potential uplift from the seven projects that haven’t gotten to lease up yet, but will go into it later this year, not included in the guidance range?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. This is Matt. The guidance for the year, most of those deals are going to really impact earnings in ‘24 and ‘25 because they are not going to start leasing until later this year. So, we do have lease-up budgets on those deals, which is reflected in the guidance, which does reflect higher rents than kind of what’s shown on the development attachment, but the real lift there isn’t ‘23, it’s ‘24.
Josh Dennerlein:
Okay. That’s super helpful. And then one follow-up to that, the 70 basis uplift for that, you said projects you have currently with updated projections, is that a fair uplift at this point for those seven projects?
Matt Birenbaum:
I would say that, that was kind of the point of included in the slide, yes, that if the 17% uplift in rent is roughly comparable to what we have seen across our entire same-store book over that time, if that – if those seven lease-ups experience similar kind of rent growth to kind of what we have seen broadly over that time period. And yes, I mean we would be expecting to see the yields on those deals rise by like roughly similar amount.
Josh Dennerlein:
Okay. And then you mentioned – like if you could start a project today, you are seeing good construction pricing bids versus like a few had something that might not start for a year, you are not seeing that. What’s driving that dynamic?
Matt Birenbaum:
I think it’s just certainty. I mean when you ask somebody to give you a price on a deal you are not going to start for a year, it’s just – they are just giving you an estimate number. It’s not – you can’t take that number to the bank. Anyway, you don’t even – you don’t have final construction drawing. So, you are not contracting at that number. It’s more of an allowance. And so it’s natural for people to say, “Well, here is where I did the last job at.” When you have a job that’s ready to go and it’s like, I need your guys on site in 90 days, that’s when some subcontractors are busy and don’t need the business. And we will give you a – we will not give you a number that’s any better than the number they would have given you 90 days ago. But there are others where, as I have said, maybe they were working on five jobs, they only see two coming up, they have availability, and they are essentially willing to lean into their margins, which got very inflated over the last couple of years when all these subcontractors were stretched beyond their capacity.
Josh Dennerlein:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho. Please proceed with your question.
Haendel St. Juste:
Hey. Good afternoon. A couple of quick ones for me. I guess first a question on the equity that you pulled from your forward and investing with the bank at the 5%, how much is that? Can you request to withdraw it at any time at your option? And what’s the longer term plan for that capital? Is it ultimately earmarked for development funding, or would you also consider acquisitions or other DFP? Thanks.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes, sure, Handel. This is Kevin. Well, the amount that we pulled down the equity for was $490 million. And so roughly speaking, that’s the amount that we incrementally invested, and we did so. And latter time deposits with banking partners that are very highly rated, known to us, part of our credit facility syndicate. And so – and the latter-time deposits are essentially mapped to when we think we will be pulling that capital down or need the cash in order to reinvest into development. So, that’s how we have structured that set of the cash investment activity so far. So – and we would retain liquidity to fund development from that source as well as liquidity on our line of credit, so we – of $2.25 billion, where there is nothing drawn. So, we have plenty of ability to respond to new opportunities that may justify an earlier deployment of cash, either from the cash is – the cash we have invested or from our line of credit.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Thanks Kevin. That’s helpful. Ben, maybe one for you. For those of us who followed AvalonBay for some time, the recent changes you have made entering the mezz lending business still being deeper into third-party services and even a more proactive cash management strategy, capitalizing on the environment to generate some incremental FFO that you outlined. I guess I am curious, how should we be interpreting these changes and what they suggest for Avalon’s longer term strategy as you evolve the platform? Curious what else you are considering, what else top of mind as you have to get the company forward? And then how did you think about the trade-offs for perhaps growing the revenue, but maybe adding a bit of complexity and maybe a lower multiple as well? Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Yes. I appreciate that. I would start by emphasizing, I mean this is about this executive team, right. So, we are the ones setting the course for this business over the coming years, and we are looking for ways to continue to drive earnings, profit and ways to differentiate that we think can lead to long-term value creation. A number of the recent announcements, including the DFP and SIP, there have been versions of this that have existed, elements that we are working on. And so we have decided as a team, in certain areas, where we think we can accelerate that activity. And so you have seen that come. In terms of our strategic focus areas, we have communicated this externally and continue to emphasize it internally. First is our operating model transformation and driving margin and value to customers through that. Second is optimizing our portfolio as we grow. And part of that is our movement to the expansion markets and also looking to prune assets out of our established regions. Third is leveraging our development DNA in new ways. And so that gets into our programs like our DFP and our SIP. We don’t talk a lot on this call, but particularly for certain investors, it matters and for associates and increasing our residents, our leadership in ESG. And then the fifth one, we always drive home, and this is what’s special about here is people and culture. So, that’s what – those are what are driving us as we look ahead and I believe will create outperformance for us.
Haendel St. Juste:
Okay. Appreciate the thoughts. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler. Please proceed with your question.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey. Good afternoon. So, two questions here. First, on the expansion market, can you just remind us where you are targeting urban versus suburban? Just from some of your peers we have spoken and then speaking to the private operators in the Sunbelt, it definitely seems like the supply competition is much more concentrated in the urban areas, whereas those out in the suburbs tend to be less impacted. So, just sort of curious, as you look at the Sunbelt, how you are framing out your exposure?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey Alex, it’s Matt. So, we don’t necessarily start with a particular kind of goal in mind. Really what we are looking for is the best risk-adjusted return. And we are taking it as an opportunity in these expansion regions to construct a portfolio from the ground up. And what we found over the last couple of years as we have started our investment there, that we felt like the supply/demand fundamentals and the pricing of the assets was just more attractive in the suburbs. So, if you look at our Denver portfolio, the assets we bought there, they have all been suburban assets. We did develop the one deal in RiNo to a very high development yield. But – so we are going to supplement and ultimately have a diversified portfolio. But we tend to be finding better value in the suburbs, not just better supply-demand fundamentals, but also better pricing until recently, probably higher cap rates as well. So, same thing in Southeast Florida, if you look at where we bought in Southeast Florida, it has tended to be more we bought in Voka [ph]. We bought in Margao. We just recently bought a couple of different assets in Broward County. So, we have tended to find better value there. And we are very mindful of that as we invest. We may develop a little bit in urban areas, if we find a really strong opportunity, but a lot of our development pipeline is also suburban right now. In Denver, we have the one deal under construction in Westminster, and then we have one deal in Governor’s Park, which is more of an urban submarket. But these Sunbelt markets, in the first place is not as much. They are not as urban in the first place. So, I don’t know that there is an urban submarket in all of Raleigh, Durham, in the Downtown Raleigh. And we are not looking at that. So – and in Charlotte, all of our development has been in the suburbs. We did buy the portfolio in the South kind – which is kind of the one urban submarket there that is very, very dynamic. So, I would say that’s the exception. But generally speaking, you are right, it may be a little bit of a different strategy than the way some others have pursued it. And it’s also kind of just more of the way the lifestyle is in a lot of the Sunbelt metros. They just – they don’t necessarily have the same transit orientation. They don’t have the concentration of employment. And a lot of the reason people are moving there is frankly to have more space and have more of that suburban stuff, so.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. The second question is, just given what’s going on in the insurance market, are you seeing more of – I don’t want to say opportunity, but are you seeing that it’s financially better for you to take on more self-insuring your portfolio to reduce the cost, or maybe, especially as you partner with developers where you guys are self-insuring more, to try and mitigate some of the pretty – the sizable premium jumps or the ability or inability to get certain carriers or reinsurers?
Kevin O’Shea:
Alex, this is Kevin. Maybe I will just respond strictly to the insurance aspects of this, and then may Ben or Matt may want to respond to the development implications. But you are spot on with respect to highlighting the self-insurance aspects and really the relative strength of well-capitalized REITs and particularly, residential REITs that absorb this risk as opposed to passing on to commercial tenants. So, having that capability to self-insure has been a helpful thing in recent years as the insurance market has become increasingly challenging. I am not going to get too specific about what’s going on with those property renewal now, because we renew on May 15th, so we are actually in the market for that. But we have, in the past, I would say, 7 years or 8 years, used our wholly-owned regulated captive insurance company in order to be strategic in these property renewals, to mitigate bearing the full impact of market increases in property insurance premiums, to the extent individual insurers have become inefficient in their pricing. And so that has helped keep our insurance costs in the property program to a far lower than market rate of growth. And so for example, last year, total insurance costs, which properties have the biggest piece, grew then by 4% to 5% last year. We do expect a higher level of growth this year in the property program. But as we look at this year’s renewal, we’re likely to be willing to take on more self-retained risk through our captive in order to mitigate inefficient pricing from some of the market participants should that be necessary.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Ami Probandt with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Ami Probandt:
Hi. So turnover was up from the 2022 lows, but remains low on a historic basis. Wondering over the next couple of years, do you think we trend back toward a more historic level? Or has demand shifted in a way where turnover could remain below the historic level?
Sean Breslin:
Ami, this is Sean. Good question. Obviously, somewhat speculative in nature in terms of what happens. I mean the one thing I would say is that we continue to remain in a relatively tight housing market overall. If you look at the sort of aggregation of multifamily, single-family, etcetera and the ability for people to access the kind of inventory they want, may be more limited, particularly on the single-family side, maybe condos, townhomes, et cetera, in the last couple of years. That does not seem to be likely to correct. So I’d say that’s probably the one macro factor that may put some cap on sort of churn and people that would typically 13%, 14%, 15% that might go buy a home, this past quarter, that was less than 10%. And that’s not likely to get better in the near-term given the financing market, but also just the production in terms of what’s actually being put on the ground. So that’s one factor that may kind of keep a lid on things here for the next several quarters.
Ami Probandt:
Okay. Great. And then another quick one. How do yields on the projects and the developer funding program compare with AvalonBay development yields?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, Ami, this is Matt. They are – the way we think about that program is basically we’re allocating the risk differently than on our own development. And so consequently, the target returns are also allocated differently. Our target is for the yield to be roughly halfway between an acquisition and a development. What we found so far, and the few we’ve done is that it’s been higher than that. So the way I would think about it is the yield on those deals is probably going to be 30, 40 basis points less than the yield on if we’ve done the development ourselves, but still probably at least 50, 60 basis points north of where an acquisition yield would be, if not more.
Ami Probandt:
Okay, thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Powell with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Anthony Powell:
Hi, good afternoon. Broader question, I guess, on the Governor of New York’s housing proposal that is stalled now in the Senate and the House there, that would have expanded zoning for multifamily in the suburbs. Was that an opportunity for you to develop? Or was that more supply? And how do you view those kinds of, I guess, initiatives nationwide going forward?
Matt Birenbaum:
I would have – this is Matt. I think – and Ben and Sean may want to weigh in as well. It’s really interesting to see these states try to engage in that dialogue about. But one of the things that has really led to the supply constraints that have in turn led to really an underproduction of housing has been local control. And that is a bit of a third rail politically in California, in New York and other states. So it’s interesting to see the state legislatures try to chip away at it. I think you’re right, it’s both, right? It would be an opportunity for us as a developer. If it was really effective in the long run, it might lower the long-term rent growth trajectory of some of those markets. Frankly, from a public policy point of view, that’s kind of would be the point of it. What we’ve seen so far, at least in California, has been every time there is been something that, in theory, would have opened up more sites to development, there is been something else on the other side that’s come with it that has made it a bit of a poison pill. So it has been very difficult to actually effectuate. They say they’ll allow multifamily in your transit, but then they are saying it has to be prevailing wage, construction cost, which is a 20%, 30% premium. And so economically, it doesn’t work. Or they’ll open it up in certain sites, but they need 20%, 25% affordable. And again, you can’t afford the going price for land and make that economics work. So the one place we’ve seen it truly be effective so far has been with the smaller program in California, the ADU accessory dwelling unit. We actually have over 100 of those currently in our pipeline, where we can just add two, three, four, five, six, seven apartments in kind of underutilized storage or parking areas at existing communities and not have to go through its zoning process. So that’s not going to move the needle kind of on the prominent macro level, but that’s one small program we have been able to take advantage of.
Ben Schall:
And then maybe just to add kind of – yes, the higher level regulatory dynamics are influencing our portfolio allocation decisions. It’s been a part of the reason why over the last number of years, we’ve been moving more and more to a suburban-oriented portfolio. And if you see where we’re allocating capital, we’re two-thirds suburban today, probably headed towards three quarters there. It’s influenced our move to the expansion regions, right, at a minimum to diversify away from regulatory environments. And then the reality is, at a more local level based on some of the steps of certain municipalities. And effectively, the bar is higher for allocating new capital there and it’s playing into how we’re shifting capital around our portfolio and within our regions.
Anthony Powell:
Great. That’s it for me. Thank you.
Operator:
There are no further questions in the queue. I’d like to hand the call back to Ben Schall for closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We appreciate your support and look forward to speaking with you soon.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the Company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Doug, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities fourth quarter 2022 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the Company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason, and hello everyone. I'm joined by Kevin, Sean and Matt, and after our prepared remarks, we will open the line for questions. I'll start by quickly summarizing our 2022 results and highlighting our progress on a number of strategic focus areas. As shown on slide 4, from operating results perspective, 2022 was a phenomenal year, and one of the strongest in the Company's history, with 10.9% same store NOI growth and 18.5% core FFO growth. We ended the year with core FFO of $9.79 per share, which just to reflect back, was $0.24 above our initial guidance at the beginning of 2022. On the capital allocation front, we proactively adjusted during 2022 as the environment and our cost of capital changed. In April, we raised approximately $500 million of forward equity at a spot price of $2.55 per share, which is still fully available. As the year progressed, we pivoted from our original expectation of being a $275 million net buyer to ending the year as a $400 million net seller, a shift of roughly $700 million in total. We also ratcheted down new development starts given the shifting environment -- to $730 million from our original guidance of $1.15 billion. Collectively, these moves put us in an extremely strong liquidity position and fully match-funded with capital secured for all of the development we have underway. We also made significant progress during 2022 on our strategic focus areas, three of which I want to highlight today. First, as detailed on slide 5, continue to make very strong inroads on the transformation of our operating model. We captured approximately $11 million of incremental NOI from our operating initiatives in 2022. In 2023, we're projecting an additional $11 million of incremental NOI from these initiatives, and looking further out expect meaningful contributions in 2024 and beyond. This uplift is being driven by a number of initiatives including our Avalon Connect offering, which is our package of seamless bulk internet, and a new developments Managed Wi-Fi, which we have now deployed to over 20,000 homes and expect to be at over 50,000 homes by the end of 2023. During 2022, we revamped our website and fully digitized our application and leasing process. What used to take 30 plus minutes of associate’s time can now be completed digitally in about 5 minutes. We also rolled out our mobile maintenance platform across the entire portfolio, allowing our residents and maintenance associates to interact much more efficiently and seamlessly. As a result of these initiatives, we believe we are enhancing the customer experience while also driving operating efficiencies, which over the past few years has resulted in a roughly 15% improvement in the number of units managed per onsite FTE. Turning to slide 6 as a second strategic area. We are focused on optimizing our portfolio as we grow. Our goal is to shift 25% of our portfolio to our six expansion markets over the next six to seven years. In addition to diversifying our portfolio, this shift reflects the reality that more and more of ABV’s core customer, knowledge based workers are increasingly in these markets. At the end of 2022, including our development currently underway, we increased our expansion market exposure to 7%, and subject to the capital allocation environment this year, we expect to be at 10% by the end of 2023. We're funding a large portion of this shift through dispositions in our established regions, which also allows us to prune the portfolio of slower growth assets and/or those with higher CapEx profiles, which should lead to stronger cash flow growth in the portfolio in the years ahead. Our third strategic focus area has been on leveraging our development expertise in new ways and in ways that drive additional earnings growth. More specifically, as detailed on slide 7, we are expanding our program of providing capital to third-party developers primarily as a way to accelerate our presence in our expansion markets. In 2022, this included a project start in Durham, North Carolina and a new commitment in Charlotte. During 2022, we also successfully launched our Structured Investment business, with over $90 million of preferred equity or mezzanine loan commitments made during the year. We believe that both of these programs will be increasingly attractive to third-party developers in 2023, and we're also fortunate to be building these books of business now at today's economics and bases versus in yesterday's environment. Before turning it to Kevin to provide the specifics of our 2023 guidance, I want to provide some additional context on our underlying economic assumptions for the year. From a forecasting perspective, we are overlaying the consensus forecast from the National Association of Business Economists, or NABE, on top of our proprietary submarket by submarket research data and model. The NABE consensus assumes a significant slowing in job growth during the year, down to about 50,000 jobs per month by the third quarter and a total of approximately 1 million of net job growth in 2023. The output of our modes is a forecast of market rent growth of 3% during the year. In a year in which we will need to be prepared for a wider set of potential outcomes than usual, there are a number of attributes of our portfolio, and particularly our concentration in suburban coastal markets, that we expect to serve as a ballast in a potentially softening economic environment. As shown on slide 8, the cost of a median-priced home relative to median income in our markets continues to serve as a barrier to home ownership and support demand for our apartment communities. This is in addition to the repercussions of today's higher mortgage rates, which make the economics of renting significantly more attractive. The other side of the equation is supply. In softening times, having an existing asset that is in direct competition with a recently built nearby project and lease-up can be particularly challenging. Our portfolio has some of the lowest levels of directly competitive new supply across the peer group at only 1.4% of stock, which we believe positions us well. And with that, I'll turn it to Kevin to detail our 2023 guidance.
Kevin O’Shea:
Thanks, Ben. On slide 9, we provide our operating and financial outlook for 2023. For the year, using the midpoint of guidance, we expect 5.3% growth in core FFO per share driven primarily by our same-store portfolio as well as by stabilizing development. In our same-store residential portfolio, we expect revenue growth of 5%, operating expense growth of 6.5% and NOI growth of up 4.25% for the year. For development, we expect new development starts of about $875 million this year, and we expect to generate $21 million in residential NOI from development communities currently under construction and undergoing lease-up during 2023. As for our capital plan, we expect to fund most of this year's capital uses with capital that we sourced during last year's much more attractive cost of capital environment. Specifically, we anticipate total capital uses of $1.8 billion in 2023, consisting of $1.2 billion of investment spend and $600 million in debt maturities. For capital sources, we expect to utilize $550 million of the $630 million in unrestricted cash on hand at year-end 2022, $350 million of projected free cash flow after dividends and $490 million from our outstanding forward equity contract from last year. This leaves only $400 million in remaining capital to be sourced, which we plan to obtain primarily from unsecured debt issuance later in 2023. From a transaction market perspective, we currently plan on being a roughly net neutral seller and buyer in 2023 with a continued focus on selling communities in our established markets and on buying communities in our expansion markets while being prepared to adjust our transaction volume and timing in response to evolving market conditions. On slide 10, we illustrate the components of our expected 5.3% growth in core FFO per share. Nearly all of our expected earnings growth of $0.52 per share is expected to come from NOI growth in our same-store and redevelopment portfolios, which are expected to contribute $0.50 per share. Elsewhere, NOI from investment activity and from overhead JV income and management fees are expected to contribute $0.19 and $0.03 per share, respectively, while being partially offset by a headwind of $0.10 per share each from capital markets activity and from higher variable rate interest expense, resulting in an expected $0.02 per share net earnings growth from these other parts of our business. On slide 11, we show the quarterly cadence of apartment deliveries from development communities under construction for 2022 and on a projected basis for '23 and '24. As you can see on this slide, new deliveries declined in 2022 and remain relatively low as we begin 2023. This recent decline in deliveries was due to our decision during the early days of the pandemic, to reduce wholly owned development starts to $220 million [ph] in 2020 before resuming higher levels of development starts thereafter in 2021. As a result, development NOI for this year is expected to be below trend at $21 million versus $42 million last year. However, new development communities are expected to increase significantly later in the year and into next year, which should set the stage for more robust NOI growth from development communities next year. And with that summary of our outlook, I'll turn it over to Sean to discuss operations.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thank you, Kevin. Moving to slide 12 in terms of our operating environment. After a very strong first half of the year, we ended 2022 with several of our key operating metrics, including occupancy, availability and turnover trending to what we consider more normal levels. In addition, following two years of abnormal patterns, rent seasonality returned with peak values being achieved during Q2 and Q3 before easing in the back half of the year. More recently, the volume of prospective renters visiting our communities increased in January as compared to what we experienced in November and December, which translated into a modest lift in occupancy, and we do see amount of available inventory to lease as we entered February. Additionally, asking rents have increased about 100 basis points since the beginning of the year, which is beginning to flow into rent change. Based on signed leases that take effect in February, we're expecting like-term effective rent change to be in the low-4% range. Turning to slide 13. The midpoint of our outlook reflects same-store revenue growth of 5% for the full year 2023. Growth in lease rates is driving the majority of our revenue growth for the year, which includes 3.5% embedded growth from 2022 and an expectation of roughly 3% effective rent growth for 2023, which contributes about 150 basis points to our full year growth rate. We expect additional contributions from other rental revenue, which is projected to grow by roughly 16%, about two-thirds of which is driven by our operating initiatives, a modest improvement in uncollectible lease revenue and a slight tailwind from the reduced impact of amortized concessions. We're assuming that uncollectible lease revenue improves from 3.7% for the full year 2022 to 2.8% for the calendar year 2023. Of course, this improvement is more than offset by a projected $36 million reduction in the amount of rent relief we expect to recognize in 2023. The combination of the two reflects a projected 80 basis-point headwind from net bad debt for the full year 2023. Moving to slide 14. We expect our East Coast regions to produce revenue growth slightly above the portfolio average, while the West Coast markets are projected to fall below the portfolio average, and our expansion markets are projected to produce the strongest year-over-year revenue growth for the portfolio. One point to highlight is that the reduction in rent relief will have a more material impact on our reported 2023 revenue growth in certain regions and markets, for example, Southern California and Los Angeles. We have footnoted the projected impact for each region at the bottom of slide 14 and enhanced our disclosure in the earnings supplemental, so everyone has visibility into the impact of the change in rent relief as compared to underlying market fundamentals. Turning to slide 15. Same-store operating expense growth is projected to be elevated in 2023 due to a variety of factors. The first is just the underlying inflation in the macro environment, which is impacting several categories, including utilities, wage rates, et cetera. Second, we're expecting greater pressure on insurance rates, given the increase in the number and severity of various disasters over the past couple of years, combined with a relatively light year of claims activity in 2022. We're rolling all that cost pressure into the organic growth rate of 4.8%, you see on the table on slide 15. In addition to the organic pressure in the business, about 170 basis points of additional operating expense growth is coming from the phaseout of property tax abatement programs, primarily in New York City, and NOI accretive initiatives. The phaseout of the property tax abatement programs is projected to add about 70 basis points to our total operating expense growth for the year. While we'll generate some incremental revenue during the phaseout period, the ultimate benefit will be the extinguishment of the rent-stabilized program for those units in a particularly challenging regulatory environment. The impact from initiatives reflects a few key elements of our operating model transformation, including our bulk internet, Managed Wi-Fi and Smart Access offering, which as Ben referenced is bundled and marketed as Avalon Connect. While we expect to recognize an incremental $5 million profit from this specific initiative in 2023, it's adding about 150 basis points to OpEx growth for the full year. There's a modest impact from our on-demand furnished housing initiative, which is also generating a profit for 2023. And finally, we expect additional labor efficiencies to offset some of the growth in other areas of the business as we continue to digitalize and centralize various customer interactions. And then, if you move to slide 16, you can see the progress we've made to date for each one of these three initiatives and the projected incremental impact for 2023. As I mentioned, our Avalon Connect offering is projected to deliver about $5 million in 2023. Furnished housing is contributing another $1 million. And our digitalization efforts are projected to generate an incremental $5 million benefit in 2023. In aggregate, we're expecting an additional $11 million in NOI from these three strategic priorities in 2023 with a lot more to come in future years from these initiatives and others. Now, I'll turn it to Matt to address development.
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Thanks, Sean. Just broadly speaking, development continues to be a significant driver of earnings growth and value creation for the Company. At year-end, we had $2.4 billion in development underway, most of which was still in the earlier stages of construction. The projected yield on this book of business is 5.8%. And it's worth noting that our conservative underwriting does not include any trending in rents. We do not mark rents to current market levels until leasing is well underway. On this quarter's release, only 4 of the 18 projects underway reflect this mark-to-market. But those 4 are generating rents $395 per month above pro forma, which in turn is lifting their yields by 30 basis points. We expect to see similar lift at many of the 14 other deals as they open for leasing over the next two years. And of course, this portfolio is 100% match-funded with capital that was sourced in yesterday's capital markets when cap rates and interest rates were significantly lower than they are today. If you turn to slide 17, we do expect roughly $900 million in development starts this year across 7 different projects with roughly half in our new expansion regions, and we will continue to target yields at 100 to 150 basis-point spread over prevailing cap rates. We expect the majority of the start activity in the second half of the year and are hopeful that we will be able to take advantage of moderating hard costs across our markets as these budgets are finalized. We have started to see early signs of this in a few of our latest construction buyouts as selected trade contractors have become much more motivated to secure new work. As always, we will continue to be disciplined in our capital allocation, and our projected start activity could vary significantly from our current expectations depending on how interest rates, asset values and construction costs all evolve over the course of the year. Turning to slide 18. While our recent start activity has been modest, we have been building a robust book of future opportunities that could drive significant earnings and NAV growth well into the next cycle. We have increased our development rights pipeline to roughly 40 individual projects, balanced between our established coastal regions and our new expansion regions, providing a deep opportunity set across our expanded footprint. Most of these development rights are structured as longer-term option contracts, where we're not required to close until -- on the land until all entitlements are secured. In addition, in the current environment, we are certainly seeing more flexibility from land sellers who are willing to give us more time as costs and deal economics adjust to all of the changes in the market. We continue to control this book of business with a very modest investment of just $240 million, including land held for development and capitalized pursuit costs as of year-end. For historical context, as shown on the chart on the right-hand side of the slide, this is a lower balance than we averaged through the middle part of the last cycle from 2013 to 2016, even though the dollar value of the total pipeline controlled is larger today than it was then, providing tremendous leverage on our investment in future business. And with that, I'll turn it back to Ben for some closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
Thanks, Matt. To conclude, slide 19 recaps our successes during 2022 and highlights our priorities for 2023. All of this is only possible based on the tireless efforts of our AvalonBay associate base, 3,000 strong. A personal thank you to each of you for your dedication to making AvalonBay even stronger as we continue to fulfill our mission of creating a better way to live. You're the heart and soul of our culture, and we thank you. With that, I'll turn it to the operator for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. And thanks for the call, presentation. It is always helpful as a lot of additional info. So, I always appreciate that. Maybe just starting on development in the transaction market. You mentioned the 100 to 150 basis-point spread. Can you quantify expected yields on the '23 starts and maybe what the current transaction cap rates are -- you're seeing in your markets?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. Hey Nick, it's Matt. As I'm sure you're hearing from others as well, not a lot is transacting in the current environment. So there is -- I think everybody is kind of interested to see how the transaction market evolves over the course of the year. What is trading -- seems to be trading in, call it, the mid to high 4% cap rate range, depending on the market. And there are certainly assets that are not trading. But as best we can tell, that's kind of where most transactions in our markets seem to be settling out today. And just as a point of reference, the development we expect to start this year, those yields are underwriting to around 6 -- low 6s today. So that's very consistent with the spread right -- very solidly in that 100 to 150 basis-point range that I mentioned.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. That's helpful. And then just on the -- I guess, the continued reallocation of the capital into these expansion regions, do you expect any difference in cap rates between the buys and sells or as you reallocate that capital this year? And then, where should we expect any asset sales to occur, from which established markets?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. So, I would say, if you look back at what we've done over the last 4 or 5 years, we have rotated quite a bit of capital, and it is kind of overweighted to the Northeast. And I think you can expect that to continue that there will be continued asset sales out of the New York metropolitan area, a little bit out of Boston, some out of the Mid-Atlantic and then, selectively, a little bit on the West Coast as well but, predominantly, that -- kind of that Northeast corridor. The cap rate spread, we'll see. I would say that, that cap rate spread has probably tightened some over the last year or two because there's probably been more movement up in cap rates in the regions where we're buying than that -- in the regions where we're selling. And that's just because those were the regions that had more embedded growth in the rent roll and lower cap rates a year or two ago that -- so as interest rates have risen, basically, a lot of the markets where we're selling, the buyers were already kind of buying for yield as opposed to growth. So, there's probably been a little bit less adjustment there. So I think there might be a little bit of dilution, but I would say probably less than what we've seen in the last couple of years. And then the other part of it is tactically, we have shifted from kind of buying and then essentially doing a reverse exchange by picking an asset off the bench to sell to fund that. Mid last year, we shifted our tactics there to sell first so that we knew where that dispo was pricing. And then that, in turn, informed our view of how much we're willing to pay on the buy side. So, we've shifted to a sell first by second.
Ben Schall:
And Nick, yes, in terms of the environment today, I just want to make sure you have the right expectations for activity now versus later in the year. We're testing the market with a couple of potential asset sales generally on the sideline on acquisitions until we see how those assets, one, if we decide to trade on them and how the pricing is and then we'll evaluate the potential trade into the expansion market through other acquisitions or potentially use those proceeds for other capital allocation decisions.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Those ones being tested are in the Northeast?
Matt Birenbaum:
They are, one in the Northeast and one in the Mid-Atlantic.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore.
Steve Sakwa:
I guess, on page 13, you kind of break out all the drivers of growth. I was just hoping you could maybe tell me the areas where you have kind of the most confidence and the least confidence, where there could be upside, downside and if you also think about that by region. I guess, what areas are you thinking there could be upside in your forecast and potential downside?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Steve, this is Sean. I'll take that one. So in terms of upside and downside, first, across the various categories, reflected on slide 13, there's a couple of things I'd point to. First is, on the lease rent side, as Ben mentioned, we have a certain macroeconomic assumption, job growth, income growth, et cetera, that's reflected in our models from -- that drives that obviously, to the extent that we see either more or less improvement in the economic environment, that's going to have an impact on that and then the timing with which that occurs. So if we don't see much of an impact in terms of a decelerating macro environment until late this year, then it really would impact more '24 than '23. And then, as it relates to the other areas, I'd probably point to bad debt as really being one of the other components that I think we're all trying to estimate the likely impact of what we're going to see in certain markets. But it is one of those items that is a little more challenging to forecast. We're starting the year at roughly 3.1% underlying bad debt here, and we expect to get down to about 2.3% by the end of the year in terms of the pace of improvement and more of the improvement in the second half than the first half just given some of the issues in LA and some of the sluggishness in the courts in the Northeast. That's the other thing I'd point to as a category that would likely move the needle one way or another depending on how things unfold. There could be some upside there since -- while there has been some extensions recently, like in Los Angeles County, the extensions are getting shorter. And I think people see that they're sort of getting to the end of the tunnel on this. So, at the margin, we've incorporated that, but maybe it improves. It's hard to tell. And then geographically, I'd say, certainly, it's been more sluggish in the tech markets in Northern California and Seattle as an example, maybe to a lesser extent here in the Mid-Atlantic in terms of the government not being back in the office and things of that sort. So, depending on how the tech market unfolds here, that would be the likely impact in those regions. And then, the other regions, we're seeing strong performance out of New York City, out of Boston, generally pretty good in Southern California. So, right now, if you look at it, there's probably, I'd say, maybe a little more risk on the tech side of things, really decelerate, but we do have some stabilizers in some of these other regions. So, on par, it probably is kind of a net neutral when you add it all up.
Steve Sakwa:
Okay. Thanks. And then just on development, maybe for Matt, as you think about construction costs and what's happened with inflation, and I assume that that's starting to moderate. But how did that get factored into the $900 million of starts? And presumably, the yields are somewhere in that 6% to 6.5% range on what you're going to start. But I guess, what kind of cushion or upside could you possibly see if inflation continues to moderate?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. I guess, it's a question, Steve, of which slows down more, hard cost or rents. I think at this point, we think hard costs are moderating more. So, I would agree with you that -- it's very hard to know where hard costs truly are today until you have a hard set of plans to bid and you're truly ready to start. So, what we're starting to see is on a couple of projects that we've started in Q3 and Q4. Once we actually start moving dirt and the subcontractors see the deal is real, they are coming back with more growth in pricing, and we are starting to see some savings on the buyout, whereas a year or two ago, we were scrambling. The number was going up 1% a month. That's definitely not happening. And it is starting to move the other direction, and it's regional. So, it really does depend on the region you're in and how much subcontractor capacity there is. Sorry, we got something going on here. But -- so -- but we do -- we would expect that hard costs in many of the regions that we're looking to start business in over the next year -- or this year, I would take the under on where they're going to be relative to where they would have been, say, Q3, Q4 of last year. And so what we -- we mentioned that our starts are back loaded this year. Some of that is just the natural evolution of these deals. But some of that is actually strategic as well on our part to say we think that we'll have a better shot and it will be a better environment to buy out some of these trades over the summer, once they've kind of felt the pressure of running out of work and starts decelerating pretty dramatically.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Ben, just going back a little bit to your comments on the capital recycling side. I'm just curious how significant the volume of assets are on the market within your expansion markets that meet your underwriting criteria from a location quality perspective. And also curious if that 6 to 7-year time frame you outlined to achieve that rotation into the expansion markets, is that just a function of what you can sell in any given year?
Ben Schall:
Yes. Thanks for that, Austin. So, on the transaction side, as I mentioned, we're out in the market with a couple of assets for potential sale. Our transactions team is obviously staying close to the buying side of the market, but we're not currently actively underwriting any particular deals. We do have very detailed market-by-market analytics that are driving which submarkets. We have our close eye on type of product across various price points. So once we're ready to -- and if during this year, we decided to get back into our trading activity, we'll be ready to ramp that activity back up. In terms of your kind of broader question, the time period, we've set the broad target of getting to 25% over the next 6 to 7 years, like we've been making some good inroads over the last couple of years through trading, through our acquisition activity and then increasingly through our development funding program. We're hopeful that, in an environment like this, capital less abundant, maybe some dislocation, that there'll be opportunities for us to step in and potentially accelerate that activity. Our cost of capital, obviously, will need to be there to support that. But we could be in a window later this year where those types of opportunities start to present themselves.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes. That's helpful. And then, I'm also just curious, with the available dry powder that you have exiting this year, I'm curious what's sort of the most development you'd be comfortable starting in a given year? As you guys highlighted, you do have significant deliveries in 2024, which will accelerate the NOI contribution. And I'm just curious what kind of volume we could see you do maybe as you get into next year and beyond if the environment is sort of appropriate for accelerating starts.
Ben Schall:
Yes. Broad strokes, Austin, I'd guide you, this is not a hard and fast sort of area. But in the range of 10% upper enterprise value that we want to have under construction at a particular period of time, we're light of that today, and that's a reflection of that we have retrenched on development starts over the last couple of years given the operating environment. Yes. We've got the opportunity set that's there. Matt described that. So, we have the pipeline. We control that pipeline at a relatively limited cost. We’re spending a lot of time right now restructuring deals to our benefit because the land market has changed. So, that's there. We've got a phenomenal team, has been doing this a long time. So, an element will be how do we think about the spreads, right, how do we think about -- Matt was talking the kind of rental -- the trend lines on rents relative to the trend line on costs; how we think about maintaining a 100 to 150 basis points of spread to underlying cap rates and our cost of capital. That will -- those would be the signals where we start to lean in more fully.
Kevin O’Shea:
Maybe, Austin, just to add -- this is Kevin here. Obviously, as we talked about in the past, the development activity in terms of what we started is a function typically of three variables
Austin Wurschmidt:
Got it. But it's fair to assume, with where leverage is today, that capacity may be a little bit greater?
Kevin O’Shea:
Potentially, if you can find -- yes, certainly, from a leverage capacity standpoint. We're , as you know, 4.5 times net debt to EBITDA. Our target range is 5 to 6 times. So we certainly have borrowing capacity here to be -- to play offense quite a bit. If we see opportunities in the development side of the house or in the transaction markets, of course, we all just have to look at sort of where the cost of debt is for to fund that activity. And fortunately, we have among the lowest costs of debt capital in the REIT industry. And today, we could probably fund 10-year debt somewhere around 4.7%. So, that would be also a relevant factor as we think about the degree to which we want to lean into our leverage capacity to support additional investment.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs.
Chandni Luthra:
In terms of your outlook for your Structured Investment Program, are you seeing any deals in the market that are in distress or might be in the need for capital and could be opportunities for you? And then, what gives you confidence on generating returns of 12%?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. I can take the first one. I'm not sure I heard the second one. Confidence in…?
Ben Schall:
Returns of 12%.
Matt Birenbaum:
Okay. Yes, sure. So yes, it's Matt here. Are we seeing distress? No, but we're not really in that market, I would say, in the sense that the SIP is really targeted at providing mezz capital, either mezz or preferred equity, for new construction, merchant builders building new apartment communities in our markets. So, we're coming at the beginning of the story when they're putting together the capital stack to build the project. And what we're seeing there is given where interest rates have gone and given what's happened to proceeds, their construction loan proceeds is coming down. So developers are looking to fill that gap where maybe they were getting 60%, 65% construction loan before, now they're only getting 50% or 55%. So, we have seen kind of our investment move from maybe 65% to 85% of that stack down to, call it, 55% to 70% or 75%. And the rate has gone up, and we -- there are deals getting done in that 12% range. There are folks out there looking for short-term bridge money who started jobs two and three years ago and their first -- their construction loans are coming due, and they don't have enough refi proceeds to pay that off and their mezz. So there is a little bit -- I don't know if I call that distress, but there's a little bit of a recapitalization of newly built asset opportunity out there. That is not a market that we have gone to at this point. We're pretty much focused on the new construction side of this.
Ben Schall:
And Chandni, this is -- Matt, just to emphasize sort of the broader market, we do expect our capital through the -- through our SIP to be more attractive to developers this year than it has been over the last couple of years, which inherently then means we're going to have the opportunity to be more selective, right, about quality of the sponsor, amount of capital they're putting in, our views on the underlying real estate. And we're not entering into these SIP deals with the prospect of owning the assets to the end, but we do very detailed underwriting to make sure we're comfortable with the prospect of owning the assets if we need to.
Chandni Luthra:
Great. And then, as we think about tech layoff headlines, obviously, January was a very big month. We saw a big bump in layoffs in January, and that was significantly higher than November, which, obviously, when you think about the impact of November, December, everybody -- you guys talked about sort of seeing a slowdown. But then you talked about towards the end of January rents accelerated a little bit. So, as we think about the fact that we are only sort of just coming off these headlines that keep hitting our screens every day, this morning we saw from Disney, are you seeing any early signs in your conversations with tenants, be it around move-outs or lease negotiations, of any notices? I mean what gives you confidence that things are in -- sort of on the right path, and we are not looking at things just falling off a cliff?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Chandni, that's a good question. I'm not sure there's a notable answer to it. I can tell you about what we're seeing. But in terms of how it unfolds, I think that's what everybody is trying to understand well. What I would say is just based on the data that we collect from residents as it relates to relocation, rent increase, et cetera, et cetera, we're not seeing anything that's material at this point that would indicate that there is a significant issue underlying the economy and some of the tech markets. So, relocation has actually come down in terms of reason for move-out. Rent increase is up a little bit. But not surprising, rents have gone up quite a bit over the last 12 to 14 months. So, I don't think those are indicators that are surprise to us, and there's nothing yet in the data that would tell us that there's a significant underlying issue. Now the question, I think, that a lot of people have is severance, unemployment, et cetera, et cetera, is that sort of supporting people for a period of time. And they are, in fact, transitioning into new roles into other organizations. And there's a little bit of this sort of rotational effect from maybe some of the tech companies that took on more employees that they needed to during the pandemic and now they're rotating into other organizations, more mainstream corporate America. It's hard to tell all that, but we're not seeing anything specifically in the data, and we're not hearing a lot anecdotally from our teams on the ground saying that there is a significant issue there. I was in San Jose last week speaking to our teams, targeted people on the ground. And they're just not seeing it yet. The sandbox and the headlines are there in terms of layoffs, but it's not showing up in terms of the front door yet. So we're being proactive in some of those markets in terms of how we're thinking about extending lease duration, how we look at lease termination fees and other things to hedge a little bit. But thus far, it's not showing up in the data.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Kramer:
I just wanted to ask about the same-store expense guide. I think I really appreciate kind of the deck overall but I think specifically that slide in the deck kind of breaking out the different components. Specifically on the tax abatement, just wondering kind of -- if that's a onetimer or if that's kind of going to repeat in future years, and again, just trying to figure out what is kind of the proper recurring run rate kind of same-store expense number to kind of use as a proxy.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Adam, good question. And what I can tell you, because if things do change in terms of the assets that we have in the portfolio, what we trade and sell a lot of , et cetera, et cetera. But for the assets that are contributing to the phaseout of the tax abatements in our '23 same-store bucket, one does phase out by the end of 2023, two phase out by the end of 2024 and then the other four extend out another two or three years. So, you're going to see a little lumpiness over the next few years as some assets slowly drop out of that phaseout. Now, as I mentioned, there are some benefits we get along the way in terms of an incremental fee each year of the phaseout. And then, ultimately, in what people would consider as New York as a pretty challenging market from a regulatory standpoint. Eventually, we just get off that program at the end of the phaseout. And there should be a nice -- a pretty nice lift there in terms of rents. So, that's sort of the way to think about it a little bit. I can't give precise sort of guidance as to what to expect for years beyond 2024 in terms of what the headwind might be from that activity, but there will be some kind of headwind for the next few years.
Adam Kramer:
That's really helpful. Thank you. And then just a follow-up, thinking through the expansion markets, recognizing potentially better job growth there. I think that makes a lot of sense. But just thinking about the supply -- the supply side of things, right, and look, I think it's kind of well publicized that some of the expansion markets, Sunbelt broadly, just the elevated supply, call it, maybe for the next 12 months or so. How are you guys thinking through that? Is that kind of just weather the supply storm and probably less supply on the other side, given financing challenges today for kind of development starting today for others out there, or is it maybe the supply thing is overblown? And actually, the next 12 months is not going to have as much supply as maybe people think?
Ben Schall:
Yes. Let me handle it big picture and others can add on. The first comment I'd make, our portfolio allocation objectives, these are long-term objectives, right? We're setting these because we think they're the appropriate allocation to have over the next 20 to 30 years, right, not necessarily based on the supply and demand dynamics out of the next couple of years. With that said, we do expect the next couple of years and potentially with some reversion to the mean on the rent side and the high levels of supply could lead to more muted growth in some of these high-growth markets. We're fortunate we don't have any new deliveries. We have very limited deliveries coming on line over the next couple of years. So most of our activity that you hear us talking about, including our own development, which we're now starting, and our developer funding program, those are projects that are going to be coming on line in 2025, 2026, which currently looks like could be some lighter years from a supply perspective.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. I'd just add one other thing to that, which is we are conscious of submarket selection as well as market selection as we build the portfolio in these markets. So, if you look -- and I would point you to Denver portfolio is a good example. It's been a great market. Our portfolio, I think, has done even better than the market. And if you look at where we bought assets, it's mostly been suburban garden assets in jurisdictions where it is more supply-constrained. There's a lot of supply in Denver, but the vast majority of it is within the city of Denver proper. And we have not bought an asset in Denver. We completed one lease-up development deal there in Rhino last year, and we have another one under construction, but we're balancing that out with a suburban heavy acquisition strategy.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Thank you. Thanks for all the color and additional disclosure on uncollectible lease revenue. It did strike us a surprisingly high in New York and Southeast Florida. And I was wondering if you can comment on that. Is this due to affordability? And could you see this potentially remaining high, just given what's happening in the economy?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. John, it's Sean. Yes, New York certainly has been high in certain pockets. Even pre-pandemic, places like Long Island took forever to get through the court process. So, that's not necessarily a significant surprise. And as you might imagine, the environment is relatively pro resident friendly. And so any opportunity as they get to sort of kick the can down the road through the court system, we've generally seen that happen over the last 12 to 14 months. As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of that is slowly coming to an end, and things are opening up, but it is moving slowly. And you basically have the same phenomenon happening in Florida. Things are moving along. Obviously, it's not as kind of "pro tenant-friendly" is a place like New York by any stretch. But, courts are back up as a lot of cases that have just been on the docket for months and months, and it's taking time for things to move through the system at this point in time, just much longer than average. So, in terms of is there a particular reason in Florida, I wouldn't say necessarily that's the case. It's a market that has had higher bad debt historically. So, we're not necessarily surprised by that.
Ben Schall:
And John, from an overall portfolio perspective, I know you know this, but just for the broader audience, I mean pre-pandemic, right, our traditional bad debt number was in the 50 to 75 basis-point range. So, still a significant runway from the types of figures we're assuming for this year over the next couple of years. It may take a while, given Sean's comments, but we're hopeful we'll be headed in the right direction.
John Kim:
Okay. My second question is on page 11 of your presentation. You show the NOI contribution from development completions, which is very helpful. I'm just curious why you estimate that '23 NOI will be about half of last year's. Just given if you look at the first half of this year's deliveries versus the first half of last year, it looks about the same.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. John, this is Kevin. I'll take a crack at this. Others may want to chime in. And essentially, as you build out the model for forecasting, NOI from communities undergoing lease-up, obviously, you have to start with when we began to put shovels in the ground. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we did start to ramp back up in 2021. And usually, most developments take 8 to 10 quarters to complete, and then that results in deliveries, and then that then thereafter results in occupancies, which is where you start to see revenue growth. So, there is a little bit of a lag when you play this out. So, this is -- the bar charts here on slide 11 in our deck are not meant to be a coincident proxy for when we expect NOI to ramp. Rather, it's showing deliveries when they ramp. And so therefore, you'll have to have occupancy that follows that an NOI that follows that. So, it tends to create a lag effect as you move it through the P&L.
John Kim:
I'm sure the next question will be earn in on deliveries from last year, but I'll save that for a later call. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alan Peterson with Green Street.
Alan Peterson:
Just had two quick questions on the transaction market side. Matt, in regards to the asset sale commentary being out of the Northeast corridor as well as California, when you think about dispositions in California, are they wholly owned dispositions, or would you look to enter into a joint venture for property tax reasons on the West Coast?
Matt Birenbaum:
It's a good question, Alan. We have -- so far, the only partial interest sale we've done was the New York JV that we did back in late 2018. So, the disposal we've done out of California, and there haven't been a lot over the last couple of years of wholly owned disposed, were just fee simple. We have talked about that that obviously, if you sell a 49% interest, you don't suffer the prop 13 reset. The prop 13 overhang or reset was probably a lot larger. Last year, at this time when you think about where asset values were than where they are today. There's been some correction there. So the spread isn't quite as wide as it was. But that is something that we have talked about that we might consider at some point.
Alan Peterson:
And then, I'm curious whether you're starting to see a portfolio of premiums -- potentially swing to portfolio discounts with the financing markets becoming a little bit more challenging and whether acquisitions start becoming more attractive to the AVB team there?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. I would say there -- the portfolio discount today is 100%, right? Just their own portfolio is transacting today, for the most part, because the debt markets. So -- and what we are seeing is, in general, right now, what's transacting are deals with assumable debt or deals of modest deal size, $100 million or $150 million or less. So, you're right, a year or two ago, the efficiency -- debt was so cheap and the efficiency of being able to buy a large portfolio put a lot of debt on that all at once. That's gone into reverse. I think the expectation is, as the debt markets stabilize, you will start to see some more sizable asset sales come to market later in the year. That's kind of what everybody's waiting for. I know there was a lot of talk at NMHC about, are you going to go, are you going to go. So -- but yes, I would say that I would certainly expect that this year a much higher percentage of the total transaction volume will be one-offs as opposed to portfolios.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Rich Anderson:
So, back to slide 11. Can you -- I got what you said about timing to John's question, but the kind of trend upwards in deliveries, does that inform us at all about what you're thinking about in terms of the overall macro environment, the economy and potential recession? I assume you prefer to deliver into strength. So, can you comment at all on this image and what you're thinking broadly about what the overall landscape will look like by the time 2024 rolls around?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. Hey Rich, this is Kevin. I'll start here. Others may want to join. So, in terms of slide 11, just to sort of recap, it shows the timing of apartment deliveries from completing development over '22 through '24. And that is really a lagged effect of what happened 8 to 10 quarters previously. And if you kind of just step back and look at the last few years for us and tie it with a comment that I made in Austin's earlier question about kind of our typical start capacity, as you know, we typically try to start somewhere in the $1 billion to $1.5 billion range. If you look over the last three years, on average, I think we started about $700 million or $800 million when you include the $200 million or so in 2020 and $1.7 billion or so last year. So it's been below trend level of starts over the last few years, which with the lag is created in the last year or so and then probably for maybe the better part of the next year, a little bit of a below average trend NOI realization from the lease-up portfolio. So that's just sort of how mechanics work. In terms of your question about what does this say, I think really, our lower levels of starts is more reflective of the volatility and the uncertainty of the environment over the last few years when we were looking to start jobs. As we look at where we are today, certainly, the Company is in a terrific financial position to start not just the $875 million that we have in the plan for this year, which, as an aside, is a below average level of starts generally. But we are in a position to start a whole lot more, not only because our lower level of leverage today, which gives us debt capacity. So, we are looking to lean in and increase development starts in the next two years if the environment is broadly accommodative of our doing so and is a reasonably stable environment from a capital markets perspective and a macroeconomic perspective with respect to the likelihood for realizing decent NOI growth. So, that is kind of our general look at the macro environment, and our capacity is there to sort of ramp things up as we want to do so. As things stand in terms of what's already underway, we are well positioned just on the $2.2 billion of development under construction that's essentially paid for to deliver robust NOI growth irrespective of what we start in the next year or two. So I don't know, Matt, if you want to add.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Rich, just to clarify, those deliveries, the way they show, that die is already cast. So, they'll deliver into the market that it is at that time. We're not smart enough to say, yes, we deliberately plan to have fewer deliveries in '23 because we thought there might be a recession two years ago, just playing out that way because we had less start activity a couple of years ago, as Kevin said. But, those are all underway, and we'll take those deliveries as soon as we can get them.
Rich Anderson:
Okay. Fair enough. And the second question is on the developer funding program. Can you talk about the economics of that relative to everything being done in-house, assuming a fee paid to the third-party developer and all the different moving parts there? And if this program is sort of like a stepping stone for you to get into these markets more efficiently in that over the course of time, you kind of would revert back to the more conventional approach to development longer term. Is that the way to think about it?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Rich, this is Matt. I can respond to that, Ben may want to as well. The way we think about that program is the returns are somewhere between a development and an acquisition because the risk is somewhere between a development and an acquisition. So, the developer is taking the pursuit cost risk, the construction risk, we're taking the lease-up and the capital risk. And so, the yields on that are a little bit less than an AVB straight-up development because we are paying fees and then there's an earnout based on how the deal does. But we think it's a good risk-adjusted return. And I guess, it does two things for us. One, it accelerates our investment activity in the expansion regions because it does take time to get the teams on the ground as -- and we're further along in some markets than others. Where we're doing the DFP so far has been more like say, North Carolina, where we just started there a year or two ago, not so much in Denver where we've been there for five years already. But we also view it as a supplement to our own development activity in the sense that it's a dial -- we can dial up or down more quickly and more opportunistically in response to market conditions and our own cost of capital. So, even when we are fully established in these expansion regions, it may well be an additional line of business for us, but it may be a line of business for us that we're more nimble in terms of turning it up and down than our own development.
Ben Schall:
No, it's well put. And the last piece I'd add, we definitely also see synergies within a market. Being able to talk with third-party developers could be something they've just completed and they're looking to sell. It could be a deal they're wanting to develop, need a piece of capital, right, and/or places where they need a fuller capital stack and we have an interest in owning that asset long term. So, that also helps the kind of flywheel accelerate in these expansion markets.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS.
Michael Goldsmith:
Can you talk a little bit about the GAAP and performance trends for your suburban portfolio relative to the urban? And then kind of connected to that, there's a chart that says suburban supply growth is 1.2%, while urban supply growth is 1.8%. How does that compare with historical norms?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So, good questions. As it relates to performance in terms of suburban versus urban as an example, certainly, urban, as we move through the pandemic, took the greatest hit. So, as we've continued to recover from that, we have seen stronger growth to date in terms of our urban assets, but they are recovering, to keep in mind. To give you an example like, in Q4, rent change was a blended 5%. It's about 4.5% in our suburban portfolio but just north of 6% in the urban portfolio. And I think, yes, that's a function of the decline and people coming back to the office slowly and steadily in various urban environments. As it relates to the urban/suburban supply mix, suburban submarkets within our regions have always been difficult in terms of development, more nimbyism, local jurisdictions concerned about impacting school districts, et cetera, et cetera. It's always been challenging. Coming out of the GFC, there was a little more of a renaissance in terms of the urban environment and all of a sudden economics for urban development made good sense, and there was demand there in terms of millennials flocking to urban environments. So, that's why you saw a significant pickup in urban supply over the course of the last cycle. As you look at it today and where we are, from a development standpoint, almost everything we're doing right now is suburban. But given some things that are happening in the urban environments, there will likely be, at some point in time, opportunities to play urban development. Supply is -- right now, if you look at it from an economic standpoint, there's not much of anything that makes sense in an urban environment. So things may overcorrect there, in some cases, and there will be opportunities for us to play there. But the demographic way that sort of supported that is moving on at this point. So, we'll probably be more selective than we were in the last cycle in terms of urban development opportunities.
Michael Goldsmith:
That's very helpful. And as a follow-up, you started a Kanso project in the quarter. How do construction costs per unit differ for this type of development relative to a fully amenitized development? How do the rents compare? So essentially, how does the yields compare? And how has the resident reception been to the Kanso development? Is that a product that will more likely to pencil in maybe just a less certain macro economy? Thank you.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, sure. This is Matt. I can speak to that one a little bit. We only have a little bit of it out there. The customer reception has been strong. And the brand really started with customer research insights that there are a lot of customers out there who want a nice new apartment and don't -- we're overserving as an industry today that don't value necessarily all the on-site service, don't value all the amenities and the other pieces of the offering that an Avalon provides and a lot of our competitors provide. So our goal is to be able to bring that offering in at a rent that is 10% to 15% below the rent of a new fully amenitized Avalon or comparable in the same submarket in the same type of location. I think, so far, the little we've done would suggest that the discount might actually be a little bit less than that. It might be more like 7% or 8%. And the costs, there's really -- there's savings in the upfront capital cost because you're not building a pool, you're not building a fitness center, et cetera. And then there's also savings in the ongoing operating expenses because you're not operating and cleaning those spaces and then, ultimately, in CapEx because you're not remerchandising those spaces. The upfront hard cost savings, it's not -- I mean, we might typically spend 7,000 to 10,000 a unit on amenities at a community at a new build, maybe a little bit more than that. So, you're saving most of that. And then on the operating expense side, the savings is at least a couple of thousand a door in controllable OpEx. So actually, the yield winds up being about the same, but it serves a different customer, and it kind of gets us further down the pricing pyramid. So, it expands the market.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So, two quick ones. First, initially on the DP, [ph] I think in response to of the questions, you said that your intent wasn’t to own the deal at the end but then in a subsequent question you referenced, it's a good way to accelerate into the market. So maybe I misheard or maybe it's just a way of how you look at deals in different markets, maybe they’re markets that you're looking to more grow in, use DP to actually own the deals versus other markets where it's more of just an investment because you already have an establishment. So I just want to get some clarity.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Alex, it's Matt. I think you're referring to -- we really have two different programs. The DFP, the Developer Funding Program, those are assets that we own really from the beginning. We fund the construction and those we’re taking into our portfolio, day one. The SIP, the Structured Investment Program, that's the mezz lending program. Those are the assets that were -- that's really about generating earnings and leveraging our capabilities, and that's the program Ben was referring to where we do not expect to own those assets, although we're prepared to if we need to.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So what's the difference -- I mean, because you guys are pretty thorough in your underwriting and your -- and how you pick deals. Why have two different buckets? It would seem like basically, it's sort of the same bucket you're picking assets that you'd want to own. So why the difference between the 2?
Matt Birenbaum:
It's a very different investment profile. The SIP we're lending 20 to $30 million for three years, call it at 11% or 12% and then we're getting paid back. And we're actually focused on doing that in our established regions, where we're not necessarily looking from a portfolio allocation point of view to grow the portfolio, but we have the construction and development expertise to underwrite it and to understand what it takes to do that kind of lending. The DFP is very similar to the way we would underwrite development or an acquisition that we expect to own for the long term. And that's 100% focused on the expansion regions.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. Second question is on the Avalon Connect and the launching of Wi-Fi and other connectivity, obviously, we're all familiar with what the White House said and extra fees, having the regulators look at fees, et cetera, whether it's hotels or apartments, et cetera. Obviously, you guys feel pretty comfortable with what -- these programs. But do you feel like the regulators are going to look harder at these type of additional fees, or your view is that there's already regulation covering this stuff and so it's already sort of covered under existing regulations?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, this is Sean. Happy to take that one, and a good question. What I would say is two things. One is it's hard to know exactly where regulators might go in terms of what they're looking for. But, this has been addressed by the FTC a couple of different times, including last year, in terms of what's appropriate, what's inappropriate with telecom providers and people that are providing this kind of service. So, at least now, I think it has been addressed. That doesn't mean something might not change in the future, but I think we all have sort of a playing field that we feel comfortable with, has been blessed by the regulators. And we're all moving forward under that particular regime, I guess, is the way I'd describe it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein:
I wanted to touch base on that Avalon Connect and furnished housing same-store expenses. I like what you broke out on page 15. How should we think about the associated same-store revenue from those programs?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, good question. Based on -- and I mentioned this in my prepared remarks as it relates to other rental revenue growth. But if you look at it overall, for 2023, on an incremental basis, roughly 60 basis points or so of our revenue growth is associated with those various initiatives that I identified.
Joshua Dennerlein:
So, does that include Avalon Connect, furnished housing and the labor efficiencies?
Sean Breslin:
They include Avalon Connect and furnished housing, there's no labor efficiencies and revenue. That's on the expenses side.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay. Yes, that makes sense. For the Avalon Connect and furnished housing, are those kind of onetime bumps to same-store expenses, or is that something that kind of carries through on a go-forward basis and you have offsetting same-store revenue growth as well?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, good question. I mean, the expectation right now is that for both Avalon Connect and furnished housing, and also even on the labor side as well, is that we're going to continue to see additional enhancements to those programs over the next couple of years. So, you'll probably see them stabilize around 20, 25 or so. And at a high level, the way I think about it is our expectation is that these programs overall will probably contribute about $50 million of incremental NOI to the portfolio, of which, if you -- without getting into the detail on the accounting, about $18 million is projected to flow through the P&L for 2023. So, we're about 35% of the way there. There's still a lot to come, but you will see some pressure on OpEx for the next two years, specifically for furnished and Avalon Connect until it stabilizes. But again, it's a highly profitable activity that is contributing meaningfully to earnings over the next couple of years when you look at it in aggregate.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sam Cho [ph] with Credit Suisse.
Unidentified Analyst:
I'm on for Tayo today. Just one question. I know your portfolio strategy is to invest in the expansion regions. But just wondering if the rent control and the regulatory, I guess, noise has contributed to any strategic changes in how AVB is thinking about portfolio construction going forward. Thank you.
Ben Schall:
Yes. Thanks, Sam. Short answer is when we arrived at our portfolio allocation decisions a couple of years ago, it incorporated in the prospect of the regulatory environment. And so, it continues to be a motivator on why we want to get our exposure in the expansion markets at a minimum for diversification as it relates to various regulatory dynamics.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.
Jamie Feldman:
I guess sticking with rent control, I mean, have you factored in at all any changes in your '23 guidance? And where do you see the most risk, whether at the municipal level or state level?
Sean Breslin:
Hey Jamie, this is Sean. That is probably a very long answer. What I would say is that, obviously, housing affordability is a significant issue in the country, mainly as a result of just the lack of new supply. So, we continue -- us, our peers in the industry and the industry associations educate both federal, state and local governments about what will work in terms of trying to ease some of the issues that they are hearing about from the electorate. So, it's going to take continued efforts to make sure that people understand it. In terms of what might happen in 2023 that's purely speculative at this point, and wouldn't be appropriate for us to necessarily go there.
Jamie Feldman:
And then, if I heard your discussion right, it sounds like you've got the $600 million of unsecured, you plan to take those out and replace with $400 million of new unsecured. Is there a price point -- I mean, we'll probably see some volatility here on rates and pricing. I mean, is there a price point at which you have to think about other sources than new $400 million, or maybe a comment on what do you think of pricing today or where it may head?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. I mean I guess, Jamie, at some level, when you've put together a capital plan, you always have that debate about what your uses are and then how -- what's the most efficient source of capital to address those uses. And I think the budget we have today reflects a view that raising that $400 million primarily through the issuance of additional unsecured debt is today and is likely going to be the most cost-effective source of capital for us. Certainly, there could be other sources that might arise, but basically, our choices are relatively straightforward. It's asset sales or common equity, and common equity is unattractively priced today. Asset sales could be a potential source. But as we've just discussed, there's less transparency and liquidity around pricing in that market. So, that's why we ended up with unsecured choice as our likely expected choice. And so, that's -- we've got some time and room to figure that out, and we've got abundant liquidity with potentially nothing drawn on our $2.25 billion line of credit that gives us abundant time and room to figure out what the right source of capital is to take that maturity out.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. That makes sense. And then how early can you take out the $600 million?
Kevin O’Shea:
Well, the $600 million is -- it consists of two pieces of debt, $250 million in March and then $350 million in December. And so, their bond offering, that typically can't be prepaid materially before they are due, absent some yield maintenance payment. So, it's just part of our business that, as an unsecured borrower, we typically have $600 million to $700 million of debt coming due in any given year. This is a typical year for AvalonBay. So, it's not a particular concern. It's just part of the business of financing our company, and we typically have two pieces of debt that usually total about $600 million. So, kind of a regular way year from our standpoint where we got the first part coming in March and the second one in December.
Operator:
There are no further questions in the queue. I'd like to hand it back to Mr. Schall for closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
All right. Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. And we look forward to visiting with you in person over the coming months.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the Company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Doug, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the Company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason, and thank you everyone for joining us today, here with Kevin, Matt, Sean, and after our opening comments, we will open the lineup for questions. In many ways, Q3 continued our strong momentum from the first half of the year with significant year-over-year increases in our earnings and operating metrics. As referenced on slide 4 of our quarterly investor presentation, core FFO for the quarter increased 21% as compared to a year ago. Same-store revenue increased almost 12% from last year, and 2.2% sequentially compared to our strong Q2 figure. Before progressing further into the presentation, I wanted to emphasize a number of AvalonBay specific drivers of future earnings growth. First up and as Sean will describe more fully, we expect to head into 2023 with an earn-in above traditional levels. In short, just a simple roll through of our existing rent roll creates positive earnings momentum, which can then be further enhanced by our underlying loss-to-lease. There are then three other drivers of earnings growth, which we estimate should generate in the range of $200 million of incremental NOI over the next several years. The most significant of these drivers is the development projects we have underway, which we refer to as projects with yesterday’s costs and today’s rents. Our current lease-ups continue to outperform, currently yielding nearly 7%, and we expect our current development activity to deliver $130 million of incremental NOI upon stabilization, which Matt will cover further. The other two significant drivers are further margin improvement from our operating model initiatives, which we’ve targeted for $50 million of NOI uplift and expect to have delivered about 40% or $20 million of this NOI uplift to our bottom line by year-end and the return on our structured investment program as we build that book of business up to $300 million to $500 million. In a potentially recessionary environment, the $200 million of incremental earnings generated from these activities collectively serve as a ballast for our future earnings. Turning to slide 5. While our Q3 performance was strong, it was short of guidance. Q3 core FFO per share was $0.02 below guidance, and we reduced our full year core FFO per share figure by $0.07, updating our estimate of full year core FFO growth to 18.5%. For the full year, on the revenue side, while we contemplated the return of rent seasonality, the seasonal trend line has been slightly greater than historical norms. On the expense side, turnover has been slightly higher than we forecasted, leading to higher repairs and maintenance costs to turn apartments, and utility costs are projected to be higher. Slide 6 highlights how we’ve been actively adjusting our balance sheet and [Technical Difficulty] strategy during the year based on the changing capital markets environment. Based on the steps taken by Kevin and Joanne Lockridge and our Capital Markets team, our balance sheet is stronger than ever. Recently, we increased our line of credit by $500 million to $2.25 billion and extended the maturity date out to 2026. Additionally, we have an interest rate swap in place for our next $150 million of debt borrowings and our $500 million equity forward proactively addressed the bulk of development funding through the end of 2023. On the transaction front, we shifted our strategy earlier this year to a posture of selling assets first and locking in the cost of that capital before selectively deploying capital into acquisitions in our expansion markets, which given cap rate movements has worked to our benefit. As part of this shift, we also pivoted during the year from expecting to be a net buyer of approximately $275 million to being a net seller of $400 million or nearly $700 million total swing. In an environment where profit margins on new development are likely to come down and the costs associated with that incremental capital has increased, we’ve also reduced new development starts. For 2022, we reduced our starts from $1.15 billion to a projected $850 million. In 2023, while we haven’t provided guidance regarding new starts, our expected start figure is trending lower than we previously anticipated as we use the flexibility we have with our development rights pipeline to manage our land contracts and the timing of potential starts. We will continue to make adjustments based on trends in rent and construction costs, the spread between potential development yields and underlying market cap rates with a continued target of 100 to 150 basis to spread and our cost of incremental capital with a laser focus on making the appropriate long-term value-creation decisions. And with that, I’ll turn it to Sean to more fully discuss the operating environment and our approach.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thank you, Ben. Before I start, I’d like to give a big shout out to all the AvalonBay associates who are out there working hard to provide our customers with a high-quality apartment home and service experience. I’d like to thank you for your efforts with our customers and the performance you deliver for our shareholders. Moving to slide 7. Our strong Q3 revenue growth of 11.8% was primarily driven by higher lease rates, which increased 9.5% year-over-year, the reduced impact of concessions, which contributed 240 basis points and other more modest contributions from other rental revenue and underlying bad debt trends. As noted on the chart, rent relief was 140 basis-point headwind for the quarter as we recognized $5.7 million versus the $12.7 million from Q3 2021. Turning to slide 8. Same-store trends during the quarter remained quite strong relative to historical norms. Starting with chart 1, turnover increased a little more than we anticipated as we pushed through healthy rent increases, but was still well below pre-pandemic levels. As a result of the increased turnover, physical occupancy ticked down to 96%, but remained roughly 20 basis points above our typical experience during the quarter. Additionally, as noted in the 2 charts at the bottom of the slide, while our availability increased relative to the last few quarters, we realized a double-digit rent increase on the unit inventory we leased and occupied during the quarter, a very favorable outcome that sets us up well for 2023. Moving to slide 9. I thought I’d provide an overview of some of the key revenue drivers for our portfolio as we think ahead to 2023. Beginning with chart 1, given the very strong rent change we’ve experienced this year, we’ll likely start in 2023 with built-in revenue growth of roughly 4%, the second highest level in our history, and more than 100 basis points stronger than our starting point of roughly 2.5% entering 2022. In addition to the baked-in revenue growth outlined in chart 1, our loss-to-lease is currently running at roughly 6% and is depicted in chart 2, providing plenty of opportunity to benefit from renewal rent increases as leases expire throughout 2023. Shifting to the bottom of the slide, chart 3, our collection rate from residence continues to improve. At the beginning of the year, bad debt was trending in the high 4% range but has declined by roughly 200 basis points as the years progressed. As eviction moratoria has expired and the courts are continuing to make progress processing new cases, we expect the overall downward trend to continue as we move into 2023, providing a tailwind for revenue growth. Of course, as indicated in chart 4, we’ll likely experience immaterial amounts of rent relief in 2023 as compared to the $35 million we’ve recognized in 2022, presenting a headwind for ‘23 revenue growth. Now, I’ll turn it over to Matt to address development. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to slide 10. [Technical Difficulty] development communities currently in lease-up, all of which are in suburban locations that have seen very limited new supply and strong demand over the past few years. These developments are benefiting from today’s higher rents while having a basis based on yesterday’s lower construction costs, resulting in an exceptional yield on cost, as Ben mentioned earlier, of nearly 7%. As these communities reach stabilization, they will contribute strong growth to both NAV and core FFO. As shown on slide 11, the vast majority of our development NOI is still to come. The $2.6 billion in development currently underway is mostly still in the earlier stages of construction and generated only $19 million in annualized NOI this past quarter. As these assets proceed to lease-up and stabilization, we expect another $130 million in NOI, which will drive further earnings growth over the next several years. It’s also worth noting that this future growth is based on our conservative underwriting with untrended rents that are set when construction starts as we typically do not mark rents on these projects to current market levels until we’ve achieved roughly 20% lease status. And again, with only four of these assets currently at that level of leasing, the vast majority of our development underway should benefit from a further lift in NOI when they do open for business as evidenced by the $385 per month lift in rents shown on the prior slide on those four deals that are currently in lease-up. In the transaction market, we’ve also been ramping up our disposition activity in the past quarter, using the asset sales market to source attractively priced capital to fund this development. We were able to close on the sale of five wholly-owned assets in Q3, which were priced before the most recent increase in interest rates, generating $540 million of proceeds at a weighted average cap rate of 4.1% and pricing of $480,000 per home. We also completed the sale of the final assets in one of our private investment fund vehicles last quarter, generating additional capital and with pricing of $470,000 per home and a 3.6% cap rate. Since the start of the year, as best we can tell, cap rates have risen roughly 75 to 100 basis points in our established coastal regions, where we’ve been trading out of assets while cap rates in our expansion regions have risen more on the order of 100 to 150 basis points. Strong growth in NOI has offset some of this rise in cap rates. But on balance, as values might be down roughly 10% to 15% in our established regions and maybe 15% to 25% in these expansion markets, we think this bodes well for our future portfolio trading activity as the relative value of what we are selling has been less diminished than what we are buying. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Kevin to review our funding position and the balance sheet.
Kevin O’Shea:
Great. Thanks, Matt. Turning to slide 13, as Ben mentioned in his opening remarks, with the shift in the capital markets this year, we’ve taken a number of steps to bolster our already strong financial position. These steps include having increased our match-funding and development underway with long-term capital to approximately 95% as of the end of the third quarter, up from about 80% at the beginning of the year. As a result, we have locked in the cost of capital on nearly all of the $2.5 billion of development underway, essentially with yesterday’s lower cost of capital, which in turn will help to ensure that these projects will provide earnings and NAV growth when they are completed and stabilized. In addition, as you can see on slide 14, another step we’ve taken is the recent renewal and expansion of our line of credit $2.25 billion, which is up by $500 million from our previous $1.75 billion line of credit. As a result, we possess tremendous financial strength and flexibility. In particular, at quarter end, we enjoyed $1.9 billion in excess liquidity relative to our unfunded investment commitments of $300 million. Our leverage declined to 4.6 times net debt to EBITDA at quarter end versus 5.1 times in the fourth quarter of last year, and we remain comfortably below our target range of 5 to 6 times. Our unencumbered NOI percentage remained at a record level of strength at 95%, and our debt maturities are both relatively modest in size and well laddered with the weighted average years to maturity of just over eight years. Thus, as a consequence of our conservative approach to balance sheet management and the other actions we’ve taken recently, including the $500 million equity forward that we completed in April at a share price of $255, we possess tremendous financial flexibility and do not need to tap the capital markets to fund our business for an extended period of time. Finally, on slide 15, as you’re aware, AvalonBay has long maintained a commitment to being a leader in sustainability and corporate responsibility. It’s a goal that is consistent with our culture and our core values of integrity, spirit of carrying a continuous improvement, and it is of increasing [Technical Difficulty] to our residents, to our associates and to our investors. On slide 15, we are excited to report that we received our highest score yet from the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark, or GRESB. This year, we earned the 5-star designation for the eighth year in a row. We also earned the number one spot among the 11 listed multifamily residential companies and the number one spot among the 37 listed residential companies. We are grateful for GRESB for acknowledging our progress in this important area, and we are especially grateful to our own people for their efforts in making these achievements possible and for their ongoing commitment to making a positive difference in the lives of our residents and the communities in which we operate. And with that, I’ll turn it back to Ben.
Ben Schall:
Thanks, Kevin. And quickly to summarize, we’re pleased with our continued strong earnings and operating momentum with a number of AvalonBay specific earnings drivers in front of us. In this environment, we have and will continue to adjust our approaches to strengthen our position and to allow us to keep our focus on long-term value creation. We’re confident that we are well positioned for a broad range of potential economic paths and to potentially step into opportunities based on dislocations in the marketplace. And I’ll end by reiterating our thanks to the wider AvalonBay associate base for their commitments to our ESG leadership and their broader dedication to our mission of creating a better way to live. With that, I’ll turn it to the operator to open the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thank you. So, I understand the seasonality returning this year, but a bit surprised that impacted 3Q as much as it did. I was hoping you could provide some more details on when it really started to diverge versus your expectations? And then if there are any specific markets that drove it?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Nick, it’s Sean. Happy to address that. And you are correct that more of the impact is being felt is our expectation in Q4 as compared to Q3 if you look at the road map that we have provided. But for the most part, when we did our [Technical Difficulty] forecast, we expected and I communicated on the last call that seasonality would return, but our expectation based on what we have seen thus far is it would be about half the normal rate that we typically see. And we started to see that begin to shift in August, kind of late August for us. It impacted sort of late August and moving into September and then continues to bleed into the fourth quarter. So, that’s really how it played out. I mean, if you look at the rent change that we expected, July was pretty much spot on what we expected. But then, as you move through the balance of the last couple of months here, it has decelerated from what we anticipated, mainly on the move-in side. Renewals have held up relatively well. But on the move-in side it’s decelerated, which corresponds with the adjustment in asking rents as you move through the season. So, that’s how that played out. And in terms of markets, for the most part, there’s really about three regions that are responsible for most of it is Northern California, the Pacific Northwest and to a somewhat lesser degree, the Mid-Atlantic. Those are really the primary three.
Nick Joseph:
And then, I recognize you guys have been a bit tactical adjusting your approach being net sellers, slowing a bit on the start side. How are you thinking about now being the right time to grow the structured investment product program? And what changes are you seeing to the mezz market and yields there?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey Nick, this is Matt. The -- our entry into that space really was kind of a strategic decision that we made a year or two ago. And so, we’re just building the book. This is the first year we’ve originated investments. I actually think it’s probably a good time to be entering that market because capital is getting more and more scarce. So, for sure, our phone is ringing more and more. And some of that is some of the relationships we’ve established with some of the construction lenders, and some of that is just capital is getting harder to put together for new starts. So, we have the ability to be very selective and measured about the business that we take on, which we’re certainly doing. Our rates are rising a bit in terms of the coupon that we’ll be charging on those investments. And our underwriting will reflect what’s going on in the current market. So, we generally are looking at kind of where our lender basis will be on those assets when they’re completed and compare that to current spot values today. Again, everything kind of trended on the eyes. And then when we look at what the margin is between those two and we want to make sure that we’ve got an adequate margin there of safety in case asset values erode further. So, we think that it’s actually not a bad time to be in the business, but it’s going to certainly be harder for developers to get deals to work, and we may have to look at 15 deals for every 1 that we’re willing to commit to.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore.
Steve Sakwa:
I guess on slide 9, if you were to combine the impacts of slide 3 and 4 or charts 3 and 4, kind of into a net bad debt number for all of 2022, what is that number? And what is your expectation for that trend in ‘23 broadly?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Steve, it’s Sean. Happy to take that one. So for the full year 2022, we expect our reported net bad debt to be roughly 1.7% which includes the benefit of our estimation of $36 million to $37 million in rent relief that we’ve recognized or will recognize throughout the full calendar year. If you strip out the impact of rent relief, underlying bad debt is associated with our resident base essentially started the year in the high-4% range and is expected to end the year at roughly 2.7%. So, if you look forward to 2023, the way to think about it is, at this point, we expect really immaterial amounts of rent relief, if any, for 2023. As a result, underlying bad debt trends for the full year 2023 would need to average essentially that 1.7% that I mentioned to have a neutral impact on revenue growth for the full year. And so, we certainly expect continued improvement in underlying bad debt trends as we move into 2023. But it’s still early to provide a precise forecast. I’d say at this point, based on what we know, in terms of what’s happening with eviction moratorium in L.A. as an example, expiring in February and how things will play out in the courts and in markets like L.A. It’s probably more likely than not that net bad debt will be a modest headwind to 2023 revenue growth based on what we know today.
Steve Sakwa:
And then just secondly, maybe for Matt. I realize pegging construction cost is a little difficult. But if you were to kind of look at the projects that maybe are most near term on deck to start next year, where do you think those are sort of penciling out on a return basis? And is it that you need to see costs come down more to make those really work, or is it that rents need to keep going up to get them into the zone?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Steve, it’s probably -- it depends. It really does vary based on the [Technical Difficulty] and the region. So, the -- our target yields have been moving up. So, our current development underway as shown on the exhibit is in the high-5s yield, and a lot of those deals when they actually start leasing will be above 6, because a lot of those deals, as I mentioned, aren’t mark-to-market yet. On the deals in the pipeline that we haven’t yet started, that pipeline was underwriting somewhere on average to kind of the mid-5s, and that’s thin based on where cap rates are trending towards today. So some of those deals will be comfortably above prevailing cap rates and our targets and, therefore, generate good value creation, even based on today’s hard costs and rents. And then some of those deals will need some form of help in terms of hard costs potentially starting to level off or come down some. And then some may require some -- a second look at the land. Most of those deals that we have in the pipeline, we have not yet bought the land on. We’ve only bought the land on 7 of 30-some development rights that we have. So, we do have the ability at that time to have another conversation with those land sellers, if appropriate and if need be. So, it’s going to be a combination of all those things. We are definitely starting to see hard cost level off, much better bid coverage, not everywhere, but in a lot of regions. And I think that hopefully, there’s a pretty good chance that hard costs, some trades may start to come down. Obviously, some of the commodities come down, lumber, copper, but overall, total hard costs are still well north of where they were on a year-over-year basis, if not on a sequential basis.
Ben Schall:
Steve, this is Ben. I’d add -- that was well put by Matt. I’d add a couple of elements. This really gets into the underlying flexibility that we have in our development rights pipeline. So part of it is potential retrading land to today’s values. The other part if maybe not the more significant part is with respect to timing, right? So it allows us to manage the timing of our pipeline, which potentially allows some of the normalization that you were getting at in your question about the trend lines on rents and construction costs.
Steve Sakwa:
Great. Just one last one for Sean. Just are you seeing any sort of behavioral trends, doubling up, roommates, folks moving out just in any markets that creates any sort of concern going into ‘23 from a demand perspective?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Steve, nothing at this point, no. I mean, the trend that we talked about as we move through COVID, was the fewer number of adults per household. We looked at that carefully in the third quarter that sort of remains a tax. So, we’re not seeing the behavioral elements as you talked about that relate to people feeling pinched if you want to describe it that way. I mean, new lease income for our residents moved in, in the third quarter was up 11% compared to last year move-ins in the third quarter, move-in values were up around 10%, 11%. So it sort of matches, things are kind of running equal. And then, the only other thing I’d say is we continue to see good movement into our markets in terms of what we call these big moves I mentioned in the past, which is people moving in from greater than 150 miles away. That was up roughly 20% in terms of volume in the third quarter as compared to kind of pre-COVID norms, solid trend in the urban environment, solid trend in the suburban job center environments. Same trend, but not as strong in some of the more outlined suburban areas. So, that trend continues, which I think is a function of a number of different things, but certainly, people being called back to the office on a more consistent basis, probably has something to do with that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
So, I appreciate all the detail you guys gave on seasonality, but the guidance reduction was a bit of a surprise given the loss to lease position you were in back in July. And I’m just curious if at any point you considered providing an intra-quarter update for -- operationally about what was happening more real time through your portfolio?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. That’s not our practice overall. So, we didn’t feel like there was necessarily the need to do that. And if you look at the breakout of the road map for the third quarter, the revenue where things came in relative to our expectations was $0.01, and that’s it. So, we didn’t feel like it was material enough to preempt the normal process that we go through.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Understand. And then, just going to development a little bit. You guys have historically targeted development in the 10% to 15% of enterprise value, you’ve been running below that for various reasons in recent years. But over time, I guess, what’s the right level of development that you think kind of gets the benefit of value creation and also manages the earnings impact throughout a cycle without really getting dinged for the various risks associated with being in that business?
Ben Schall:
So, a good question, and one we’ve talked about from a strategic perspective. It is -- I’ll make a couple of comments on it. One, as we’ve thought about the opportunities in our expansion markets and other reasons, we’re headed to our expansion markets in addition to more and more of our type of customer and knowledge-based worker there, it allows us to take what we do well, including our development platform and have a wider playing field. So, that is part of the effort there. In terms of the percentage of where we are today towards where we’d like to get to, you’re right, it has been in the sort of 4% to 5% range. And for a lot of last year, we were very actively looking to build up our development rights pipeline to take advantage of the opportunities. Now, in reality, right, when our cost of capital changes, right, we’re going to change our return thresholds and we’re going to change the level that we’re pulling. So, longer term, right, we’d like to continue to grow our development book as a percentage of our business from where it is today, but we recognize in the near term that we’re going to be more restrained given the broader economic environment.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And then, just last part. So, when you kind of look at the development pipeline today, I know there are moving variables specifically in the owned versus option land portion. But what percentage of those deals would price based on the 100 to 150 basis-point spread you outlined in your prepared remarks?
Matt Birenbaum:
I don’t know that I can put a percentage on it necessarily. A lot of those deals are deals that are going through an entitlement process are still a couple of years out. And so kind of knowing what comes out of that process, kind of is -- we’re very good at that, but that is speculative -- there’s a wide variety of outcomes on some of those. It’s really hard to say kind of -- what I’ll say is there’s certainly significant number that will work in today’s environment. And then there’s a significant number that probably will require some kind of change, whether it’s some combination of hard cost or land value. And we’re going to just continue to work through those -- dynamic environment.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeff Spector:
First question, can you talk about any differences you’re seeing between your urban portfolio versus suburban assets?
Sean Breslin:
Anything specific, Jeff, just in terms of performance trends overall or…?
Jeff Spector:
Yes, just -- yes, exactly performance trends. If you could talk a little bit more about move-ins versus turnover, rent trends? Are you seeing anything -- are there any differences between urban and suburban, or are they acting similar?
Sean Breslin:
Okay. Yes. So, that’s helpful. So, yes, I mean what I would say is like on rent change, we provided rent change in the earnings release. And I highlighted in my prepared remarks, which was essentially 11% for the quarter. As you might expect given the recovery in the urban environment, was a little longer on the urban side, about 12.5% compared to suburban, which is around 10.2%. And then across the markets, I mean, the only thing that I would point out that I mentioned earlier is a little more weakness in the urban environments in both Northern California and Seattle as opposed to, say, New York City or urban Boston as an example. Other than that, things are about what you would expect in terms of rent income is moving up -- or excuse me, lease income is moving up with new move-ins, things of that sort. And then, as I mentioned, just a couple of moments ago that we are seeing more move-ins from 150 miles away into our urban job center and suburban job center environment as compared to maybe some of the more outlined suburban areas. Those are probably the three that are top of mind for me.
Ben Schall:
Jeff, the other area in terms of suburban versus urban and gets us to what we see as the general strength of our portfolio positioning is on the topic of supply, right? Two-thirds of our business is in the suburban coastal markets. Supply -- new supplies of [Technical Difficulty] stock has been in the range of 1.5%. And as we look out next year, that number is probably coming down even a little bit more. So, in a potentially softening environment or a recessionary environment, our belief is markets with lower supply are going to prove out to be more durable and more resilient.
Jeff Spector:
Thank you. To clarify, are you saying that’s suburban versus urban or you’re saying in all, lower as a percentage…
Ben Schall:
So, that’s our 1.5% of stock. That’s in our suburban markets. And supply is higher in our urban markets. The other third of our portfolio is obviously also higher in the Sunbelt markets, right? So, as we look out on overall portfolio positioning, we think we’re in a relatively strong place from that perspective.
Jeff Spector:
Thank you. And then I had a follow-up on the turnover. I guess, I think you do surveys on turnover like reasons to move out. Can you discuss that at all? I mean, do you -- I think you do those surveys?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, we do. We track that -- and we [Technical Difficulty] all that kind of good stuff. So, a couple of things on turnover. First is the third quarter was the first quarter this year where turnover wasn’t materially lower as compared to last year. So, if you look back at the data we provided in the earnings release attachments, on previous quarter turnover on a year-over-year basis, it was down pretty significantly anywhere from 500 to 800 basis points versus the third quarter, it was basically flat year-over-year. So, it was a little more turnover than we anticipated. And in terms of reasons, a little bit of an increase in terms of people moving out due to rent increases, not surprising given how much and we were pushing rents. And then, the other piece that really is out there is I talked about the underlying bad debt trend improving, which is a function of a number of variables. One of those is more evictions as we move through the court process or people who are just skipping out because they know they’re getting to their court date. So, a little bit of a pickup there. Those are really the only two that had any kind of pickup in terms of reasons for move out. The others came down in terms of relocation, obviously came down as it relates to home and condo purchase as you might expect, things of that sort, all came down.
Jeff Spector:
Thank you. Just curious on the move-outs because of rate, do they comment on if they’re going back to live with parents or do they comment on what they’re doing? Are they going to a lower-priced unit elsewhere?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. That’s usually anecdotal. We don’t always have that data that we track it well. We track the ZIP code, so we have that kind of information. But in terms of what they’re actually doing and the reasons behind it, it’s kind of behavioral things and various things like that, that tend to be anecdotal as opposed to real data that you can count on.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Kramer:
I just wanted to ask about rent-to-income ratios in the portfolio, kind of the latest metric that you have and maybe how that compares to a year ago, two years ago or maybe kind of pre-COVID?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No. Good question, Adam. I think the right way to think about it is the comment that I made earlier in that when you look at new move-ins in the third quarter, for this year compared to last year, the household income associated with those move-ins is up around 11%. And if you look at the move-in value associated with those move-ins, it was up about 10%. So these, basically, people are kind of trading at a consistent level from -- if you think of it from a rent to income perspective. So, we have people moving in with that much higher income and our rents are up about that much. It sort of makes sense overall. Certainly, we have some people that are moving out, as I just mentioned, due to rent increase. Given the numbers we’ve been pushing through, that’s not surprising. But we continue to source demand that is comfortable paying what we are expecting and their incomes appear to support it.
Adam Kramer:
Got it. That’s really helpful. And then, just in terms of the kind of loss to lease, I think it was 15% last quarter. I know you guys disclosed 6% last night. Just in terms of how you view kind of the last couple of months of the year here. I mean, do you anticipate kind of still having a loss to lease as you enter next year, or is kind of the rents that you’re going to run, so you’re going to sign in the next couple of months, probably going to heat up into the kind of that last 6%?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, good question. We certainly won’t eat into everything, but I mean maybe a simple way to think about it is if you think about the lease expiration volume that we have typically in the fourth quarter, it’s around 20% of our leases expire. Those folks will get renewal rent increases and that will impact the loss to lease. The third quarter is closer to 30% of our leases expire, 30%, 32%, and that is when seasonal -- the kind of seasonality of rents kick in. So typically, the most impactful quarter is as you’re moving through the third quarter because of not only the heightened volume of lease expirations, but then you have rent seasonality kick in. The fourth quarter is typically much more moderate in terms of the impact on loss to lease as compared to the third quarter. Does that make sense?
Adam Kramer:
Yes, that does. That’s really helpful. Just a final one here, I think the kind of revenue disclosure around this kind of 2023 building blocks is all really helpful. Just wondering on the cost side, and apologies if you guys mentioned and I missed it. But look, I think some peers kind of across the resi space are talking about property tax expense increases kind of given various dynamics there, certainly inflationary impacts, right? I was wondering, maybe again, not asking you to guide here, but just maybe put a little bit of color around 2023 expense growth kind of building blocks or kind of potential headwinds there?
Sean Breslin:
Sure. Why don’t I give you a sense of maybe the top three or four categories just how to think about them a little bit. And so, for -- take property taxes, which obviously is the greatest percentage of our expense structure. This year, we’re kind of putting in numbers here that are just under 2%. We don’t expect a sort of 2% handle that we’re experiencing in 2022 to be in place as we move into ‘23, ‘24. There certainly will be upward pressure due to rates and assessments as you have heard from others. Payroll, similar to 2022, should remain very constrained due to our innovation efforts, and you can see what that looks like on the expense attachment to the earnings release in terms of what ‘22 looks like, and then, maybe just a couple of others. Repairs and maintenance, certainly, there’ll be some wage inflation from our contractors and a potential increase in turnover. And then utilities, there’ll be some pressure on rates in the first half of ‘23, given the contract that we signed for procurement of utilities in the middle of ‘22. And there may be some pressure -- or will be some pressure from our bulk internet and smart access offering, but we also expect that profit to be substantial in terms of the growth next year, probably more than triple the level in ‘22 as we move into 2023. So, while there be some pressure on the OpEx side, there’ll be a nice boost to NOI given the revenue contribution from that activity. So, those are kind of the top four in terms of maybe some color as to how to think about them.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Alan Peterson with Green Street.
Alan Peterson:
Matt, to your earlier point regarding renegotiating land pricing on the development rights pipeline, from the conversations you’re having with brokers and other market participants, are you getting the sense that land sellers are starting to capitulate on pricing? And if so, to what degree?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Alan, I would say it’s early. So, the first thing is land only represents typically 10% to 15% of the total basis in the project, maybe 20% in areas where rents are higher and land represents a higher percentage. So, it doesn’t move the needle nearly as much as hard costs, and land transactions are long-lived deals. So, land deals that are closing now might be land deals that you cut depending on the region 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago, depending if you’re in California or maybe if you’re in Texas, it could have been 6 months ago. But -- so they are a lagging indicator and those brokers sometimes are similar, but it’s going to take time there. You’ll see it first, and we are seeing it first in the transaction market. And then over time, it will work its way backwards through the system, so to speak.
Alan Peterson:
I appreciate that. That’s helpful. And Sean, in regards to the operating trends in October, the high 3% effective rent change in Northern California, is that starting to imply negative new lease growth within that region?
Sean Breslin:
No, it’s not. It’s still positive.
Alan Peterson:
It’s still positive. Are you getting the sense that you’re going to need to turn on concessions or potentially reduce rents to maintain occupancy across Northern California or even the Pacific Northwest, which you mentioned was a little bit softer than the rest of the portfolio?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean, I don’t know exactly what it’s going to look like for the rest of the year. But certainly, that’s a possibility to the extent that we see some weak environments there, for sure.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
I had a question on development starts that you’ve reduced. Ben, you mentioned in your prepared remarks the likelihood of compressed profit margins. And I’m assuming that means the yield -- the difference between yields and market cap rates. If that’s the case, what are you underwriting for cap rates on developments that you’re starting today?
Ben Schall:
John, the profits have come down. If you look back a year ago, we were running at development profits that were to tune of 50% because the spread between where we are developing to the underlying cap rates was out to 250 basis points. That’s the type of arena. So, that has compressed. And what I would guide you to, as I mentioned before, is our focus on maintaining 100 to 150 basis points of spread between where we’re developing and where underlying cap rates are. There can be and like would be certain deals that are slightly below that. But as a group, that’s the approach.
John Kim:
On the development and lease-up going to almost 7% yield, is that specific to those projects because your overall pipeline is at 5.8%? So, I was wondering if it was just these projects and leased up are currently at those levels, or is there a difference in the way that you calculate the rent as part of that stabilized yield number?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey John, it’s Matt. So I guess the answer to that is -- to be clear, that [Technical Difficulty] is on 4 deals, 4 of the 17 development right -- development communities are currently in lease-up. So, those are the only 4 that we’ve marked-to-market, and they are coming in at [Technical Difficulty] today. Now, they were originally underwriting -- underwritten, sorry, if you look at that slide 2, I think, 6.5%. So, they were among the higher-yielding deals on the -- in the development book when we started them based on -- some of that was timing, some of that was location. A lot of those are suburban Northeast deals. But if we see the same uplift in rents on the rest of the book when we mark it to market, when those deals come to lease, that would push the rest of the book up another 40 basis points as well. And obviously, that’s going to depend on what happens to market rents between when we started the deals in today and then between today when they start leasing. So, we may get less, we may get more, but on those deals, we saw that 40 bps uplift.
John Kim:
So just to clarify, the 5.8% yield on your overall development pipeline, that’s on your original underwriting, or is that based on the current market rents?
Matt Birenbaum:
So, it’s based on the current market rents on those four deals, which are the [Technical Difficulty] and the other 15 -- or 13 are at what the initial underwriting was. So like I said, the other deals have the same amount of with that overall 5.8%, we’ll probably rise to a 6.0% or 6.1% is a way to think about it. That 5.8% represents 4 deals that are [Technical Difficulty] 13 deals that are not.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So, two items. First, on the turnover, you guys pointed out in the presentation on page 8 that turnover is still below pre-pandemic levels. So just sort of curious, as you guys -- as the numbers fell below what you thought you would achieve in the third quarter, it still seems like turnover is low historically. So, were you guys just expecting turnover to be even lower? And if that is not the case, how do we think about turnover returning to its pre-pandemic level, especially because I think you said that new rents were the ones that were being hit, whereas the renewals were holding in there.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, it’s Sean. Just to try to be clear, we expect it to be lower, independent of the historical norms. And the reason we had a belief is if you go back and look at the turnover that we experienced in Q1 and Q2 relative to last year as an example. The first quarter of this year, turnover was 35%. Last year, Q1 was 44%. Q2 this year was 46%. Last year, it was 50.8%. Q3 ended up being basically on top of last year. So, we had two quarters earlier this year, where we were pushing rents pretty aggressively that there was a pretty wide spread on a year-over-year basis. So we expect Q3 to continue that trend of being below what we experienced last year, even though we were continuing to push rents. And that was not the case. It was essentially on top of last year. So hopefully, that answers that question as it relates to turnover and our expectations.
Alexander Goldfarb:
That does. And the second question is I think initially, there were three markets that you guys highlighted as being weak, Northern Cal, Seattle and the Mid-Atlantic. You addressed Northern Cal and Seattle to Jeff Spector’s question. Mine is if Mid-Atlantic, if I heard correctly, that Mid-Atlantic is one of the weak ones. That’s a market that just perennially for the past decade has been sort of anemic. So, was this a case where the market you thought would rebound and it just didn’t or it’s weaker than sort of the normal stuff that goes on? Obviously, that market gets placed with supply.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. And one thing we should probably try to be clear about, Alex, is when we talked about weaker, weaker, it was just a little bit weaker than our expectations. The revenue miss was $0.01 on $600 million for the quarter. So, it’s not a -- when you run the math, it’s not a significant dollar amount here. And so, we’re still seeing good growth in those markets. In the Mid-Atlantic, as an example, if you take a look at what we experienced in Q3 rent change, it was pushing 10%, California was 9%, Seattle was almost 12%. But things began to decelerate a little more quickly than we anticipated. So, I wouldn’t -- I’d be careful about saying those are the weak markets like things are going south quickly type of approach as opposed to the rate of deceleration was just a little more than we anticipated in terms of rent change. But it’s still -- in absolute terms, these are pretty healthy numbers, well above historical norms when you think about the long-term rent growth across our footprint. These numbers are pretty strong. So, that’s the way I would think about it. But specific to the Mid-Atlantic, there’s three major regions, the [Technical Difficulty] Northern Virginia and then the district. I’d say, the district maybe 1 or 2 pockets in Northern Virginia, probably have struggled the most, particularly D.C. where office utilization remains, I think, is the second lowest in the country at this point behind San Francisco, a lot of professional services jobs, government jobs. And so, the people haven’t necessarily had the need to be in the office. We continue to see positive movement in that trend, but it’s still not where it needs to be to really sort of push through and be in a position where we could see stronger results from the Mid-Atlantic overall, including D.C. So -- and if you look at just absolute job growth here of all of our regions, it’s been the weakest this year. So, you have a combination of weaker job growth. And then for the jobs that you do have, not everybody has to be in the office, and we just need to see better trends in that data to see the market pick up even more.
Alexander Goldfarb:
I mean, as you know, we’re just down there and we’re surprised that when speaking to some government folks that all the government people are still working from home. It’s only the political people who are back in the office, which blew us away. So, your message definitely resonates. So, thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo.
Jamie Feldman:
Thank you. And this might be a little bit more theoretical. But your comment on underwriting developments at 100 to 150 basis-point spread to market cap rates. I mean, how do you think about cap rates going higher and the risk, especially by the time developments are delivered? Just kind of what are your thoughts around that? And how do you bake that into your underwriting?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey Jamie, it’s Matt. I’d say a couple of things. The first and most important is match-funding. So, if we’re match-funding that deal with permanent capital when we start it because we’re either sourcing equity or debt or selling an asset that’s based on those prevailing cap rates, then if cap rates are 100 basis points higher, when that deal is finished, we still locked in that spread. It typically works the other way. And honestly, it has like over the last few years, we finished deals and cap rates were a lot lower than they were in the environment in which we funded them. So -- and I think the equity forward is a good example of that in terms of locking in that capital based on kind of what the cap rate was or the yield was on our stock at that time. So, that’s the first thing. Beyond that, obviously, as I mentioned, we don’t trend rents and NOIs that also, most of the time, rents and NOIs are growing. So most of the time, there is some lift there, and that provides a little bit more conservatism as well.
Steve Sakwa:
As you think about underwriting today, what are you baking in for that cushion on the revenue side?
Matt Birenbaum:
Well, like I said, we don’t -- we look at today’s NOI, today’s rents, today’s expenses, today’s cost, and so we come up with a spot yield. And we’ll compare that with a spot cap rate or spot asset value if the asset was being sold today. And then we don’t -- generally, what we find, if you look at -- we have a long history of the deals when they stabilize, stabilizing at yields higher than what we underwrite because of that because we don’t have the growth in there. We have the growth in kind of a 10-year forward IRR model in a long-term return, but not in the yields that we quote.
Jamie Feldman:
Okay. And so, you’re using spot expenses, too? Is that what you said?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes.
Jamie Feldman:
Yes. And how do you think about the risk of that?
Matt Birenbaum:
I mean -- so again, typically what we would see is when a deal stabilizes, rents will have moved, OpEx will have moved some as well. The biggest piece of the OpEx is the property taxes, and that’s really based on the asset value. So, that’s going to be the biggest probably mover in where OpEx settles out relative to where it was [Technical Difficulty] significantly high. It’s usually because the assets were significantly more than we underwrote, which means we got more value creation there. But generally, if everything grows together, we’re at a very high margin -- operating margin business, so we get operating leverage. And if rents and OpEx grow at the same percentage rate, that means you’re going to wind up with that much more NOI.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Tayo Okusanya with Credit Suisse.
Tayo Okusanya:
My question is around the strategic initiatives you guys started with industrials around co-working space. Just wondering if you could talk a little bit about the economics of that business, the size of the opportunity and potentially what it could contribute to your bottom line?
Ben Schall:
Sure. I would frame it just in the context of our overall initiatives of activating retail space at the bottom of our buildings. A couple of different components of that, one of which was we self-started our own small but self started own co-working program at a project out in California, which we call Second Space. The industrious relationship, which you referenced, is a pilot to further tap into their network of potential clients, as we think about our Second Space product. But it’s an area where we’re actively talking with multiple users, and we think it’s somewhere we can help create some incremental value, particularly to our residents above by creating activated space at the ground floor.
Tayo Okusanya:
And you’re just renting the space to industrious, so there’s no kind of shared revenue model or anything like that?
Ben Schall:
It’s a -- I don’t want to get too much into details that would give it the pilot nature, but it’s a share -- it’s more of a shared model as opposed to a traditional retail model.
Operator:
There are no further questions in the queue. I’d like to hand the call back to management for closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
Thank you all for joining us today. I appreciate the dialogue and look forward to seeing many of you at NAREIT soon.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Kyle, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Benjamin Schall:
Thank you, Jason, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Kevin, Sean and I will share some prepared remarks, and Matt is with us as well for Q&A. I'll start by discussing our financial and operating performance as well as our latest approaches to capital allocation. On operations, we had a very strong second quarter with core FFO of $2.43 per share, exceeding our prior guidance by $0.12 per share or more than 5% above expectations. This magnitude of outperformance is atypical, particularly since we increased Q2 guidance at the end of April and was driven by continued asking rent growth, above-average occupancy and favorable net bad debt. As shown on Slide 4, core FFO increased roughly 23% during the second quarter, bringing our year-to-date core FFO growth up to 19%. And as Kevin will describe more fully, we're raising core FFO guidance for the year to $9.86 per share at the midpoint, an increase of $0.28 per share over our prior guidance. As we will highlight later during our remarks, there are a number of meaningful tailwinds that support our strong earnings guidance for the back half of the year and support continued growth going into next year, or if the macro environment were to erode in a way which impacts our operating fundamentals, that should serve as a ballast. Switching over to capital allocation. Our balance sheet is as strong as it has ever been, providing strength in an uncertain macro environment and allowing us to maintain our focus on creating shareholder value over time and across cycles. We've also responded to the changing capital markets in certain ways. We issued a $500 million equity forward in April at $2.50 -- $250 a share, which we can draw down through the end of 2023 to fund our future growth. As we communicated in Q1, we also shifted from being a net buyer to a net neutral trader of assets in 2022, as we continue to optimize the portfolio and rotate capital from our established regions into our expansion markets. We continue to selectively match dispositions with acquisitions at market cap rates, which we've seen widened by approximately 50 basis points in many markets. Consistent with prior activity, our dispositions are generally of older assets with higher CapEx profiles in our established regions, which we're utilizing to fund acquisitions of newer assets in our expansion markets. And while we remain active on the development front, with $2.1 billion under construction and a $4.7 billion development rights pipeline, we have reduced our projected 2022 starts based on some project-specific delays. For new potential projects, we are focused on maintaining flexibility so that we can ramp up or down our overall 2023 development start volume, depending on how macro conditions evolve. Before turning it to Sean, let me quickly provide some additional color on our Q2 revenue growth. Slide 5 provides a breakout of our 12.9% Q2 same-store revenue growth, with the vast majority coming from growth in lease rates as well as the reduced impact of concessions as compared to Q2 last year. Net bad debt also improved relative to last year with additional rent relief payments offsetting the change in underlying bad debt. Turning to Slide 6. Net bad debt was a meaningful component of our outperformance relative to Q2 guidance, with rent relief payments via the federal government's emergency rental assistance programs continuing into May and June as compared to our prior expectations that these government funds would run dry earlier in Q2. And while net bad debt remains elevated, we are pleased to see improving resident payment behavior with underlying bad debt currently in the low 3% of revenue range, down from mid-4% in Q4 2021 and compared to 50 to 70 basis points historically. And with that, I'll turn it to Sean to review the operating backdrop in more detail.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Ben. Turning to Slide 7. The strong revenue growth Ben noted was supported by very healthy trends in the business throughout the quarter. Turnover remained below historical norms, even though it ticked up in absolute terms in June, given normal seasonal patterns, but occupancy was above 96% each month of the quarter. Additionally, like-term effective rent change trended up during the quarter and averaged roughly 14%, supported by healthy demand across all of our regions. Lastly, we started to see some improvement in noncollectible lease revenue, excluding rent relief, during the second quarter as residents who were chronically delinquent started moving out from communities, particularly in some of our more challenged markets like L.A. and New York. While we expect the number of delinquent accounts to continue to decline in the back half of 2022, the rate of improvement will likely be modest from month to month. Moving to Slide 8. The outlook for the business remains quite positive. Asking rents continued to increase throughout the second quarter and are up more than 9% since the 1st of the year, supporting loss of lease of roughly 15% at quarter end. And with the continued trend of historically low availability and resident incomes growing in the double-digit percentage range, we're well positioned to capture higher rent levels as we move further into the second half of 2022 and look ahead to 2023. Turning to Slide 9. Our lease-up portfolio continues to post very strong results. Leasing velocity exceeded 30 leases per month during the quarter at rents that were on average about $350 or 12% above initial projections. As a result, stabilized yields are projected to be in the mid-6% range on almost $700 million in business, producing significant value creation relative to underlying cap rates. Now I'll turn it to Kevin to address our updated outlook for 2022 and the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks, Sean. On Slide 10, we provide a revised financial outlook for 2022. We now expect full year core FFO per share of 9 86 or a 19.4% increase over last year's earnings. If achieved, this would represent the company's strongest growth in full year earnings in over 2 decades. This also represents an increase of $0.28 relative to our expectations in April, reflecting continued strong revenue growth across our business. Drilling down a bit further, this $0.28 increase represents $0.31 in higher same-store residential revenue, partially offset by a $0.03 decrease in other categories, as described on Page 5 of our earnings release. This $0.31 increase in same-store residential revenue is in turn driven primarily by higher-than-expected growth in lease rates and by lower-than-expected bad debt, with $0.09 of the increase having already been recognized in the second quarter and the remaining $0.22 divided roughly evenly over the third and fourth quarters. As it relates to bad debt and rent relief, we expect underlying bad debt before the impact of rent relief to decline from 3.9% in the first half of the year to about 2.7% in the second half. We also expect rent relief to decline from the $28 million we recognized in the first half of the year to $7 million in the second half, nearly all of which is expected in the third quarter. As a result, we expect net bad debt will increase from 135 basis points in the first half of the year to 215 basis points in the second half for a full year rate of about 180 basis points. Keep in mind that net bad debt for 2021 was 210 basis points, so the change in bad debt on a full year basis is projected to contribute roughly 30 basis points to revenue growth in 2022. Thus, for overall same-store portfolio, at the midpoint of our revised guidance, we now project same-store residential revenue year-over-year growth of 11.25%, same-store residential operating expense growth of 5% and same-store residential NOI growth of 14.25%. Finally, we expect to start about $850 million in new developments in 2022, down slightly from the $1.15 billion expected in their initial outlook as starts for a few planned developments have shifted into early 2023. Turning to Slide 11. Nearly 90% of current development underway is already match funded with long-term debt and equity capital. Locking the cost of this investment capital helps ensure that these projects will provide earnings and NAV growth when they are completed and stabilized. Turning to Slide 12. As we look ahead, our balance sheet remains exceptionally well positioned to provide financial strength and stability, while also giving us the flexibility to continue funding attractive growth opportunities across our investment platforms. In this regard, we enjoy low leverage with net debt-to-EBITDA of 4.9x, which is below our target range of 5x to 6x. Our interest coverage ratio in unencumbered NOI percentage are at record levels of 7x and 95%, respectively. And our debt maturities are well-laddered with a weighted average years to maturity of about 8.5 years. And as shown on Slide 13, our liquidity position is excellent, with $1.3 billion in excess liquidity relative to our remaining unfunded commitments of about $400 million as of quarter end. With that, I'll turn it back to Ben.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Kevin. As we look forward, we wanted to emphasize a number of additional tailwinds, as described on Slide 14, that support continued value creation and our strong earnings outlook. To start and focusing in on development, Slide 15 highlights the historical spread between our development yields and stabilized cap rates, a core measure of how we generate meaningful value for shareholders through our industry-leading development platform. With our strong balance sheet and match funding approach, we're able to ratchet down or ratchet up our start activity at particular points in time, but do so in a way that provides consistent incremental value creation and earnings growth. On completion so far this year, projects at yesterday's cost and today's rents, we are realizing an exceptionally strong spread between stabilized yields and current cap rates of over 200 basis points, generating significant value creation and earnings growth. For projects in our development rights pipeline, we're seeing this spread range from 100 to 200 basis points based on our most current underwriting, which we believe continues to provide appropriate risk-adjusted returns. In the near term, as shown on Slide 16, our developments underway are expected to provide meaningful incremental earnings with roughly $125 million of incremental NOI to come from these projects over the next 2 to 3 years. Moving to Slide 17. And as we previously outlined, we are in the midst of transforming our operating platform with significant investments in innovation and technology that we expect to generate 200 basis points of margin improvement or $40 million to $50 million of NOI. Slide 17 provides incremental disclosure on certain of these initiatives, including the projected progress year-by-year with $20 million of additional revenue associated with the rollout of bulk Internet, managed WiFi and smart home technology and an additional $20 million in expense savings to come from the digitization of a number of customer experiences, including self-touring, maintenance, renewals and others. We also introduced our structured investment program last quarter, which is off to a solid start. As shown on Slide 18, we've closed our first 2 investments, providing preferred equity to third-party developers on new construction projects. By leveraging our intimate knowledge of development, construction and operations, we believe that we can achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns on $300 million to $500 million of capital, a book of business we will build up over time and providing incremental earnings growth. Before closing, I also want to highlight, as shown on Slide 19, our continued ESG leadership given the recent publication of our 11th Annual Corporate Responsibility Report. On the E, we are one of the first REITs to set numeric, science-based targets for emission reductions, and we're proud that we've achieved actual reductions through these initiatives, 30% reductions in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and 20% reductions in Scope 3 emissions, so far. On the S, our investments in our people and culture, including advancing our inclusion and diversity initiatives, remain a priority, with progress being made and more to come. We also continue to invest in our local communities through volunteer time and direct donations, a key part of how AvalonBay associates connect around our evergreen culture, including our spirit of caring. In closing, on Slide 20, with a summary of our key takeaways. We're very pleased with our operating results to date, have meaningfully lifted our earnings expectations for the year and believe that there are a number of tailwinds specific to AvalonBay that set the table for strong continued growth looking ahead. And with that, I'll turn it to the operator to facilitate questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. We take our first question from Nicholas Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Maybe starting on the transaction market, and I'm looking on Slide 15 here. Obviously, there's the pretty widespread between the development initial yields and the transaction market looks -- and I recognize these are annual numbers, but cap rates come down in 2022. So just curious what you've seen over the last 3 or 6 months in terms of movement in cap rates and asset values across your markets.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Nick, it's Matt. Yes, certainly, in the last couple of months, there's been a shift in the transaction market with the rise in rates. And so we are pretty active in the market, and so we've had some good -- it's changing quickly. So the first thing I'd say is nobody can be real sure, but the data that we -- points that we've gotten recently would suggest, as Ben had mentioned in his prepared remarks, cap rates are probably up, call it, 50 basis points, maybe a little more in some regions, a little less than others and depending on the asset type. There are definitely deals which are just not transacting where they may have seen a more significant move, particularly if they were targeted more to highly levered buyers. But most of the assets that would be in our portfolio are more kind of institutional-grade type assets. It's probably been more in that range. NOIs continue to grow. So in terms of overall asset values, maybe down 5% to 10% because you're getting some lift in the numerator that offsets some of the increase in the denominator.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's helpful. And then just as you start to execute on some of these structured investment program deals, how did the first few deals come about? What sort of competition are you seeing? Just kind of any color on at least the entrance into this market.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Nick, it's Matt. I guess I can speak to that one as well. So the first 2 deals we have, one is actually in the East Bay in the San Francisco area and the other one is in Denver. And then we have a others working their way through the pipeline actually on the East Coast. So we're seeing a nice geographic mix. I mean it's typically local merchant, builder, developer sponsors. And we do think the deal flow, there is a lot of leverage there given our deep presence in our markets. So some of these are sites that we knew from kind of looking at them as land. Some of them, they certainly -- there's good deal flow from the brokerage community and folks we're talking to about asset acquisitions or asset dispositions. The other thing we're seeing is pretty strong relationship alignment with first lenders. All these deals have obviously first construction lenders. And they really take heart in the fact that we're in there with them and such an experienced capital provider further up in the capital stack than they are, given our expertise in development and construction and operations. So we're looking to get repeat business from a pool of lenders. And I think the deal flow is probably increasing as capital gets a little harder to find. So we like our position going forward that we should be even more competitive.
Operator:
We take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
So I was wondering if you guys could provide where you expect your '23 earn-in to shape up at this point. And I'm just curious, given that we're starting at presumably a historically high earn-in entering year, you still got the sizable loss to lease in place today. I guess I'm trying to understand, if conditions do soften materially from here, I mean, what's the probability that you'd actually see revenue growth turn negative if, again, if things soften materially, and I recognize all recessions are different, but just using kind of historical data maybe as a little bit of -- to give some idea of what that downside risk could be.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Austin, this is Sean. I'll take that one. As it relates to the earn-in, there's still obviously a lot of leasing to do, a lot of transactions to execute between now and year-end. The guidance I give you is that coming into 2022, the earn-in that we had in place at the beginning of the year was about 2.5%. And so as you look forward to 2023, given the leases that we've executed thus far this year, what you could sort of expect based on the guidance we provided for the second half of the year that the earn-in going into 2023 would be well above where we started 2022. So keep in mind that, obviously, it's one variable in the whole puzzle. There are some other factors that could be headwinds and/or tailwinds, including, obviously, the normalization of bad debt in terms of underlying collection rates should be a bit of a tailwind. The loss of rent relief from this year will be a bit of a headwind. So you've got to kind of keep all those things in mind as it relates to how the embedded growth kind of translates to total revenue growth when we get to next year. And then in terms of your other question about kind of our loss to leases and what might have to happen, yes, I think you make a fair point that even if the macro environment continues to sour, there's still a lot of room between where rents are today and where rents would need to go to, particularly given how our leases expire throughout the year to end up in a position where you'd have negative revenue growth. It really would have to be -- I think I would probably characterize it as a pretty severe economic shock to really see that happen that quickly in terms of the whipsaw with a lot of cushion kind of between us and any kind of negative revenue growth. So that's how I'd describe that.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. That's helpful. And then just secondly, you guys had talked about a NAREIT 2023 starts in the $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion range sort of depending on the environment. Obviously, some deals got pushed into next year. So is that upside to the $1.3 billion, $1.8 billion? So could you provide an update there? And then just also curious how you're thinking about the additional debt capacity that you have today given leverage is below the low end of your range?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Austin. I'll speak to the -- this is Matt. I can speak to the development volume, and then maybe Kevin wants to talk to the debt part of the question. Yes, I mean, so our development starts this year are going to be less than what we had thought going into the year. And that's really just based on some deal-specific factors. So all else equal, that activity would roll into '23. And so -- and obviously, our development rights pipeline picked up this quarter to $4.7 billion, which is I think as large as it's ever been. So what I would say is if the deals continue, and the economics on those deals continue to look attractive, we certainly could start anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion next year depending on how those deals come together when we get final costs in. We're really focused on preserving flexibility based on if we do see changes there, but we certainly have that possibility. And of course, we have the equity forward. So we have a fair amount of that capital already raised, so to speak. But Kevin, do you want to speak to that?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. Yes. Thanks, Matt. Austin, I mean I think your point is a good one. We -- I mean the first point I'd make is we enter the environment we're in and we're expecting to enter 2023 from a position of terrific strength from a balance sheet point of view. Leverage, as you pointed out, is below our target range of 5 to 6x. In a normal market environment, the combination of free cash flow, which is typically around $300 million a year and is around now and selling assets for retaining capital, which is usually between $400 million and $700 million. And then on normal levels of EBITDA growth, leveraged EBITDA growth kind of adds another $300 million to $400 million, $500 million on top of that. So you end up with kind of having around $1.25 billion or more, give or take, in leverage-neutral funding capacity for investment, primarily development, in a typical year. And with tremendous amount of NOI and EBITDA growth that we're experiencing right now, you can -- you're correct to point out that we would have even more capacity beyond that, call it, $1.25 billion of leverage-neutral funding capacity in 2023 just by flexing up in terms of debt issuance. Obviously, current rates today don't look attractive relative to where they were a year or so ago. Currently, if we were to do a 10-year debt, it would be in the low 4% range, given where the treasuries are right now. That is sort of reasonably attractive if you look back over the last 10 years. But most of the -- but if you look back over the, as you say, over the last 20 years, if you look back over the last 10 years, it's 4.25% unsecured debt cost for us would be relatively high. But it is reasonably attractive compared to development and development uses. So I think as we look into 2023 and put together a capital plan, we've got lots of choices between free cash flow, ability to sell assets, the equity forward that Matt just pointed out and our ability to leverage up. But I think how much debt we take on will, at that time, be a little bit of a function of how attractive debt costs are relative to both development yields as well as what our sense is to the cost and other choices in terms of the other capital markets.
Benjamin Schall:
Austin, this is Ben. I'll add a couple of comments that speaks both to your question, Sean, on operating fundamentals and then also how we're looking forward next year in terms of development starts. And what I'd emphasize around our strength is also our portfolio positioning and particularly our orientation to the suburbs, right? With 2/3 of our portfolio in the suburban markets, we believe that's going to provide a level of durability that may not be seen in other markets. Demand drivers, our expectation is going to continue to be relatively strong there. And then supply relative to national averages is definitely low. It's projected to be in the range of 1.5% of stock. So on the operating side, we think that provides us with some additional resiliency and durability going into next year. And then from a development perspective, as you've seen from us over the -- really over the last couple of years, the bulk of our new development activity will continue to be in the suburban markets.
Operator:
We move to the next question from Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.
Stephen Sakwa:
Sean, I was wondering if you could just provide a little color on where you're sending out renewal notices for, I guess, what you got in July and maybe August, September, and kind of what your thoughts are for the balance of the year?
Sean Breslin:
Sure, Steve, happy to address that. I mean July, we were basically in the low double-digit range in terms of where the offers went out. And that remains relatively constant as we look forward over the next 60 to 90 days kind of in that low double-digit range. And keep in mind that as it relates to renewals, we are slightly more constrained than normal given some of the COVID overlay regulations that remain in place in markets like California, as an example. So there's more to come on renewals, but it's probably going to be in the next year before we're able to get all of it is the way I'd probably describe that to you, Steve.
Stephen Sakwa:
Okay. And maybe just circling back to, I guess, to Page 15. We've gotten a couple of questions on the development. I'm just curious, as you sort of look at the major input costs, whether it's lumber in certain areas or steel and concrete, I just -- what are you seeing on the inflation front there? And I realize that you guys -- I guess the current development through the beneficiaries of higher rents with costs from 1 year or 2 ago, but the environment today to start in '23 is a little different. So how much have yields come in on kind of the future pipeline and I guess how are you thinking about costs moving into next year?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Steve. This is Matt. As it relates to cost inflation, it's still out there. It's still significant. It feels like we're at the top and then it may be starting to downshift. For sure, obviously, lumber prices are down. For sales starts, seem like they're coming off pretty quickly now. So I guess I'd say I'm guardedly optimistic that buyout will start to become a little more favorable. I don't think that means hard costs are necessarily going to drop. But the days of 1% per month increase is maybe behind us, maybe not in all markets, but definitely in some markets. As it relates to how that affects the economics of our development book, our development rights pipeline today on today's rents and today's hard cost is running into kind of a typical mid-5% yield. And if you look at the developments that we're starting this year, that's probably around where they are as well, the 3 or 4 we've started so far and the 2 or 3 we expect to start in the second half year. Compared to 2 years ago, that was probably high 5s. So it is probably down 30, 40 basis points, but that still provides a pretty strong spread. And I do think that those cap rates are probably representative of where they are today. Frankly, the development that we completed late last year, the cap rates were probably sub-4%, but we're always a little conservative in how we quote these things. So I'd say 4% cap's probably a good representation for our best guess as to where those deals would trade today if they were stabilized in the market.
Benjamin Schall:
And Steve, from a sensitivity standpoint, we emphasized this last quarter, but just to reiterate it again, as you think about hard cost increases, rent increases and NOI increases, roughly, if you're keeping pace with 10% construction cost increases and hard costs being 60% of our overall project cost, you need approximately 6% NOI uplift. And so if you get both of those in those levels, you're able to maintain yields at that 5.5% type of range that Matt referenced.
Operator:
We take our next question from Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs.
Chandni Luthra:
Could you guys talk about what you're seeing in your sort of more tech-oriented markets, if there have been any signs of the broader malaise that we are seeing everywhere reflect in the business? Any early reads around that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Chandni, this is Sean. At this point, the answer is no. We're kind of reading in the media the same things you are in terms of particularly some of the start-ups trying to lean things out, some of the larger companies slowing the pace of hiring. But based on the demand that we're experiencing coming in the front door, it is not impacting the renter population in terms of their desire for the types of apartments that we offer.
Chandni Luthra:
Understood. And my follow-up question, in the event of a recession, how would you view the relative positioning of development versus acquisitions if we go into a tougher economic backdrop?
Benjamin Schall:
Chandni, I'll start. This is Ben. Our acquisition activity, at least to date, and this is the expectation going forward, it could adjust if the market got further dislocated. But it's an approach really based on trading of assets, right, and the movement from selling of assets in our established regions and then reallocating that capital into our established regions. And it ties very much into the portfolio optimization initiatives that we've been focused on as well as our diversification initiatives. So that's the primary element. On the development side, as we think about capital allocation there, at a high level, it's really a triangulation where we're thinking about what's the opportunity set, right? Matt talked about sort of the spreads that we need to maintain. So how do we think about a sufficient spread that is there and probably in the -- at the bottom end in that 100 to 150 basis point type of range to appropriately provide the return on that risk. And then we're thinking about the -- what's -- the other component of it is how do you think about the relative attractiveness of that development and the other relative sources there. So we're triangulating those 2 dynamics along with our source of capital. And that will really continue to -- that's been our approach, and that will continue to be our approach as we think about our capital allocation choices going forward.
Chandni Luthra:
Are there any lessons to take from the last financial crisis as we think about the relative positioning of those 2 areas of capital allocation?
Kevin O'Shea:
In terms of acquisitions versus development?
Chandni Luthra:
Yes.
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, I mean I think probably the lessons we probably have taken is, first of all, always have a prepared balance sheet so you're positioned to be able to respond to the opportunities that emerge in the market. So in a normal operating environment, we typically enjoy developing, and that's our highest and best source of shareholder value creation. But obviously, in a dislocated market environment, you can see acquisition opportunities emerge in certain circumstances. As you saw us engage in, in 2020, there are opportunities that are pretty attractive from a standpoint of buying back our stock. So that's part of the reason why you'll see, Chandni, we're operating at below our target level of leverage and with quite a bit of excess liquidity available to us. Because we need -- when there's more of a greater dispersion in macroeconomic environments that can unfold in front of you, you want to be prepared to be able to respond positively to the large majority of them. And so we're in a position to hunker down if we need to. But more likely, we're in a position to really act and use our capital strength in order to invest in whatever the opportunities that may emerge over the next year or so.
Sean Breslin:
Chandni, one thing just to add to that. Keep in mind on the development book. And this is not just a reflection of our experience following the GFC, but prior downturns. As it relates to development, those typically are some very good times for us as it relates to new land deals, either renegotiating deals that we have, sourcing new land. And importantly, if there is a reset in construction costs, as Matt pointed out, that is a very good time to buy out jobs. You only buy it at once, you only build it once, you release it every year, so that tends to be a very good time for us to source opportunities and get them started. And then when they would mature and deliver, they tend to be very, very nice yields on that book of business. So that is one thing that is relevant to the development side of the equation.
Operator:
We take our next question from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.
Bradley Heffern:
On the delayed starts, is there anything in common with those? Is there something that's specific to each of them individually? And I guess what's the likelihood that we'll see further delays next quarter from projects that are further out, et cetera?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Brad, it's Matt. No, I wouldn't say -- I mean the thing that's in common is just what we're seeing across our -- everywhere, really, which is just jurisdictions backed up. Honestly, even the design professionals backed up a little bit in terms of getting final permit drawings in and so on. So I think that's a general trend we're seeing across the space. And it probably is likely to continue. I think that we have started to factor that in as we think about kind of start activity and as we think about predevelopment schedules that things are taking a little longer to get through. So the deals that are teed up for the second half of the year starts, those are all tracking solidly, and I don't see anything at this point that would create any further delays in those.
Operator:
We take our next question from Alan Peterson with Green Street.
Alan Peterson:
Sean, can you remind us the magnitude of the year-over-year reduction in on-site headcount that's helping keep overall payroll costs only growing at 1% year-to-date? Are you guys anticipating any additional reductions over the next year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alan, Sean. So the numbers that I quoted is on -- and we parse it between office and maintenance. But on the office side of the house, in the second quarter, the headcount was down about 6%. On the maintenance side, it's about 4%. And then yes, as you look forward, Ben touched on it in his prepared remarks in terms of the benefit that we expect for the various initiatives that we have ongoing and the digital initiatives, in particular, that bucket of activity that you referenced will result in additional efficiencies at the site level, both on the office and the maintenance side, over the next couple of years.
Alan Peterson:
Perfect. And just one more on development philosophy question. Ben, you touched on the low end of the range for development economics to continue to pencil being roughly 100 to 150 basis points. Is there a scenario where that spread is tighter than 100 basis points where you would still start a new construction project?
Benjamin Schall:
It is possible. Yes, I mean, that's a general range so it is very dependent on our view on specific markets. It would be coming -- our approach would come from a position of are we creating the appropriate long-term value creation relative to the risk, right? So when you start to get down around that range, you're going to be asking yourself those tougher questions and make sure that you have a higher level of conviction around the value proposition.
Operator:
We take our next question from Adam Kramer with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Kramer:
Kind of want to ask maybe a bit of a bigger picture question about kind of rent growth. If you think historically, right, kind of pre-COVID and long term, I think kind of 3% -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think kind of 3% rent growth typically per year is kind of a decent proxy to use. And obviously, we're in this high inflationary environment, and even with the year-over-year numbers, which kind of should cool off here, we're still kind of going to be on an elevated level on inflation basis kind of relative to historical. So kind of wondering what you guys think will kind of be a good kind of rent growth proxy to use? Is 3% still the right number? Or should that be higher? And kind of where do you think that might land when we kind of think about longer-term rent growth?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Adam, this is Sean. I'm happy to start, and anybody else can chime in. But I think the number that you're quoting, it is really a function of just underlying inflation in the economy. Over a long period of time, though, if you look at it, rents in our markets with our customer segments have grown faster than inflation. I think the number I recommend -- or recall is around 70 to 100 basis points or so, plus or minus above kind of headline inflation. Again, over a long, 40 years kind of time frame, there are times where those spreads compress and there are times when they widen. So I think it really is a function of how you want to think about the underlying inflation rate and therefore, what you might expect in terms of rental rate growth on a nominal basis across our markets, again, serving our segment. So that's, I think, how you need to think about it as opposed to in absolute number terms.
Adam Kramer:
That's really helpful. I appreciate the color there. Maybe just a quick follow-up on just kind of a guide in what it assumes for maybe second half blended lease growth or second half new lease rate growth. But then also kind of where you think -- and I know it's somewhat tough to predict that far out, but where do you kind of think new lease rate growth or blended growth may kind of end the year at, right? So you kind of have the number that the second half is based on, but maybe a lower number, different number where we may end the year. Just kind of thinking about kind of growth next year, right, and kind of back to those earlier earn-in questions.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Adam, good question. Essentially, what's built into our reforecast for the second half of the year is some deceleration in like term effective rent change primarily as a result of the comps from the second half of 2021. I think as I referenced earlier, if you look at what happened in 2021, we still had negative rent change through the second quarter. And then it quickly flipped to almost up 8% in the third quarter, so the comps get tougher. As you look into the second half, so our expectation is that you'll see a deceleration on average of roughly 150 basis points from the first half, effective rent change to the second half. That's sort of at a high level how I think about where it's going to trend as we move through the balance of the second half of the year.
Operator:
The next question is from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
Just following up on that last question. What about the like term sort of cadence for the second half is optics? Meaning, this year, you have this tough comp scenario that we don't normally have. In absolute dollars, are rents in November meaningfully lower than rents are today? Or are they -- is the pace of market rent growth just decelerating, but your actual rents are still above where they are today in your forecast?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, good question. So to date, I've mentioned we've seen a nice run up in asking rents more than 9% since the beginning of the year. So the question you're really asking is maybe around seasonality in terms of what's likely to happen. We do expect some seasonality in the back half of the year. We haven't seen it yet. But in terms of the second half reforecast, what we have assumed is that the normal seasonal decline in that we should see in the absolute level of rents would be about half in 2022 as compared to sort of pre-COVID periods. So if you remember last year, we didn't really see that, rents rose and then they sort of just flatlined the last 4 or 5 months of the year. For this year, we've assumed that they actually will decline, just at a more modest pace than pre-COVID periods would typically dictate. That's an assumption. We'll see if that's the case, but that's the assumption we have made so far for this year.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. And second question, back to the tech kind of headlines. What's better for you in terms of the multifamily business, tech hiring during the pandemic with no commitment to being anywhere near the office? So that's, I guess, a nice feeling, but I don't know how it affects multifamily since they can live in Nebraska if they wanted to. Or tech layoffs or at least hiring slowdowns, but now giving some leverage to employers to say, okay, well, if you want to essentially keep your job, you got to come back to the office at least some portion of the week. Is the latter a better scenario for you? Or is just the pure hiring -- accelerating hiring a better scenario for the market overall?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. That's a multivariable question, Rich. And given we don't typically go through a pandemic, that's -- I'm not sure I can give you 100% certainty on that. Certainly, we have been through tech layoff cycles following the tech rec and such in the past, which were painful, as you know. In terms of...
Richard Anderson:
I'm sorry, Sean, I guess the question is layoffs sort of moves employer negotiating leverage back to the employer, and so more people in the office and then more people having to be near the office and so more people using multifamily is the essence of the question.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, I agree with you on that. So I think -- sorry, I was going to head to it. Obviously, even if there is -- just as the employment base declines by some modest amount, whatever the number is, to the extent all of that employment is still concentrated within our markets where there are urban submarkets or our suburban job-centered markets, that is highly relevant to the demand for our portfolio. And just to give you an example, we have seen some meaningful reversion to any out migration. And if you look at our move-ins even in the second quarter for the same-store bucket, historically, in the second quarter, move-ins from greater than 150 miles away is around 10% to 11% of the move-in activity. It was almost 30% in the second quarter. So it's up 250% from normal levels. And certainly, job-centered suburban, which is very favorable for us, and urban, which is less favorable as it's only 1/3 of the portfolio, but still relevant, we're seeing that trend come back as opposed to during the pandemic where it was -- there's a lot of out migration to various other markets. So that's a trend that has been in place for a couple of quarters and certainly accelerated very meaningfully in the second quarter. And hopefully, that trend will continue in the third quarter as employers do start pulling more people back into the office in those markets to benefit us.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. We take our next question from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein:
I saw on Slide 8 you had details about the level of your loss to lease and how it was growing from April, May and then into June. Curious, is that the normal dynamic that you see at that time of year? I'm just kind of thinking about -- just trying to think about like how extraordinary that 15% is these days?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Josh, this is Sean. In absolute terms, 15% is, to use your word, extraordinary, way above average. To the first question around, does it normally trend up during the second quarter? The answer is yes, just not normally at that kind of pace. So hopefully, that's helpful.
Joshua Dennerlein:
So even the pace of the growth is a lot higher than you would normally see as like a normal seasonality?
Sean Breslin:
That is correct. And what I'd point you to, as I mentioned, rents being up more than 9% since the beginning of the year. Normally, that slope when you look at it from January to, call it, mid-July type range is weaker than that in an average year. It still trends up, just you wouldn't see that same change.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Okay. And sorry, just one follow-up. Is that just because -- is the growth in the loss to lease really a function of just how fast rents have moved? Or is it also because there was like restrictions earlier in the year on being able to push some rate?
Sean Breslin:
It's really the combination of the 2. So we're able to push rents hard. And on renewals, we can't capture all of it. So for people that are -- if they cap at a 10% rent increase and rents are up more than that, that spread will accrue to loss to lease, of course.
Operator:
The next question comes from Connor Mitchell with Piper Sandler.
Connor Mitchell:
I have two questions. First, just thinking about the general acquisition market. Has the pullback of levered buyers also extended to merchant developers? And has this given you guys some additional opportunity for acquisitions?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Conor, it's Matt. I would say, typically, the merchant builders, the buyer of those assets since their brand-new class assets is usually not a highly levered buyer. So there's probably been less of a pullback there than there has been in the value-add space, but there has been some pullback there. And particularly, there are some folks that want to sell early before maybe the lease-up is fully complete. So I think it does create an opportunity for us. And we do feel like that we are better positioned as a buyer going forward, there's less competition. And where for a seller, it's less about getting the absolute highest price as it is about certainty of execution in this environment, and that's something we offer. So I do think that it's going to lead to a more favorable buying opportunities for us.
Connor Mitchell:
Okay. Great. And then my second question is you guys have talked about capital allocation of acquisitions and development a couple of times. I was also just wondering how you guys think about your structured investment program. And if you might ramp that up, if you're hitting it on developments or if you wanted to speed up developments once again, if you would kind of carry the same level of the investments within the structured development program?
Benjamin Schall:
Connor, this is Ben. To a certain degree, we think about that as a separate business. It's $300 million to $500 million of finite capital, and we'll build that book of business up over the next couple of years. We may pull a little bit harder, a little bit less based on the environment. But I would expect a pretty consistent approach there to the fill out of that business.
Operator:
It appears there are no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to Mr. Ben Schall for any additional or closing comments.
Benjamin Schall:
Thank you, and thank you again for joining us today. We appreciate your support and engagement, and have a wonderful rest of the summer.
Operator:
And this concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and Welcome to AvalonBay Communities’ First Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. As a reminder, today’s conference is been recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the remarks by the Company, we will conduct a question and answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Jay. And welcome to AvalonBay Communities first quarter 2022 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that Forward-Looking Statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the Company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Jason. And thanks all for joining us on today’s call. Matt and I will open with some prepared remarks and we are joined by Kevin and Sean for Q&A. Starting on Slide 4 of our presentation. Q1 was a very strong start to what we continue to expect to be a very strong year of operating results. Core FFO per share came in at $2.26, a 15.9% year-over-year increase and $0.06 above the midpoint of our guidance. I will dive deeper into the drivers of that outperformance in a moment. On the capital allocation front, our industry leading development platform continues to drive meaningful earnings growth and value creation with a very robust 6.9% yield on developments completed this quarter. For the year, we are projecting about 700 million of completions at an average yield of 6.3%, which represents a substantial spread to current market cap rates. As we grow, we are also optimizing the portfolio through the selective sale of older, slower growth assets from our established regions. This quarter with 270 million of dispositions at a high 3% cap rate with the intention to then redeploy this capital primarily into acquisitions in our expansion markets. And in April, we executed on an equity board for $495 million as an expected source of capital to opportunistically draw down through the end of 2023, and locking in our cost of capital for future development activity at what we expect to be a creative spread. Turning to Slide 5. GAAP residential revenue increased 8.5% on a year-over-year basis led by about a 6% increase in effective lease rates and a 100 basis point improvement in net bad debt. On a cash basis, residential revenue increased almost 10%. As shown on Slide 6, the 8.5% GAAP revenue growth was 150 basis point greater than the 7% increase we assumed in Q1 guidance with lease rates and occupancy above our prior guidance and while still at elevated levels, better than expected bad debt and rent relief collections driving the bulk of the outperformance relative to our expectations. Portfolio performance has been supported by a number of tailwinds as detailed on Slide 7. Starting with Chart 1, we continue to see elevated move-ins from greater than 150 miles away, which speaks to a continued flow of residents back to our established markets and as particularly positive indicator for our urban and job centered suburban communities. In Chart 2, we also continue to see de-densification with less roommates and a desire for more space, leading to fewer adults per apartment, and as a driver of incremental demand across our portfolio. As rents continue to grow, they are supported by greater household income from new residents, which was up 12% in Q1 relative to the prior year period as shown on Chart 3. And finally on Chart 4, rent versus own economics, the monthly cost of renting versus the cost of owning a home materially favors renting in our markets with a difference of almost a $1000 per month, historically high level, and one which provides a meaningful cushion and support to our rent growth. As shown on Slide 8, this backdrop is translating into continued momentum like term effective rent change, which accelerated throughout Q1 and continued into April at 13.7%. Looking forward, our portfolio is positioned extremely well heading into the peak leasing season. As shown on Slide 9, occupancy remains strong and steady at about 96.5%. Annualized turnover means very low relative to historic figures and 30-day availability effectively the near-term inventory that is available for lease remains limited at less than 5% of our units. And while we continue to capture meaningful loss to lease as existing resident leases expire, our portfolio wide loss to lease remains high currently at 14%, which has been supported by a 4% increase in asking rates since the beginning of the year. Turning to Slide 10. We are making meaningful progress in the transformation of our operating platform, as we drive toward our goal of improving margins by 200 basis points or an additional 40 million to 50 million of NOI with approximately 10 million generated to-date. This slide highlights three of our many initiatives, including bulk internet and managed wifi, which is projected to ultimately deliver over 25 million of incremental annual NOI, smart home technology, which unlocks both operating efficiencies and revenue opportunities going forward. And third, our digital mobile maintenance platform, which will not only enhance our residents experience with us, but also deliver material value the enhanced operational efficiency. Before turning it to Matt, Slide 11 provides our updated full-year guidance with projected 16% core FFO growth, reflecting our strong momentum in Q1 and incorporating our increased outlook for same-store revenue and NOI growth. We have also updated our guidance to take into account a couple of factors. On the operating side, while core operating performance is quite strong, there continues to be some uncertainty about net bad debt in certain markets, particularly in Southern California and Alameda County and Northern California. And in some other markets, while eviction moratoria have expired, the core processes are moving slowly. As a result, some of the growth we are expecting in the back half of 2022 may get pushed in 2023, which we have assumed in our updated guidance. As it relates to our projected core FFO growth for the year, we have scaled back our assumption for acquisition activity for 2022, based on where we stand through today. As we keep a close eye on cap rates, fund flows and assess any shifts in the transaction markets. While we remain active, including another acquisition we recently put under contract, we update our guidance from being a net buyer in 2022 to an assumption of balancing acquisition volume with disposition volume before taking into account proceeds from Columbus circle. And with that, I will turn it over to Matt to go further into our development and capital allocation activities.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Great, thanks Ben. Turning to Slide 12. Our development activity continues to generate outstanding results. The five consolidated communities currently in lease up, which are widely dispersed across five different regions have rents which are currently $230 or 9% above proforma, which in turn is contributing to yield there are 40 basis points ahead of our initial expectations at 6.1%. With an estimated value on completion in excess of $1 billion and a cost basis of $690 million. This provides roughly $360 million in value creation for an exceptional profit margin of 52%. While hard costs are certainly trending up, there is plenty of room from March to compress from these elevated levels and still provide strong risk adjusted returns going forward. As we mentioned on last quarter’s call, our teams have also been very active in sourcing new development opportunities as shown on Slide 13. At the end of the first quarter, our development rights pipeline had grown to $4 billion up from $3.3 billion at the start of the year with new sites added in our expansion regions of Denver and Austin, as well as established regions in New England and Northern California. All of these new development rights are in suburban locations and with the total pipeline weighted 75% suburban and 25% urban, our stabilized portfolio will likely trend towards that mix over time as well. The chart in the lower right hand corner of this slide provides an illustration of how inflationary pressures on both NOIs and hard costs would typically flow through to development yield. This is an increasingly important issue in the current environment. Our development rights pipeline is underwritten to a current average yield or cost of roughly 5.5%. The chart shows how a change of plus or minus 10% to both hard costs and NOIs would impact that yield of holding all else constant, because hard costs represent 60% of total capital on news development with variances depending on the specific site. You can see that rising NOIs have roughly twice as much of an impact on yield as rising hard costs of a similar magnitude. As a reminder, we underwrite all of our development on current basis and typically do not trend either NOIs or costs. Even in the current environment with hard cost inflation running at a level, this gives us a measure of safety. This math suggests even if hard costs rise by 10% from current levels, the 5.5% yield can still be preserved with just a 6% increase in NOI Slide 14 provides a quick update on our progress in our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida. We have been measured in our approach to building diversified portfolios in these regions, investing through a combination of acquisitions, funding local third-party developers and developing our own communities directly as we do in our established regions. This has allowed us to put together portfolios that we believe will be optimized for future revenue growth as well as initial investment return with strong locations in both urban and suburban submarkets in both regions. Critically, we are also focused on getting the products we want that will be well positioned to take advantage of demographic trends like the aging of the millennials and the increase in work from home as reflected in the larger-than-typical average unit size and young average asset age shown on the chart. We expect to follow a similar trajectory as we ramp up our investment activity in our newest expansion regions of North Carolina and Texas and make steady progress towards our goal of a 25% allocation to these expansion regions. Turning to Slide 17. We also launched a new investment vehicle in the first quarter, which we are calling our Structured Investment Program, or SIP. This is a mezzanine lending platform that provides short-term construction financing to local third-party developers in our established regions plus Denver and Florida with our position in the capital stack between the primary construction loan and the sponsor equity. The SIP provides another way for us to leverage our deep expertise in development, construction and operations to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders, and we expect to build this program to a $300 million to $500 million total investment level over the next few years. And with that, I will turn it back to Ben for some closing remarks.
Benjamin Schall:
Thanks, Matt. To wrap up and summarize key themes, Q1 was a strong start to the year with several tailwinds continuing to support our operating fundamentals, which are some of the strongest we have experienced and have us well positioned going into the peak leasing season. We continue to invest in our operating platform with the teams executing across a number of transformative initiatives over 2022, including both Wi-Fi, smart access and mobile maintenance. As you heard, we continue to lean into our development platform with lease-ups outperforming and generating meaningful earnings growth and value creation. We are also building our development rights pipeline now up to $4 billion, providing options on future value creation including significant investment in our established regions at accretive returns as well as a continued focus on optimizing the portfolio by growing in our expansion markets. And finally, we continue to look to tap our Company’s strengths with our structured investment program being our latest offering by tapping into our development, construction and financial know-how to grow earnings and create value. With that, I will turn it to the operator for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will begin with Nicholas Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thank you very much. As you look at entering the structured investment program, how quickly do you expect to scale up to that $300 million to $500 million and how are you thinking about ladder in the deals and redemption timing?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hey Nick, this is Matt. I guess I can take that one. I think it will take us a couple of years. It really will be dependent on the volume. The transaction market starts volume and kind of how our origination goes, but I would expect it is probably going to be two to three years before we get it up to that level. Then once you get to that level, these are typically three to five year investments. So each year, there is some redemptions, and hopefully, you are putting out some new money. So it is a ramp to get it there and then probably that is worth to keep it there.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thanks and then as you look to enter it, what were you thinking in terms of just the competition within this market and then are you going to have an option to buy or own throughout all of the deals?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Thanks for that. So the second question, no, we do not expect to have an option to buy the deals, and we are trying to be very clear with the market and the sponsors that we are working with. For us, this is not a program that is about ultimately owning that real estate. It is a program that is about leveraging our expertise and our local market presence in these markets to generate good risk-adjusted returns during the duration of the investment. So we really are viewing it as a onetime investment. What was the first part of the question?
Nicholas Joseph:
Competition.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Competition, sorry. Yes. There is competition. There is competition from some of our REIT peers as we are aware. Although I would say, I think that the market conditions are probably shifting in a way that is going to make this program more attractive going forward, as development capital maybe gets a little more challenging, as first loan proceeds start to get constrained. So we are pretty bullish. And the other thing is we have key relationships in all of these markets. And we have been in them for many years. And so we view it as really another way. We can work with a lot of folks that we have worked with in other capacities in the past, and it is kind of another sleeve of capital to it.
Benjamin Schall:
And Nick, if you think about us in our established markets, self-performing and being our own GC, right, we have come with a ton of daily on-the-ground knowledge that we think we can leverage here and do so in a competitive way as we think about risk-adjusted returns.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thank you.
Operator:
Now we will move to a question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
Hey good afternoon guys. I wanted to maybe circle back to the acquisition taking down guidance by about $0.05 from acquisition, but also square that to the recent equity raise. Just trying to understand, it seems like, if I’m thinking about this correctly, using the equity raise to potentially fund development in the future but maybe taking a little bit of a pause on the acquisition market given the uncertainty with cap rates, is that sort of the right way to think about that? And if so, does it mean you are really taking a medium to long-term approach rather than trying to maximize returns over the near-term. And I say that in a complementary way, not in a negative way.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. Sure, Rich. This is Kevin. Maybe just with the first part of I think you are right with respect to all that, maybe to break it apart into two pieces. You are correct. Obviously, we did the equity forward $500 million of spend. Mentioned, our intention, at least at this point, is that while we can pull that down in one or more settlements from here through the end of 2023, our expectation is at this point that we are going to use that equity capital to draw down over the course of 2023 to fund development in 2023. So that is our current intention. So it is basically capital that we have earmarked at this point to fund future starts into 2023. As to kind of the first part of what you are referencing in terms of the change in the reforecast in acquisitions, you are correct. We increased overall expectations for core FFO for full-year by $0.03 to $9.58 at the midpoint. And as you can see on page four earnings release, there are a number of pluses and minuses that result net $0.03 change. And among the more notable changes are obviously an expectation for $0.11 increase in earnings from higher same-store NOI primarily driven from higher rental rates and to a lesser extent, from higher occupancy and rental repayments. And then second, as you pointed out, Rich, a $0.05 decrease in earnings from capital markets and transaction activity, which, in turn, when you kind of net the pluses and minuses in that category is driven by a decrease in forecasted acquisition activity based at least on where we stand today at this early point in the year. Of course, what we may do when acquisitions can change pretty quickly. That is a dynamic part of our budget and what we may be doing on the investment front. So Matt can certainly speak to that but at the moment, we pulled that down a little bit, which creates a little bit of a $0.05 decrease. And the other notable item is just a $0.03 decrease in earnings related to the flow through the compensation items. So that is sort of the other reconciliation of the reforecast for 2022, and the equity forward, to be clear, is not being pulled down in that model for 2022 because that is not our current expectations.
Benjamin Schall:
Rich, it is Ben. Just a couple more tidbits there. So on the acquisition side, as Kevin hit on, it is a reflection of where we stand today. We did narrow the box some earlier this year. We wanted to assess the market and obviously some macro dynamics happening there. And the assumption we pulled it down to is similar to what we had last year, which is sort of a balance between acquisitions and dispositions and we continue to think about it really as sort of trade capital and so capital that we can be looking to monetize out of our established regions and then redeploying that capital into our expansion markets.
Richard Hill:
And that is a good segue into my next question. At the risk of overstepping here, why wouldn’t you accelerate dispositions? You have done a really good job of taking maybe older properties with higher CapEx spend, selling those at tight cap rates and rolling it into expansion markets. Why wouldn’t you accelerate dispositions right now and maybe take that money and use it as, call it, dry powder?
Benjamin Schall:
Yes, I will start and then Matt can chime in. We were very active last year, had a lot of activity at the end of last year and are continuing to push there for some of the reasons that you hit on. Again, the bulk of our portfolio, we have got a lot of conviction around. It is performing well. So our movement as we think about optimizing the portfolio is a longer-term approach. So we are thinking about assets at a point in time, how do we think about value today versus value six months from today and why there could be some movement in cap rates, let’s say. There is also very strong operating fundamentals that are going to help support asset values as we look forward.
Matthew Birenbaum:
I guess one thing I would just add to that, Rich, is it is also about the relative value between what we are buying and what we are selling. And I will say that changes - and we may be starting to see a little bit of a change in where values might be in the regions we are looking to buy in, and some of the regions we are looking to sell and maybe haven’t been quite as in favor and that shift may be changing. So I actually think, looking forward that relative value proposition on the trade may look a little better than it is say in the first quarter of this year when we were being more cautious.
Richard Hill:
Thanks guys. That is it for me.
Operator:
We will now move to Stephen Sakwa with Evercore ISI.
Stephen Sakwa:
Thanks, good afternoon. I was wondering, first, if we could just start on kind of the renewals that you are sending out for, I guess, either May, June, July and how those stacked up the first quarter in April.
Sean Breslin:
Yes Steve it is Sean. In terms of committed renewal offers that have gone out, we are basically in the low teens, which is a little bit better than we originally expected when we contemplated the budget, probably maybe 150 bps or so higher than what we originally expected. So that is what is out now.
Stephen Sakwa:
Okay. And Sean, are the take rates -- is there any change in kind of the attitude or acceptance from kind of consumer or once they shop the market realize it is kind of no better anywhere else, they kind of come back and sign?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean I think as what was reflected on the slide that Ben presented, as it relates to turnover, the acceptance rates on renewals as well as lease breaks, which typically account for about third of move-outs, both of those were down pretty materially. I mean, turnover is down, call it, 20% year-over-year, but it is down 15% to 16% compared to kind of pre-COVID norms when you look at Q4 and then again in Q1 of this year. So pricing power is strong for us. I think when people get a renewal offer and they go shop it, use your [indiscernible], they see that we are selling value. And there is transition costs. So if I’m going to go out and it is going to pay roughly the same and then I have got moving costs or switching costs people are inclined just to stay where they are.
Stephen Sakwa:
Right. That makes sense. Kevin, maybe one for you and if I missed it in here, I apologize. What is the assumption for bad debt or uncollectibles for the full-year today and kind of what was it? And just trying to compare that to 2021.
Kevin O’Shea:
So Steve, I will jump in here and Sean may want to add here a little bit. So in terms of overall bad debt on a percent of revenue basis, there is not a whole lot of change. Of course, there is two categories that feed into that number. But just to kind of give you a sense that for the full-year in our budget, we assume that uncollectible revenue overall would be about 270 basis points of the headwind - 270 basis points of revenue. And at this point, it is 264 basis points. So on a net basis, marginally better. But as you probably saw reflected, there is a bit of movement as we have seen in the first part of the year so far in some of those underlying pieces. And so underlying bad debt trends, delinquencies, if you will and a couple of our jurisdictions have trended worse such that overall, for the full-year, we expect that category to be a little bit worse over the course of the year. At the same time, we saw more rent relief payments in Q1, and we now expect to receive more rent payments overall for the full-year. And so kind of when you net that out over the full-year, overall, our reforecast for overall bad debt, taking into account rent relief and underlying bad debt trends, is roughly net neutral relative to our initial outlook with higher expected rent relief payments expected primarily in the front half of the year to be nearly offset by higher underlying bad debt projected primarily in the back of the year. Sean, do you want to add anything?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Steve, the only thing I would add just on your question for 2021 is the uncollectible revenue that we reported for 2021 was $2.1 million as compared to the current reforecast, as Kevin alluded to, is $2.64 million for 2022.
Stephen Sakwa:
Got it. Okay. So it is a little bit of a headwind year-over-year. But you are saying within the 9% revenue growth, you have got about a 270 basis point, in effect, bad debt sort of headwind in the growth this year.
Kevin O’Shea:
Correct. And the way I would probably think about it, Steve, is relative to our original budget, some markets are getting a little bit better. But given the delay in the eviction moratorium expiration, particularly throughout Los Angeles and elevated County in Northern California, we adjusted our outlook to reflect continuation of bad debt trends in those markets through 2022 and not seeing significant improvement until we get into 2023 and that is really what you kind of put through it. From a geography standpoint, that is where we expect a little more of a headwind than we maybe originally anticipated but as Kevin noted, a little more than offset by greater rent relation.
Stephen Sakwa:
Great. And just one last question for Matt. Just on kind of the construction supply chain, just how is that sort of unfolding as you are looking to start new projects? Was that a lot more challenging today? Is it getting better? Just where are the bottlenecks? And what is that, maybe due to the risk of starts or how do you sort of manage that? And what should we expect? .
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, Steve, I guess I would say construction inflation is definitely running hot. So costs are on the rise. This is where us being our general contractor really does help because we are able to go back to build on the relationships we have had over many years with a lot of our subcontractors and negotiate early agreements and sign build agreements. So we are doing what we can to stay in front of it. The supply chain issues and the actual availability issues. Those have probably got a little bit better over the last four or five months. So I haven’t heard as much about that. I would say the bigger challenges have been just getting final permits through jurisdictions, in some cases, getting certificates of occupancy, final inspections from jurisdictions, getting the power company out there to set the meters. Those things probably haven’t gotten better yet. So I think that is kind of slowing down, supplies extending out durations on construction jobs by a quarter or two in many cases. I’m not talking about us so much as the industry as a whole. But for us - so a couple of starts that we thought we were going to start in the first half of the year, and we will probably get delayed a couple of months to the second half of the year, but that is really more about just kind of the delays in getting through the jurisdiction and get the final approval.
Stephen Sakwa:
Great. Thanks that is it for me.
Operator:
We will now take a question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great, thanks and good afternoon everybody. I was curious how the 4% increase in asking rates year-to-date is tracking relative to your expectation at the outset of the year and where you think that - where that could finish the year.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, it is Sean. Good question. What I would say is that it is tracking a little bit ahead of what we anticipated and part of the reason why we looked at updating our reforecast, and outlook for the year was based on the trend that we were seeing, not only in asking rents, but what people were actually taking on renewals as well as what we are seeing on the movement side as well as the renewal offers that we have in the Q. I think, typically, what would happen if you look at our business historically, as you would see rents continue to rise, as we move through sort of the July maybe early August period and then decelerate in the back half of the year. As we talked about on the last quarter call, for 2021, things didn’t really decelerate in terms of asking rents. It kind of just leveled off. We do believe that this year and was reflected in our outlook is that we start to see somewhat more normal seasonal patterns to see some deceleration in the back half of the year. But macroeconomic forces, et cetera, just the overall supply and demand dynamics in the housing market will really dictate kind of where things come out is because in the second half of the year I think we will have a better sense for that as we get to our second quarter call.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That makes sense. What does that imply based on your current expectation for how things will play out in a more seasonal pattern? What does that imply for that 14% loss to lease? How much of that do you draw down? And what are you left with entering 2023 based on the current guide?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Good question. I would say that one probably it is a little more challenging to answer sitting here in late April when we are talking about what it might be in January of 2023. So I would say, based on what we know today, it should be well above average, but trying to give you a range would be just too speculative at this point.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. That is fair. And then just last one for me. I’m curious, Kevin, has there been any change in terms of the amount of capital that you plan to source versus the 880 million that you initially outlined back in February, I believe and do you still expect the balance or the bulk of that to be through debt capital based on what we have seen - where we have seen rates move up into this point?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. Thanks, Austin. This is Kevin. So yes, I mean, the short answer is our capital plan has changed a little bit, not a lot. So you are correct. When we began the year, our initial outlook was for $880 million of external capital, most of which, at that time, was planned to be sourced for the issuance of unsecured debt. At this point, our current capital plan calls for just under $700 million of external capital. So we are down, call it, $200 million overall relative to our initial outlook. And of that nearly $700 million of external capital that we currently expect for the year, about half is expected to come through net disposition proceeds from sales of -- from pulp circle as well as a little bit of disposition only on dispositions, which is much more of a closer to a push, as been alluded to a moment ago and then the other half from newly unsecured debt against which we have $150 million of hedges in place at a forward starting swap rate of 1.37%, so about 150 basis points below where treasuries are today. And then just to kind of put that in perspective, what needs to still be sourced, of the $700 million of external capital, as you can see from our earnings materials, we sourced $270 million in Q1 versus a $95 million acquisition in Q1 for about one-fourth the anticipated external capital needs in Q1 with 3/4 left to go out here. And then just as a reminder, at the moment, as I mentioned ago, we do not plan, at this point anyway, on drawing down capital on the record in 2022, but rather to expect to do so in 2023 to [indiscernible] to the year.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
And now we will take a question from Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs.
Chandni Luthra:
Hi, thank you for taking my question. So you took down your high end of your guidance by a couple of pennies. Could you perhaps give us a little bit color as to what would get you to the high end versus the low end right now?
Kevin O’Shea:
Chandni we had hard time hearing. This is Kevin.
Chandni Luthra:
I’m really sorry, my throat is really messed up. I can repeat.
Kevin O’Shea:
No, no, I think I have got it. I think you want to know what could drive us to the high end of our range of $9.7 versus the midpoint $9.58. I think the answer primarily is an increase in expected rental revenue received over the course of the year. There could be other signs, including acquisition activity and so forth, but they probably would be a smaller impact I mean up and down the P&L could be changed but anything that would drive us toward the high end of the range would be primarily driven by an expectation for much higher rental rate growth than we are currently seeing with the other known acquisitions as well.
Chandni Luthra:
Got it. And then towards the low end, what would it take to get you there? Like what would have to kind of go wrong in that equation?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes, it is probably the inverse of just kind of what I suggested. So something unexpected today that involves sort of a macroeconomic event that would cause a sharp, but unexpected decline in revenues over the course of the year. I guess analogous is sort of what we saw in 2020 with the pandemic is not in our expectation, but certainly, I guess, potentially within the realm of possibility.
Chandni Luthra:
Understood. And then as a follow-up. So you are sending renewals right now in the low teens rate you mentioned earlier. At this point last year, perhaps there was obviously a lot of deal seekers that kind of got it into apartments that just given where the market was. Are you seeing any reversal from that standpoint where people no longer are able to afford especially those who previously did not level up on the apartments? I mean what are you seeing from the deal-seeking activity standpoint? Is it reversing?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, this is Sean. Good question. I would say it is not changing materially in terms of behavior. If you look at people that are moving out for rent increase or some other financial reasons, it is up very modestly on a year-over-year basis and probably, importantly, the reason we are not experiencing that is wage growth has been quite robust. And if you look at wage growth, particularly across the occupations that are represented primarily by our residents, it is not uncommon to find high single-digit, low double-digit numbers out there for people in those sectors. And I think that is consistent, even with some of the movements that we are seeing that Ben referenced in his prepared remarks, where people that are moving in this quarter as opposed to the same quarter last year with incomes up 12%, 13% range. That is pretty good, especially in an environment where people are generally spending less from a discretionary income standpoint on various items. So, so far, there is not much stress in the system if that is kind of the main purpose of the question.
Chandni Luthra:
Yes. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And the next question will come from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Thanks for taking the question. Matt, I want to go back to your comments on just the development deliveries for the industry overall, not just AvalonBay. Are there any markets where these delays are particularly high right now where the operating results are just benefiting from a dearth of deliveries and you just see in a few quarters, we are going to be talking about just kind of a lot of deliveries dropped on to a market once some of these jurisdictional delays here? I’m just trying to get an understanding of whether some of these operating results in certain markets are artificially high right now and there is going to be a shoe to drop?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. It is interesting, John. I don’t know that it will suddenly correct and that there will be -- I think what is more likely to happen is you are going to see supply bleed in over a longer period of time. So it is going to extend out that delivery pipeline. It will get there eventually. So maybe gives those markets a little more time to absorb it, but people are starting just as much. So, a, I don’t think it is going to change anytime soon to some of these issues, particularly when it is jurisdictions or it is utilities. Those are structural issues. Those types of entities don’t suddenly go and hire a bunch of new people. So if you spend time in Austin today, for example, which is one of the markets that is got the most new supply coming in on the way, you’ll hear all the developers and contractors talk about how a job that should take two years from start to finish is taking 2.5 to three. But there is tons of starts there. So I don’t think - I think it is just going to extend out the delivery times in general. And among our markets, including our expansion markets, the two that I would say are probably both stretched that way are probably Denver and Austin. I don’t know that -- there is a lot of supply in some other markets we are not in, that I have read about, but those are the two of the top and I would say where we are seeing the most in terms of those kind of pressures on the system, just not being able to keep up with the amount of supply not in terms of demand, in terms of deliveries and credit final inspections on all that.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Makes sense. And then final question just on Southeast Florida, 25% year-over-year revenue growth. I know it is just a few assets. Can you give me a sense for how much of this is really strong market fundamentals versus these acquisitions being previously undermanaged?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John, it is Sean. I would say it is a little bit of a blend of both. Certainly, the market fundamentals and pick stores that you want to use have been quite healthy with significant market rent growth as you move through, particularly the back half of 2021 that is currently being captured in early 2022. But I would say there is a couple of different assets out of that, again, small pools you referenced, that we felt had a compelling opportunity when we bought the asset in terms of how it is managed, whether it was how the parking garage is managed at one case, how the pricing was managed in terms of revenue management in another case that have probably given us a little bit of a lift. But I would say market fundamentals have been very robust and you would still see pretty robust numbers come out of Southeast Florida, maybe the high teens range or something like that, low 20s. It depends on sort of the management value add, if you want to all that.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Alright, great thank you.
Operator:
Now we will move to Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.
Bradley Heffern:
Hi everyone. I just wanted to go back to the acquisition guidance and make sure I understand the thought process there. Is it that you think prices will come down as higher rates flow through and you don’t want to refer ahead of that? Are you concerned about the economic outlook and, therefore, like the rate growth assumptions? Is it just lower accretion given the higher cost of capital? I guess what are the key factors that are making you more defensive?
Benjamin Schall:
Brad, this is Ben. I will start, and Matt can provide more color. It is primarily just an updated snapshot of where we stand today and as part of that, as I mentioned before, we did get more selective, and that was to assess and sort of feel out whether there were going to be changes. There is obviously factors in the macro market, including rising rates and part of that is how much does that get offset or is there countervailing balance with fund flows, which continue to be very strong into the multifamily sector. So looking forward, we are hoping that there is opportunity, of a group, is going to be most impacted by higher rates, it is going to be those levered buyers, we are not that, and we are also able to take a long-term approach, with our investment thesis. So we are paying close attention. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we are active in the market and are continuing to actively underwrite and pursue some acquisition opportunities.
Bradley Heffern:
Yes. Okay, thanks for that. And then I guess you have this chart on de-densification in the deck. I’m curious, is that something that you expect to be somewhat permanent or is it a sort of a COVID anomaly that will reverse people go back to work and need to double up again financially?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Brad, it is Sean. I mean the short answer is it is probably too early to tell, but I would say there are a number of macro factors that we see out there that could support this being maybe a little bit longer phenomenon in terms of maybe being more secular, I suppose just a cyclical issue. And certainly, people working from home and wanting to have more space or quiet space as opposed to - that might be doing something else, people spending a little bit more on housing in general, whether it is single-family, multifamily, and the thought of home has kind of been how you want to describe it, but a place where the spending more significant time, not only from a work standpoint but for other reasons. And I would just say just given the nature of the population and how we see things evolving demographically, a lot of the growth we have seen has been in single person households. And you can see that kind of playing through the people who are on that bubble maybe going through COVID, where they were just getting married and have kids, took time during COVID to say, okay, this is a good window for us to leave XYZ location to move somewhere else, so people coming back maybe more just singular nature and so in the future of that way for a longer period of time. So there is a number of different issues out there, you can quantify several others as well that would tend to lead you to a conclusion that this may be durable. But the short answer is we will know probably over the next few quarters that we continue to see that trend remain in place.
Benjamin Schall:
Brad, another theme that supporting it to want to emphasize is just the financial health of our resident, our customer. Think about job and wage growth. You think about savings, add on the factors that Sean referenced sort of the increasing importance of the home, definitely a feeling that that is going to create an additional stickiness as they look for quality home environments and more space.
Bradley Heffern:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Now moving to Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
Thanks. So I recognize your -.
Benjamin Schall:
Hey Rich you are very soft on the phone.
Richard Anderson:
My headset stopped working. So -- can you hear me now?
Benjamin Schall:
Okay.
Richard Anderson:
There are series of calls today. So recognize what you are doing on the acquisition side, sort of waiting to see how that market plays out. But if I were to extrapolate that conversation into development, obviously, there is no funding issues from your perspective. But at what point do you have your pulse on things? We got a GDP print in negative territory for the first quarter just today, obviously, inflation and the war escalating. A lot of things going on around us that could play a role in property values here at home. So I’m just curious how is your perspective about expanding development obviously, you are doing that. But how could it change in the future and what factors are you looking at to say, well, maybe we should -- not perhaps to take a pause in development but introduce a little bit more caution. What factors are you looking for to come to that conclusion, even though it is not happening right now?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hey Rich, it is Matt. I will take a shot at that one, and Ben may want to chime in, too. We are always very focused on risk management, and it is kind of built into our DNA. As I mentioned at the beginning that in my remarks, that we never trend, so we are always looking at things on a current spot basis. And we structure our deals where in the vast majority of cases, we are not closing on the land until we are very close to being renovated ground, if not, when we are breaking ground. So we are very mindful of that and what I would say is we have a lot of optionality. So today, we control a $4 billion development rights pipeline with a total investment of less than $300 million between the land on the balance sheet and the pursuit costs that are capitalized for land that we don’t get. So that is pretty impressive to be able to control that much opportunity with the investment that we have, and so that gives us the ability to respond accordingly. So right now, the economics of development are very favorable. And we can provide that sensitivity table, because we have been getting some questions about that, well, you know what if hard costs keep going up. And the answer is if hard costs grow faster -- modestly faster than rents, still preserve the yield. At some point, obviously, that equation changes, and we are watching that every day. But I think we are -- and when we do start, we will match fund it. So if we are match funding it and if we are being careful on the risk mitigation upfront, basically, the way we think about it is we have options on a lot of good business, and we don’t really have to make the decision until the quarter of the deal starts.
Benjamin Schall:
I would just add one thing to that and to Matt’s comments. And that is -- as we do that, we bring a terrifically strong balance sheet to the equation, both from a leverage standpoint and a liquidity standpoint and a financial flexibility standpoint. As you know, from our earnings materials, our net debt-to-EBITDA is five times, which is at the low end of our target range of five to six times. Our unencumbered NOI is 95%, which is probably at an all-time high in the company’s history. So we have plenty of flexibility to see quarters changing and I just circumstances should we need it so. And then likely that the need do so very low because we have got $2.5 billion of liquidity, when you look at our line of credit, our cash on hand and the equity forward. So again, to Matt’s first point, we do bring that first hand to all parts of our business, but we also bring a strong balance sheet that gives plenty of firepower and flexibility.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. Great. And then my second quick question is and I asked this a couple of your peers already this week, see what you have to say. This is an environment that likes which we have not seen the ability to grow rents to the degree that we have. I wonder how you are looking to preserve this to extend the opportunity into 2023 and 2024 as opposed to just sort of taking the money and taking what the market has given you. Is there a way to take this gift of an environment and let it exist and extend the shelf life of it into 2023 beyond just the earn-in that you would normally get, maybe extend lease term or do something to capture this for a longer period of time? Is there any type of strategy in your wheelhouse that you are looking to do that type of thing?
Benjamin Schall:
Rich, I will start with a couple of items that are top of mind. And as you mentioned, obviously, fundamentals are very strong today. But looking at it on the medium term, there are other ways that we need to be focused, and we are focused on driving value and growing earnings. And so you are hearing from us our other focus area and themes, right, driving margin and driving NOI through our operating model transformation, that is one. Think about how do we optimize our portfolio over time, is another or selling off of slower growth higher CapEx assets, and then redeploying that capital into our expansion markets with newer assets that we think we have a better cash flow profile. And then the development pipeline is another area that we continue. Just tapping into that general development DNA is another part as we think about growing earnings. And an aspect of that is finding other avenues to allocate capital, other ways to grow earnings. And you saw that this quarter with our announcement around the structured investment program.
Sean Breslin:
The one thing that I would add, Rich, is a couple of your specific questions, maybe just as a reminder is that as you look forward, while we are not providing a kind of guidance for 2023, there are still a number of factors that would -- if you kind of start to line them all up would give you a sense that 2023, absent significant macroeconomic shock of some kind should be a pretty good year and an above average year was the phrase I used earlier. Some of the things that I would point to are
Richard Anderson:
You got it. I will do that. Thanks.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will now move to Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey good afternoon and thank you for taking the question. Just two questions first. On the rents that you guys are owed, I saw that nationally, you received about $14 million from the federal from treasury in the quarter. But just curious what the split is on AR balances, both that apply to California versus that fall under the federal program. And then two, within those mixes, how much is owed from existing residents versus owed by former residents and by saying that, our understanding is from yesterday’s call is that the former residents in California need to participate in the process otherwise, the landlord doesn’t get paid. So just sort of curious on the breakout of those.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So Alex, we probably need to get back to you with the level of detail that you are looking for and all the breakout between the different components. So we have got some of that in hand, but it might be better to address that offline in terms of the specific details. Kevin can provide a couple of comments to high level, but...
Alexander Goldfarb:
High level is fine. High level is fine.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes, maybe just a response to your first question about where the money is coming from overall in terms of the emergency reassess programs from the beginning to wear through February. So with respect to receivables from 2020, 2021 and through February 2022, about two-third of the funds that we received has come from California. And then about - the next biggest chunk in 10% from Massachusetts.
Benjamin Schall:
Yes, Alex. So that is a high-level overview. In terms of the question about current versus former residents and stuff like that, why don’t we get back to you? Jason can follow up with you on that one.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Great. Then the second question is, you guys talked pretty helpfully about the market rents and the demand for the product. But just sort of curious, your guidance for the second quarter is a little bit short of where the Street was expecting. Are there some offsets or some items that are coming up that give a little caution to the second quarter or is it just a matter of your view of how timing for the year and that the back half of the year is going to be materially stronger such that the overall guidance range basically stays the same when you look at the full-year guidance?
Sean Breslin:
And Alex, said specifically about same-store core FFO, what metrics are you going to be specifically just so we are clear what you are asking about?
Alexander Goldfarb:
Just your core FFO guidance, the top end of your range is where the Street is. So I’m just sort of curious if there were some things of caution or maybe some bad debt items or onetime items that the Street would have factored in that would have had value.
Kevin O’Shea:
So Alex, this is Kevin. I guess, first of all, it is impossible for me to reconcile our numbers against a dozen or so analyst numbers on some composite basis. As a group and individually, you all are free and should be free to sort of make your own forecast. I guess I would make a couple of points. First of all, with respect to Q1, we guided to a midpoint of $2.20 per share. We beat it by $0.06. The Street was at around $2.26, $2.27, which ended up being pretty close to accurate, but we certainly didn’t guide the Street there. And so similarly, I guess, the Street may be around 9 63, 9 64 something for the full-year. We never guided the Street to that level. We guided into 9 55. And frankly, we try not to stand by the numbers trying to give you a lot of expression of where we think the year will shake out based on the assumptions that we have in place in the model today. And as things stand, as things play out based on the kind of business plan that we have just outlined in our updated forecast, we think the balance of risk 50/50 are around $9.55 per share, and that includes kind of the pain point of pulling back a little bit on acquisitions of $0.05. So having not done so, we would probably be at $9.63, so maybe that is one way to try to reconcile out to the $9.63. But beyond that, I actually don’t know how to compare our assumptions versus composite of the Streets.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Actually Kevin that is super awesome, I appreciate that color. Thank you.
Operator:
Now we will hear from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Good. Hey everyone. I had a question on the structured investment program. I guess, how do you feel like that will influence your capital deployment preferences going forward and then also just curious why now for launching the program.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Josh, it is Matt. I don’t think it will influence our capital deployment strategy. I think it is really more additive. It is just adding -- it is a way, as Ben was saying, to leverage our capabilities and our relationships and our presence in these markets to something else that will be accretive for the shareholders. So it is not displacing anything else in our capital plans. Why now? We have been in the market for a while now with our different program, our developer funding program, where we have been providing capital to other developers exclusively in our expansion regions. And as we have been doing that, we have learned some things. And one of the things we learned is that the expertise that we do bring is valued, it is valued by potential partners, it is valued by their developers, it is valued by lenders. And so we did see it as, again, a market opportunity to extend those capabilities. And frankly, I think it will be a better environment for placing these kind of investments going forward than it has been in the last couple of years when capital was incredibly cheap and easy. So if anything, I think we are probably in a better position to place this money in competitive terms as I look out over the next couple of years with rates starting to rise and capital maybe coming just a little bit more -.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Got it. And for the whether you do a mezz loan on preferred equity, are you targeting fixed or floating? I know you said like 9% to, I think, 11% kind of returns. But just curious if it will be fixed or floating.
Matthew Birenbaum:
I think our first couple of deals that we are looking at now and the one that we closed are fixed, but it is something we are talking about. And we are going to meet the market where the market is. And when short rates were so incredibly low, fixed was - I think probably the better way to go for the capital provider. If that shifts, that will shift with it.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Awesome. Thanks guys.
Operator:
And ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude your question-and-answer session for today. I would like to turn the call back over to Ben for any additional or closing remarks.
Benjamin Schall:
Thank you for joining us today and your questions. We look forward to our continued dialogue and seeing you soon. Thank you.
Operator:
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude your conference for today. We do thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today’s conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Aleena, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities fourth quarter 2021 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon’s press release as well as in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today’s discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings and we encourage you to refer to that information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Ben Schall, CEO and President of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Jason. And thank you, to everyone for joining us on the call today and for your engagement. Kevin, Matt, Sean and I will provide some initial commentary and then we will open the session up for questions. I want to start by thanking the AVB associate base, 3,000 strong, for all their contributions throughout 2021. Thanks to your commitment, we produce strong business results and embarked on our next phase of growth by ramping up our development and investment activity all while navigating the challenges presented by the pandemic. Thank you especially to everyone working on site at our communities and construction projects and to our human resource teams for all you do to support each other, serve prospects and residents and build for our future. Turning to the presentation, Slide 4 provides the summary of our success and strong finish to 2021. On the operating side in the fourth quarter, we delivered a 12.4% increase in core FFO and a 4.7% increase in same store revenue. On a cash basis, same store revenue increased 8.3%. This momentum continues in the New Year as we build on our strong operating foundation with healthy occupancy levels, low resident turnover and strong embedded revenue growth. We also successfully ramped our investment activity in 2021 with almost $2 billion of new development starts and acquisitions and with the bulk of this capital funded by dispositions and incremental debt financing at an historically low cost of capital. In an otherwise low yielding environment, our development capabilities allow us to generate significant value and meaningful incremental NOI growth on top of the internal growth generated by our operating portfolio. As shown on Slide 5, we completed $1.1 billion of projects in 2021 with an expected $65 million of new NOI upon stabilization. At a development yield of 6% and with a 230 basis point spread to an estimated market cap rate of 3.7%, these communities have created $650 million in value. That’s a very robust 60% value creation margin. As Matt will describe further, we expect to start an additional $1 billion to $1.250 billion of development projects this year at projected yields of 5.5% to 6.0% and we control a growing development rights pipeline which will set the stage for continued accretion and value creation from our development platform for many years to come. As we continue to invest and grow, we’re also optimizing the earnings growth and long term value of our existing portfolio. A large component of this optimization is the selling of older assets with slower growth profiles and redeploying that capital into more expansion markets. During 2021, as highlighted on Slide 6, this led to our acquisition of $725 million of assets with an average age of three years at a 3.8% cap rate and a disposition of $865 million of assets with an average age of 26 years at a 3.7% cap rate. The bulk of our acquisitions were and will continue to be in our expansion markets which over time across Southeast Florida, Denver, Austin, Dallas, Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, we see as having the potential to grow to become 20% to 25% of our portfolio through a combination of development and acquisitions. These expansion market share many of the same characteristics as our established markets including concentrations of knowledge based workers and strong housing fundamentals. They also provide portfolio diversification and increased exposure to longer term population shifts. So, most of our portfolio and new development capital in the long terms will be in our established markets where we have a high quality portfolio of assets situated in regions that we believe will continue to thrive as vibrant centers of innovation, education, technology, and with strong job and income profiles. And in regions where we continue to leverage our long tenure with some of the strongest operating and development teams in the multifamily industry. Turning to Slide 7, we continue to make significant investments in technology and innovation as we evolve our operating platform in order to provide enhanced value to prospects and residents while achieving operating efficiencies and driving new sources of revenue. We generated approximately $10 million of incremental NOI from our initiatives already deployed and about 1/3rd of the way to delivering our target of 200 basis points of margin improvement or $40 million to $50 million of NOI to the bottom line. Finally, I want to emphasize our continuing investment in our people and our leadership in ESG. Starting with ESG, our goal is to keep AvalonBay on the forefront as a leader in sustainability and corporate responsibility, an area of increasing importance for our residents, associates and investors. As an output of this corporate leadership, we’ve been recognized by various [NSEs] as ESG leaders as shown on Slide 8 including the NAREIT Leader in the Light Award as the top rank multifamily REIT for ESG leadership. And most importantly, we continue to invest in our people and our culture. AvalonBay is an amazing place because of its people and we’re extremely focused on fostering an inclusive and diverse culture that attracts, retains, and provides growth opportunities to our people. We’re excited for the year ahead, are fortunate to have a deeply dedicated team of associates and we enter the year with our foot forward and in growth mode. With that, I’ll turn it to Sean to talk further about our operating results and tailwinds heading into 2022.
Sean Breslin:
Alright, thanks Ben. I’ve thought I’d share a few slides on recent portfolio rent trends both overall and across different markets and sub-markets. Starting on Slide 9, 2021 was a pretty unique year. In the first half of the year, we experienced not only a significant recovery in our business, with the average move-in rent grew fast enough to exceed pre-COVID peak rent levels by mid-year. And in second half of the year, the combination of lower turnover which was down 20% year-over-year, 11% below pre-COVID levels and the lowest we’ve seen in 10 years along with a healthy demand resulted in rents defined seasonal norms by growing into September and then flattening through year end. Historically, we’d see rental rates peak in July and August and then decline in the low single digit percentage range through year end as represented by the dash line for 2019. For the calendar year 2021, the portfolio average move-in rent grew by 23% and at year end exceeded 2019 levels by about 9%. Moving to Slide 10, improved performance has been broad based with every region experienced a significant increase in average move-in rent over the past year. Average move-in rent in New England increased by 30% during 2021, the highest of our established regions at end of the year about 10% above pre-COVID levels. Improved performance in Boston has been supported by healthy job growth across various industries most notably Biotech and reduced apartment deliveries in both urban and suburban sub markets. In addition, for a region that is typically more seasonal given the weather patterns, it’s quite unusual to see rents flatten out in the last quarter of the year versus decline. That’s the sign of a pretty strong market. In Southern California, the average move-in rent grew by 23% during 2021 and at year end it was 21% above 2019 levels, the highest of our established regions. Performance has been supported by solid job growth particularly in the content producing sector of the economy in LA, the lowest level of new multifamily supply of any of our regions at 1.1% of stock and a very tight single family market. At the other end of the spectrum, Northern California continue to lag the portfolio due to major tech employers delaying their return to the office impacted the reopening of other businesses and agile quality of life in the region. While the average move-in rent increased by 15% during 2021, at year end it was so roughly 7% below pre-COVID levels. For the region has lagged in the recovery, we could see a very meaningful increase in moving rents in 2022 when a greater percentage of the workforce particularly the tech segments that have experienced very robust wage increases in the past couple of years, go back to the office. We got a line at New York, New Jersey and Pacific Northwest regions all delivered a 20% to 25% increase in average move-in rent during 2021. The mid-Atlantic ended the year with rents favor about 5% above 2019 levels. For Pacific Northwest and New York/New Jersey regions, we’re trending a roughly 10% ahead of 2019 levels. Turning to Slide 11 to address suburban and urban performance trends, the average move-in rent for our suburban portfolio increased by roughly 20% during 2021 and was approximately 13% of 2019 levels at year end. And our urban portfolio, while the average move-in rent increased almost 30% during 2021, it was essentially at 2019 levels by the end of the year. Urban markets with rents still below 2019 levels include San Francisco at about 17% and Washington DC at roughly 3%. In contrast, rents in New York City are currently above 4% above 2019 levels. With that, utilization rates in the high teens in the San Francisco Metro area at low to mid 20% range in both New York City and Washington DC. We should continue to see a meaningful improvement in demand in our urban submarkets as a greater percentage of the workforce has called back to the office. We see an increasing size of that demand returning. In Q4, our urban portfolio experienced about a 30% increase in a share of move-ins from more than a 150 miles away as compared to pre-COVID norms. In markets like New York City and San Francisco, the share of move-ins from greater than 150 miles away increased by roughly 50% compared to historical norms. And we’re along just the move-ins are incurring in our suburban portfolio as well but the increased share is more like in the 20% range. And moving to Slide 12, the improvement of rent levels has translated into strong like-term effective rent change. The average likeness of rent change in Q4, 2021 with October and November in the high 10% range followed by December at roughly 11.5%. The positive momentum continued in the January, the rent change were roughly 12.5%. Importantly we experienced a meaningful increase of rent change across six of our eight regions in January. And overall, we’re starting the year from a position of strength, January occupancy averaged 96.4%, asking rents have increased 1.5% since the first of the year. And we’re seeing early signs of continued low turnover in an environment with very healthy rent increases. With that operating summary, I’ll turn it to Kevin to address our full outlook for 2022. Kevin?
Kevin O’Shea:
Thanks, Sean. Turning to 2022. Apartment fundamentals in our established markets remain highly attractive. On Slide 13, we show just how strong they are by providing data on some key trends including strong job and wage growth for the professional services sector which includes our target renters. The opportunity for further gains in office utilization from today’s low levels, rising single family home prices which support rental demand and a relatively stable outlook for new apartment deliveries in our markets. On Slide 14, we provide our financial outlook for 2022. For the year, we expect robust growth from both our same-store portfolio and from stabilizing development to drive nearly 16% growth in core FFO per share at the midpoint of our guidance of $9.55. In our same-store residential portfolio, we expect a continued rebound from the pandemic in our urban markets and continued economic momentum across our entire portfolio. During the midpoint of guidance, we project same-store residential revenue will increase by 8.25% based on growth in our urban portfolio in the low 10% range and growth in our suburban portfolio in the low-to-mid 7% range. We project same-store residential operating expenses were increase by 4.75% primarily due to cost pressure in a couple of categories initiated as being deployed and some one-time benefits in 2021 that are not present in 2022. As far cost pressure, we’re experiencing these primarily in two areas. First, in utilities as a result of very favorable supply contracts for commodities that expired late last year. And second, in property taxes resulting from successful appeals in the prior year period and the expiration of certain pilot programs in New York which will burn off over the next few years but at the same time allow us to exit rent stabilization and achieved full market rents on most of those committees over time. Among our various initiatives, we started to deploy our bulk internet smart access offering which will create a year-over-year expense headwind of about 50 basis points in 2022. It is part of the strategy to deliver a net profit of more than $30 million when this is stabilized over the next few years. And lastly, we’ve realized some one time benefits in 2021, including a payroll tax credit in Q4 returning of about a 30 basis point of headwind to OpEx growth in 2022. As a result, we expect same-store residential net operating income will increase by 10% in 2022. For development, we expect to continue to generate earnings in NAV growth from stabilizing developments and to continue investing heavily in this differentiated capability as you could see here on this slide. For our capital plan, we projected external capital sources of about $900 million from asset sales, our closure sale activity and capital markets activity. For our capital uses, we expect to deploy about $1.2 billion towards development, redevelopment, and debt maturities in 2022. Finally, in our earnings release, we’ve also provided earnings guidance for Q1, to which at the midpoint we project core FFO per share of $2.20 in the first quarter or about $0.07 lower than in Q4. This sequential earnings decline is driven by several items, including OpEx increases in utilities, property taxes and payroll, including previously mentioned payroll tax credit Q4. All that increase is due to compensation adjustments and strategic initiatives and NOI decreases from net disposition activity in Q4. On Slide 15, we illustrate the components of our expected 15.6% growth in core FFO per share. Most of our growth specifically a $1.02 per share is expected to come from NOI growth and our same-store redevelopment portfolios. About a third of our earnings growth or $0.44 per share is due to NOI from investment activity which in turn is primarily from development. Partially offsetting these sources of growth is combined increase of about $0.17 per share from capital market activity and increases in overhead. On Slide 16, we show the key components driving our expected a net quarter overall increase in same-store residential revenue including our expectation for a strong increase in these rates, a favorable impact from a lower level amortized and newly granted concessions, an increase in other rental revenue and modest improvement in underlying uncollectible lease revenue which we expect will remain elevated in the first half of 2022 before slowly improving in the second half of the year. However, we are assuming a year-over-year reduction of about $18 million in a recognized rent release collections from the emergency rental assistance program which results in about a 90 basis point headwind to our projected full year residential revenue growth rate. Moving to same-store residential revenue trend across our markets on Slide 17. Our expansion markets at Denver and Southeast Florida are expected to lead the portfolio revenue growth in 2022 followed by Pacific Northwest. With the reason Sean mentioned earlier, we expect Northern California to trail the portfolio average, however it’s a region with a history of outside down cycles followed by robust recoveries. So we could be favorably surprised by actual performance in Northern California that has removed through the year. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Matt to discuss our plans for our future development activity.
Matt Birenbaum:
Hi, great. Thanks, Kevin. On Slide 18, we could see that we’re continuing to ramp up our development activity in response to the favorable market conditions. We had been starting roughly a billion one with new development per year, most of the prior cycle before sharply curtailing new investment activity as COVID hit in 2020. We’ve been able to shift gears aggressively last year getting back to an annual start level of roughly $1.2 billion and expect similar volume this year. And this development continues to be very profitable with current development underway, underwritten too an initial stabilized yield at 6%. With cap rates in the mid three’s, this puts us on track to extend the tremendous value creation margin Ben mentioned on our 2021 completions. In the pie charts on the right, you can also see how market performance and our portfolio allocation priorities are reflecting in our recent starts activity with 90% of the ‘21 and ‘22 starts in suburban location and a broad geographic mix including more than 20% in our expansion regions. As we accelerate our starts activity, our regional development teams have also been focused on back selling the development right pipeline to generate the next set of investment opportunities for 2023 and beyond. As shown on Slide 19, we have future development sites under control across all of our regions that have seen a market increase in pipeline activity in the past few quarters. The project shown on the slide here represents $2.6 billion of future starts activity over the next two to three years and excludes some of our longer term densification opportunities at existing assets which brings our total development rights pipeline to $3.3 billion at the end of 2021. And we’ve been even more active so far this year with an additional $700 million approved by our investment committee just in January and more on the way including our first development right in Austin, Texas. This activity puts us on track to exceed $4 billion in development rights by the end of the first quarter. And with that, I’ll turn it back to Ben.
Ben Schall:
Thanks, Matt. As you heard on the call today, we’re entering the New Year from a position of strength on multiple fronts and to close I want to emphasize five key themes that will guide us in 2022 as we seek to generate outsized value in earnings growth and as we continue to differentiate ourselves as one of the leading real-estate companies in the country. First, our decade long track record as a leading developer with deep market knowledge and experience across the breadth of communities and apartment styles allows us to create value by tailoring each development to best fit the needs of local area as well as continuing to meet the evolving needs of residents. It also drives meaningful incremental earnings NOI growth across cycles. Second, as we grow, we are optimizing the earnings growth and value creation potential of the existing portfolio by pruning slower growth assets and diversifying into new markets, providing an expanded domain to create value through our development, operating and strategic capabilities. Third, our operating model is set to deliver meaningful earnings growth by utilizing technology and investing in innovation, to improve operating margins and to unlock additional revenue opportunities. Fourth, we will continue to lead on ESG, an area increasingly important to municipalities as we seek development approvals to residents as they make housing decisions and to our associates as we meet our mission of creating a better way to live. And lastly, at the center of all that we do, we will continue to foster our evergreen culture and invest in our people. We look forward to our engagement with shareholders and stakeholders on these themes and others during the year. And I’ll turn it to the operator to facilitate questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We will take the first question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thank you, appreciate all the color. I guess, maybe starting on the portfolio optimization and the target of 20% to 25% in the expansion markets, what’s the expected timing of actually getting there?
Ben Schall:
Yes, thanks, Nick. I would continue to look at our growth in Southeast Florida and Denver as a good proxy. We’ve been active in those markets over the last three to four years. We have a target reach of those markets of about 5%. And we’re about halfway through. Increasingly, we’ve got our people on the ground there. Our development activity continues to source additional opportunities and the hope is that we can accelerate from there in those two markets. So when you look to our next set of expansion markets, I would expect them to move on a similar type of timeframe over the coming years.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks, and I guess another timing question. In terms of 200 basis points on the margin expansion opportunity, I think you mentioned your third done. When would you expect that 200 basis points to be in the run rate?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Nick, this is Sean. It is a multiyear process. It’s going to take us a few years to work through everything. But we’re making steady progress. I’d say if you talk about over the next 36 months to 48 months, it’s in the ballpark to work through all of it.
Operator:
Thank you. We will take our next question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Rich Hill:
Good afternoon, guys. I’m sorry if I missed this. But could you confirm the loss lease in the portfolio as of January?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich this is Sean. It’s trending at 12%.
Rich Hill:
And so, maybe just going back to some of the timing questions, if I heard correctly, it sounds like your leases are 23% higher than where they were this time last year give or take. But your leasing spreads are really strong, but not at 23%. Does that mean that you’re not capturing all the loss to lease and some will bleed into ‘23 or how should we think about that?
Ben Schall:
Yes. So just to clarify a couple of things, the 23% represent the move-in values at the end of the year as compared to the beginning of the year; not all of the leases in the portfolio being up 23%, if that makes sense. On the loss to lease side, like I said, it’s 12% today is a, I think I mentioned on the last call, about a third of the portfolio, at this point in time is constrained by various things, the regulations in New York City, there’s a couple of COVID overlay issues out there, etc. So it’s really achievable today, if you just mark everything in the market is call it 8%. So how will that manifest its way through the portfolio will be as leases expire throughout 2022 and we’re able to move people to market. So that’s how things will slowly lead in. So if you’re trying to understand sort of the pace of revenue growth, given that phenomenon, then we do expect revenue growth will accelerate as we move through the year because all those leases are being marked to market as they expire.
Rich Hill:
That’s very helpful. And so maybe just framing the debate here a little bit on your guidance range, can you maybe give us a little bit of color as to what assumptions are driving to the high end versus the low end?
Ben Schall:
Yes, I mean, there’s a number of different factors that play into that. So we could spend some time on obviously, Kevin talked about what we’re seeing in terms of or what we expect in the way of bad debt trends being modestly positive, but then we have a drag from rent relief that he also pointed out, those two variables could swing one way or another. And we’re expecting an improvement in underlying bad debt in the second half of the year. They could accelerate, which gives us a little extra juice. Rent relief could also accelerate, but could also go the other way. It’s a pretty unpredictable factor. And then obviously, you have the normal things that we talked about in terms of turnover, where it occurs, is it in markets that are currently regulated that we can get people to market? How fast is market rent growth has moved through the years? So there’s all those normal factors that we would expect in addition to the unusual factors in the current environment.
Rich Hill:
And just you didn’t mention anything about development? And I appreciate the range that you gave for NOI contributions. But is there, it was higher than what we were expecting, which is obviously a good thing, any things that you’re looking for on development that would make you more bullish or bearish?
Matt Birenbaum:
Rich this is Matt. I mean, as it relates to the ‘22 earnings that’s more or less the die is cast at this point; there’s not going to be huge variations in that number because those are deals that are already under construction and in many cases have already started leasing. So the variability there would be around what is the actual lease up pace and rate, does it do a little better, a little worse than what we’ve projected. But the bigger place where it will start to move the needle more materially in the out years would relate to starts that might happen this year.
Rich Hill:
Got it. That’s what I was looking for. Thank you guys. That’s it.
Operator:
Thank you. We will take the next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Rich Hightower:
Good afternoon, guys. Just to follow up on that development question really quick. Just it’s a little bit of nitpicking, but I guess the midpoint of the starts forecast for ‘22 is a little bit less than what occurred in ‘21. Is there a reason for that? Is it timing? Is it something else that we’re not aware of?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, no. Rich, it’s Matt. It’s just these deals are lumpy. And one deal happens to start in December versus January or February that can change the number, kind of on any particular period of time you want to take rolling four quarters or calendar year. So I would tend to look at it more kind of on a two year basis, which is why that’s the way we presented the slide. You think about ‘21, ‘22 together to $2.3 billion, $2.4 billion worth of starts and again, we’re looking to accelerate that and hopefully ‘23 we do even more.
Rich Hightower:
And then, I appreciate the detail around the sort of the composition of the same store revenue outlook. Within that, I don’t think it was mentioned, but what are you baking in for sort of your underlying market rent gross assumption within all that sort of separately from just what’s baked in already and so forth?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. That’s reflected in the bar that Kevin identified on the slide, Rich. If you take a look at that, that includes, it’s basically the confluence of different pieces, the very first bar on the lease rates. They reflect sort of the embedded piece, how much of the loss lease you can capture as well as the effective change you might see in rents as you move through the year, so all of that is embedded in that number.
Rich Hightower:
That’s all in that first bar then in other words.
Matt Birenbaum:
Correct. That is correct.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great, thanks, everybody. Sean, just curious, based on what you saw in urban markets in the fourth quarter, sort of bucking seasonal trends do you expect this - have you seen it continue? Do you think it can continue into 2022? And what did you guys assume in your guidance? Did you assume that it’s just more typical demand trends, just any thoughts there would be appreciated?
Sean Breslin:
In the urban markets, specifically, you’re talking about Austin.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes, correct. You referenced I think 50% or so upside versus what you’ve seen historically in New York and San Francisco and then 30% I think.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. We started to see that occur in Q2. It’s really accelerated as we get into Q3 and Q4 in terms of the percentage of movements coming from more than 150 miles away. I suspect and I haven’t looked at the full data for January may have slowed a little bit just given Omicron. But I think our belief is that we’re going to continue to see a steady improvement in places like New York City, DC, San Francisco, as more people are brought back to the office, we don’t think office utilization is going to go back to exactly where it was pre-pandemic. I don’t think most people do. But if you’re in the high teens to low 20% range, it may go to 70% utilization, it was still triple what it is today. So would you expect to see improvement across those markets as we move through the year, as well as some of these jobs that are suburban locations that have sort of the same thing going on we should be like a Tyson’s Corner here in Northern Virginia as an example. So we do expect healthy performance out of those markets, as we move through the year, and we’ve seen that begin, and the trend should continue. It was a little hard to tell, is it the exact pace. And that’s why Kevin made the comment that Northern California is still expected to trail the portfolio average revenue growth. But it is a market that could surprise to the upside. We just have to wait and see.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes, and also I had a follow up.
Kevin O’Shea:
Sorry, I was just going to add an addition to the comments that, Sean to drivers that Sean referenced, you also just have overall job growth. You look at the overall job growth relative to pre-COVID levels in our urban markets and we continue to think that there’s some pretty meaningful room to run there and will serve as a decent driver.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. And Sean, you had started to hit a little bit on my follow up there. So how did you go about I guess, underwriting same-store revenue growth for Northern California? What pace did you assume or how should we think about what’s currently underlying that range?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean, the way I would think about it is kind of three pieces could give you a rough roadmap. First is obviously what’s intended, which is easy. Where leases are today in January compared to they were basically on average for 2021. And then you’ve got the loss-to-lease component, which is easy to compute. And then you have what you expect in terms of market rent growth. The third piece is the one that’s most uncertain. So we can see where we’re moving people in today in the last quarter as an example. And so we can assume that as leases expired moving through the year, we should be able to achieve at least that level. And then we have some modest growth built in beyond that based on a slow pace in terms of the return to office. But as Kevin mentioned earlier, things could accelerate there. It’s just hard to put your finger on it as to how much incremental demand will show up, when it will show up and how much it will drive performance in 2022. For the most part, you need to see a meaningful increase in that demand and in market rents in the first half of the year for future revenue in 2022. Once you get to the second half that is mainly lease expirations etc, etc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
But it should can begin to converge versus other markets, most likely towards the back half of the year given comps otherwise, and then this potential lift that you kind of spoke to from demand coming into the market, is that fair?
Sean Breslin:
When you say converge, converge relative to what?
Austin Wurschmidt:
Either blended lease rates slowing in other markets due to more difficult comps, whereas Northern California and certainly lagged, as you guys highlighted and then it starts to accelerate either as others decelerate or it’s catching up?
Ben Schall:
Certainly there is possibility. Yes. There’s a possibility, one thing you have to realize is that the leases that were signed in the first half of 2021, still had fairly decent concessions. Rents are much lower than where they are. So you’re going to see pretty good, effective rent growth in that market in the first half of the year. The second half will be dictated by some of the factors that I mentioned as it relates to demand.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Certainly, very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We’ll now take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Good afternoon. Can you just clarify the relationship between moving rents and your effective rent growth? So periodically, if you had or hypothetically, if moving rents were 23%, above for the remainder of the year would your effective rent growth beat 23% once it plays catch up?
Ben Schall:
Not necessarily for some of the factors that mentioned earlier, John. I mean, you’ve got those are strictly moving rents which given turnover rates, just call it roughly 50%. There is also renewables. And there are as I mentioned earlier, when I was talking about loss to lease there are constraints on renewals, and a number of our markets. Some are normal, like the rent regs in New York. Some are sort of this COVID overlay but it impacts about a third of the portfolios. You can’t effectively assume that you’re going to mark everyone to current move in rent values over the next 12 months as leases expire.
John Kim:
So that move in rent always going to be higher than your effective rent growth. Yes, I think part of it is timing part of it is other fictional factors. But I’m just wondering, did the moving rents always appear higher than the effective rent growth that you achieve?
Ben Schall:
Yes. I mean, you’ve got, there’s a number of different factors that feed into it. I mean, you’ve got a lag. So again, moving rents for as a moment in time, we’re talking about December versus January being up 23%. That was for that batch of movements during that period of time. And so you got sort of the two endpoints. So there’s a lag in terms of what asking rents are and then people move in is typically lag there. You’ve got a lag because of renewals, but in theory to your original question, if there were no constraints and no lags, and you could mark 100% of the rent roll to market on February 1, yes, you would see a significant move in the average rent, lease rent for the portfolio.
John Kim:
And a question on your development starts which this year are predominantly are 90% suburban? Is this year of view where secular trends will continue suburban versus urban? Or do you see urban development picking up after this year?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey John, it’s Matt. Yes, I think last year was also our starts level was also certainly at least 80% of urban, if not 90%. So I think it’ll still be awhile for us. When I look at our development rights pipeline, I expected our starts will continue to weigh pretty heavily suburban over the next couple of years. That is where we’re seeing better economics in terms of obviously, rents have recovered a lot more there as Sean’s data showed. And also that tends to play to our strengths, because the suburban submarkets are more supply constrained, actually, entitlements are more difficult to get there. So we like the risk return profile there. The market as a whole, I think, in our established regions, you probably will see far fewer urban starts not just from us, but in general. In our expansion regions, there’s a lot of urban start activity going on, as well as Suburban.
John Kim:
That’s fair color. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs.
Chandni Luthra:
Thank you for taking my questions. So I wanted to talk about that development pipeline and in your development starts for 2022. If we kind of go back in the last cycle, you were averaging about $1.4 billion in development starts sort of through that I think 2014, ‘15, ‘16 period. How should we think about development starts with the pipeline that you have today? I mean looking out, will there be a big step function change as we think about the next couple of years?
Matt Birenbaum:
It’s Matt, Chandni. I can take a shot at that. And then I don’t know if Kevin may want to weigh in as well or Ben. But yes, I mean, last cycle, we did ramp it up coming out of the GFC. And then there were a couple of years there, where we were running at that level you described, I think over the course of the six or seven years, it was more like 1 billion, 2 billion but we’re bigger enterprise now and costs are up. So even on an apples-to-apples basis to do that much volume in the current environment that’s probably more like a $5 billion, $6 billion a year in starts. And if we can find those opportunities, and we’re feeling pretty optimistic based on our current book of business and the pipeline that we’re seeing we’re certainly ready and prepared and we look forward to the opportunity to be able to continue to grow.
Kevin O’Shea:
And to add on that Chandni the other part is the tie in with our expansion markets and so part of that moves provides an expanded opportunities that there and so early on, we’re growing through a combination of acquisitions, funding other developers and our own development. But that pipeline will also start to accelerate. And so you look a couple of years out, yes, we expect the overall development pipeline to continue to grow in size.
Ben Schall:
Maybe the final point there Chandni as you think sort of about the our ability to fund this development activity, it sort of is somewhat tied to what’s going on in the core business where we are in the cycle, what kind of EBITDA growth we have and what our capital options look like. At the moment what we’ve been doing is funding our external needs through a combination of newly issued debt and disposition, activity for this year, with respect to our capital needs of about $900 million. Current plan which of course can change is that we’re likely to fund that primarily through the issuance of new debt and then modestly through some net disposition activity, of course capital market conditions and our users can change. But it kind of speaks to the notion of a couple of things. Obviously, with our EBITDA rising very briskly here this year, we can utilize debt to help fund development and it’s an attractive sources it is, both in its loan right and on a real basis when you think about inflation. And we can do that by issuing debt, because our EBITDA is rising quite a bit. And we can be leveraged neutral in doing so. But in a typical year, in most years, we can fund about $1 billion to $1.3 billion or so of development activity through a combination of and free cash flow, selling assets, where we can retain the capital because of our gains capacity, and then leverage neutral issuance of debt. So that’s kind of in a normal environment, plus or minus what we can do. We can probably do a little bit more early in the cycle as same-store NOI gross briskly as it is now. And potentially, at some point right now our equity or equity is attractive as a source for funding development, although at the moment, we find asset sales to be more attractive. But if we’re going to be doing an awful lot more than those, that kind of level of development funding, it does imply that we’re going to have some level of equity market access. So that’s another constraint to layer in as think about what’s possible. So the three constraints we traditionally think about is, we’re constrained by opportunity set. We’re constrained by sort of organizational capacity, and then we’re constrained by sort of what we have on the capital side. So I was speaking sort of that third bucket right there.
Chandni Luthra:
That’s great level of detail. Thank you for that. And for my follow up question, I know you gave out good detail on how should we think about the low end versus high end of guidance and one gets you to each side. But could you perhaps contextualize cadence through the years? And how should we think about seasonality this year given this discounts are pretty much thrown out of the window in 2021?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. This is Sean. What I was indicating earlier, just based on leases that were written in early 2021, the first half of 2021, basically, kind of being substantially below where things are today, that we do expect revenue growth to accelerate as we move through the year. As we move those leases, the market certainly is the driving factor. As Kevin mentioned, when we get to the back half of the year we expect bad debt to improve. So that also leads to accelerating revenue growth as we move through the year. So as it relates to seasonality in the back half of the year, it’s a little too early to tell. We are expecting getting back to more like seasonal norms when we get the back half of the year as compared to what we experienced in 2021. It may be very different by market, depending on the sort of shape of effective rent growth as you move through the year. What demand comes back and when it comes back to some of these markets that we’re talking about where we’ll still expecting a more full return to the office, etc. So I would say that we are expecting more like seasonal norms when we get the back half of the year, but we’ll probably know better as we get through say midyear, what that might look like.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Thank you for the time. Sean, just one quick word for you, the 11% same store like term effective rent change and fourth quarter, can you give us a sense what it would have been had there been no regulatory curbs?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, it would have been higher. I can’t give that to you outside my head, John. But I can certainly circle back. And what I would say is what I mentioned earlier is about a third of the portfolio is currently constrained and you would have seen better renewal growth. My guess is to provide a little bit of color move-in rents were 12.5% and renewals, we’re at 10. You probably would have seen the renewal side look more like the move-in side, but still a little bit of a Delta just because the lag between when renewal offers are made when they’re actually signed leases renew, just as our renewal offers 60 to 90 days in advance, but you would have seen maybe another 100 basis points on a blended basis if the 10 went to 12 and 50% turnover as an example if you’re looking at it and kind of theoretical terms.
John Pawlowski:
And then Ben or Kevin, the $880 million year mark from capital sales or asset sales and capital markets activity. To peel that back what’s the kind of preliminary assumption assuming your cost of capital stays where it is, and the private market pricing stays where it is? What’s the preliminary assumption for asset sales within that figure?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes. Let me start a couple a little bit. So the external funding needed at is kind of what we really need to run the business. If we weren’t we’re just sort of really kind of not focused on it, the trading activity. So there will be a fair bit of acquisition and dispositions just kind of on a trading basis, through the investment group that Matt oversees. From the standpoint of raising external capital, our current plan, as I mentioned a moment ago, that it’s funded largely through the issuance of newly issued debt. Just given more debt rates are today, although they’re up from where they were 3, 4, 6 months ago, they’re still quite attractive by almost any metric, and certainly attractive relative to our investment use which in this case is development. So the $900 million or so is really primarily fund the investment activity. So it will be mostly through debt, and we’ll likely be able to do so in a leverage neutral basis. There is we do expect to be a modest net seller of assets and so those net disposition proceeds will be worked into a small component of that 900 million. And again, of course, as you point out, that’s where we stand today. We think all of our main capital choices unsecured debt, selling assets, and issuing equity are attractive, but we rank order those debt and asset sales are a lot more attractive than selling assets, selling equity today. So our plan at the moment kind of puts asset sales and death, but just given our rising EBITDA growth and our capacity to issue debt on the leverage neutral basis, and both on an nominal and then on a real basis for debt rates are today, our preference is probably to use a little bit more debt here right now.
Ben Schall:
John, and just a little bit more color on kind of overall transaction activity acquisition and dispositions. We are expecting both of those to be up relative up some relative to 2021. And Kevin, use the term sort of trading capital. And that tends to continue to be our approach, which is the trading capital out of predominantly northeast and assets that have had pretty good runs up in value tend to be older assets, lower IRR, profiles, and then redeploy that capital into our expansion markets to capture that growth and as part of our overall portfolio allocation objectives.
John Pawlowski:
But just one follow up on the rank ordering of sources of capital. I know, it’s a very, very modest amount. But I still don’t understand why there was any equity issued, given where cap rates are right now and to your point that just the private market pricing. So how is that conversation the fourth quarter to issue equity at these levels?
Kevin O’Shea:
Yes, I mean, this is maybe, kind of hit on a few high points we can certainly talk about that and some of this gets a little bit nuanced, and so forth. Starting at the top in terms of where we rank order, pricing, asset sales are kind of number one more or less at the 100 percentile, when, in the past, we’ve talked about our heat map and our way of sort of looking at spot pricing and on an absolute known historical relative basis. So asset sales are probably number one. Debt issuances, kind of behind that in to the low 90 percentile range. And then equity for us is probably more in that mid 80% range. So I think we’d agree with you probably on the rank order, I think probably where we might differ is perhaps just given where I know how you’re looking at things, maybe you have a slightly different view of a greater separation with respect to equity pricing versus some of the other choices. From our standpoint it’s particularly in a dynamic environment like this it’s hard to be dogmatically focused mechanistically on NAV, although it’s a dominant factor in our analysis, because NAV can move dynamically here. In terms of what we did philosophically there is, it does make sense to infuse the balance sheet with equity issuance when we think it is attractively priced relative development. And so just because it helps preserve a higher basis set of assets that in turn over time can help support our recycling strategy to continuously fund development. And so that’s one element of why when it does make sense and feel it’s attractive the price. Bringing in some equity does make sense. In terms of what we did in Q4, we had a modest amount of ATM issuance in early October, before issuance window closed and then a little bit more in a forward basis in late November or early December and the reason why we’re looking to do a little bit there was just given where pricing was the moment. But market volatility, as you may recall, started to work back into the market. And we just chose to step back out of the market given that dynamic as well as capital position which as you can see here [Indiscernible] of unrestricted cash on our balance sheet was in an excellent position. So those are really the thoughts we’ve probably raised about $2 billion last year, and maybe about $30 million was equity. So I think that gives you a sense of where we feel equity ranks in the mix. It’s attractive, but not nearly so is asset sales and so that’s kind of our general thoughts. Ben anything else you want to add?
John Pawlowski:
That’s very helpful , thank you. I’ll [indiscernible].
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Rich Anderson:
Hey, thanks. Good afternoon. So 10 years ago, you guys got the big multiple as the multifamily REITs and the Sunbelt players were several rungs below you, I know that that has changed. And so this question really is on your expansion market approach. You said that increasing number of people are moving into your urban areas for more than 150 miles away. And if I’m a resident, I understand trying to avoid regulation, but if I’m a resident, I might want to live in those regulated markets and protect myself to some degree. So to what extent are you married to this 20% to 25% range? And if you start to see some systemic things going back in the other direction that support long term urban over Sunbelt, would you yourself, make a change yourself?
Ben Schall:
Hey Rich, it’s a target right and so we put that out there to help drive internal activity and drive our resource allocation, particularly on the people side. The other part I emphasize is, this is -- we’re going to move into these markets and diversify our markets over time and that is very much a part of kind of our measured approach here. Acquiring our development activity, these new markets inherently paces in our investment over a period of time. So we think if we look at overall portfolio optimization, for some of the reasons that we talked about diversification, diversification away from regulation. We think it makes sense to continue to move in this fashion. But that said, our established markets that’s the bulk of our activity, where we’re strong believers in those, in the trajectory of those markets going forward, and they’re going to continue to get the bulk of our investment, both on the development side and on the people side.
Rich Anderson:
Okay, fair enough. And then, just a quick follow up, some strange labor markets in the present tense, inflation, interest rates and so on. But you’re ramping up development. Is that you’re making a commitment by doing so two out years 2023 and 2024? Is that the way we should be thinking about it that this is not just a 2022 story, but you are making a call also on a continuation of above average, fundamental performance in out years. Is that a fair statement?
Ben Schall:
It is. Yes. It is the direction we’re moving. We definitely continue to pivot into growth mode. The build of our development pipeline, a lot of that is options on land. So we add a little bit to your first question, we will continue to be able to be flexible and adapt just based on market conditions at that point in time. But we are leaning in and do want to secure additional land rights, given the economics that we’re seeing today. And we start forecast going out over the next year or so.
Rich Anderson:
Okay. Fair enough. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein:
Yes, everyone. I just wanted to follow up on a comment you made earlier. You mentioned that it’s harder to get building permits in the suburban markets versus urban. Just curious why that is and that’s a new thing or so has been historically like that?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Sure, Joshua. This is Matt. Yes, it was really referring to entitlements. And that has been the case in our legacy or established regions for a long time. If you think about it, it comes back to politics. I mean, entitlement is a political decision and many of the suburban jurisdictions, you take New York, for example. We’re in New York City. We’re also in Long Island, New Jersey, Westchester County. The latter three Long Island, New Jersey, Westchester County they all have a bias against multifamily housing. The housing stock is primarily single family. A lot of people are there because of the school systems and they don’t want more growth. They don’t want more kids in the schools and there’s a back-story there as well, where they there’s just a bias against renters. You compare it contrast that with New York City. And there are certainly neighborhoods where it’s difficult to get entitlements but a lot of what you can build in New York City, you can actually build by right. You don’t need anybody’s approval, you just go straight to building permit. You don’t have to go through the planning commission, you don’t have to go through the neighborhood advisory council and all those other things that we’re so good at, that takes so long. So generally, and that’s true in most of our markets, maybe not in the city of San Francisco. But certainly in the northeast, that’s been the case. And even on the West Coast and if you look at the amount of supply in our established regions, urban versus suburban, the last decade, there’s been a lot more as a percentage of supply in the urban sub market. Some of that’s because there’s been demand there. And some of that’s because it’s easier to build there. So we do think that that is a structural feature of our kind of the way our political and regulatory framework exists. And that plays to our strengths. And that’s always been something that’s been core to one of our strategic capabilities.
Ben Schall:
Yes and it really speaks to benefits from the long term investment that we’re making in these development platforms. The long track record that our lead developers have when the opportunities do surface for incremental rental housing in these markets we tend to be one of those first calls given the relationships, given execution, given what we deliver in these markets. And so that’s why you’re continuing to see significant investment and development in these expansion markets at the types of spreads that we’ve referred to.
Joshua Dennerlein:
All right. That's great. Appreciate the time.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Good afternoon and thank you, so just a few questions here. Going back to Nick Joseph’s question earlier on the call about the 200 basis points in margin and just yet thinking broad picture across the company, how much of the margin savings just comes from the fact that the job markets tight, so the ability to backfill position is tougher. So you may be running with fewer let’s say you’re running with few, with more open positions, meaning fewer positions filled than you’d otherwise like, just sort of curious?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex this is Sean. The vacancy on payroll, if you want to think of it that way has nothing to do with the margin expansion. There will always be vacancy on payroll regardless just because you’re never really 100% occupied, if you want to think about it from that perspective from a payroll standpoint. So there will always be some constant vacancy, because the margin improvement is directly as a result of initiatives that are associated with various activities.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So what you’re saying is right now, in this current labor market, you haven’t seen any out, your versus your historical payroll gap, you haven’t seen that grow, that you’re saving more G&A/property management, whatever expense, that gap has been pretty normal, despite the tight labor?
Sean Breslin:
No, I think what I’m trying to separate payroll vacancy from initiative benefit, I think it was your question, and there has been some incremental vacancy both in 2021 and where we sit today, that is independent of specific digital initiatives or other initiatives that will shape the nature of our operating model going forward, that will deliver the 200 basis point of margin improvement.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, okay that’s helpful. And then the second question is, as you guys underwrite your next set of projects, how are you looking at rent growth versus construction costs, timing delays and all that fun stuff? Is your view that rent growth will continue to outpace your costs such that development yields should hold or maybe improve or are you expecting some pressure on yields?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey Alex, it’s Matt. We generally tend to underwrite everything on a current basis whether it’s a deal that we’re signing up now that’s not going to start for two years, or it’s the class three budget and we’re about to start it. We look at today’s rents, today’s expenses, today’s hard costs and we come up with kind of a spot yield. So we don’t, we generally don’t trend, which generally is one reason why when our developments stabilized, they tend to beat the pro forma. Our current deals are running I think 30 or 40 basis points ahead of the initial underwriting, and that’s not uncommon for us. So generally, that’s served us well. What I would say is that right now, like if I compare deals to 6 or 9 or 12 months ago, the rent increase at which it gets some operating leverage, meaning the NOI increase is higher than the rent increase that has covered the increase in hard costs so far. And the yields are still in the high fives on the new business, we’re underwriting, which is probably where they were a year ago. There is some risk that at some point hard costs tend to lag and so they may increase more quickly than rents rent NOIs in the out years. But there’s also tremendous room in the margin. Right now, the development deal, the margins Ben was talking about the spread is massive. So even if that comes in some, it’s still going to be very profitable business.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We will now take our next question from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho.
Haendel St. Juste:
Yes, good afternoon. A couple of quick ones from me if I could start first on bad debt. Just going back to the topic of I think, I heard you correctly, not including any improvement in bad debts as your baseline outlook. I guess I’m curious what’s the thinking there? It seems a bit conservative. Some of your peers have tried to reflect this in their baseline outlooks. And then proportionally, what percent of that is California more specifically Northern California base? Thanks.
Ben Schall:
Yes Haendel as it relates to bad debt, we are expecting an improvement. But if I refer to as sort of the underlying bad debt rate excluding any benefit from rent relief, and so it’s roughly about a 40 basis point improvement is what we’re expecting for 2022 relative to 2021. But it is timing. The timing is not even at all through the year. We basically expect the first half of the year to look a lot like the back end of 2021. And then deceleration in bad debt as you move through the third and fourth quarter of this year, so that’s how I would think about it. As it relates to composition across the markets in California, in particular, the heavy place for bad debt really is LA. There’s bad debt in Northern California. It’s not nearly as bad as LA. So we can certainly get the numbers specifically for Northern California. But it won’t be as much of an outlier as it is in Los Angeles.
Haendel St. Juste:
I’ll follow up with you guys on both sets of numbers. And then a couple quick ones on development, I guess I’m curious how much of the development cost of this year in terms of what’s underway and what you’ll be starting? What proportion of those costs are locked in? And then on the development NOI contribution you outline for this year, I think I heard you right and I think I understand that your current outlook for that is based on current market rents. It does not have any reflection of the market rate growth or any trending it’s based on today’s market rents?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. I can take this and I can take a shot at those. As it relates to what percentage of our costs are locked in. So on the deals that have already started, the 21 starts, when we start a project, we have what we call a class three budget. So at that point, we’re pretty well locked in. We don’t necessarily have all of the subcontractor contracts committed yet, but we have a very high percentage of them anywhere between 60%, 70%. So I would say we’re pretty well covered there. And if you look historically, we have a track record of delivering our projects on time and on budget within a point or two. So the risk is probably more on the jobs that haven’t started yet, the jobs that we’re planning to start in ‘22. The soft costs are pretty nailed down. The land cost is defined. The exposure there is further increases in hard costs between now and when we can get those deals permitted and bought out and how that increase might be different than what might have an NOI and so we have a little bit of exposure there. But I would have said the same thing six months ago and as I said, even through the last two, three quarters, the yields have more or less held up. And in general those deals, the deals we’re looking to start this year, underwritten yields today on the un-trended numbers are in the high 5s, 5.7, 5.8. And we certainly hope they stay there. But even if they do get some cost pressure, they wind up 5.5 that’s still very strong value creation. As it relates to the NOI for ‘22 on the lease up deals that is based on today’s rents and the lease up budgets that were prepared our deal by deal specific I think Sean has a little more color on that.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, well one thing I would add on that is most of the deals that are delivering the NOI this year have been mark-to-market, but there are three deals that are expected to start delivering in ‘22 and go on to lease up the three deals, the rents have not yet been mark-to-market. So there should be a little bit given the environment, there should be a little bit of inflation associated with those three assets when it begins to deliver.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it, very helpful, thanks. And one last one, just thinking about your development in your expansion markets. I think you mentioned 20% of this year starts will be in those markets. I guess, how do we think about that longer term? What proportion of your annual starts or spend could come from those markets? And any noticeable difference in underwritten yields between in your expansion versus established markets? Thanks.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes it’s Matt. I mean, we’ll see over time certainly, if our goal is that those markets are going to be 20% to 25% of our overall portfolio, we would look for it to be at least that much of our development pipeline, but it’s going to take some time. That is an activity that benefits from the local presence from the knowledge from the flywheel if you will. So I’m not sure that it’s going to be materially different over the next year or two. The one exception to that would be, as Ben was talking about this program, in addition to doing our own development, we are looking to provide capital and fund other developers with deals that they might have, where they’re ready to go and are looking for capital. We have one deal that we’re going to start this year in North Carolina that fits that description, one of our deals in Florida under construction fits that description, those deals will probably be a little less profitable because we do have local sponsors. They are a little bit lower risk, a little bit lower yield, they’re kind of halfway between a development and an acquisition is the way we tend to think about it. So we may see some of that pickup.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now take our next question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Michael Bilerman:
Hey, it’s Michael Bilerman here with Nick. Ben, over Avalon’s time in terms of market expansions and growing and I take it that you’ve always pursued a very measured approach. There’s always been sometimes a transaction that speeds up the process, either through swaps with other REITs or potential transactions with private partners either on a buy or sell side, given all the activity that’s happening in the multifamily market, is there an opportunity today, where some of this transformation could be accelerated?
Ben Schall:
Yes. Thanks, Michael. Yes, it’s a possibility. But I wouldn’t describe it as a priority right now. I think there we do look at some of the portfolios that are out there. They tend to be more geographically dispersed and given our focus on our core set of expansion markets and really, in its approach based on for us to create value, we want to be able to leverage our full operating teams and our development teams to create that value. We stay pretty narrow from a geographic perspective. So there could be a portfolio that fits enough of the kind of strike zone for us that we would look at. And so that that will stay on our radar, but I expect more of our activity to be similar to what you’ve seen in 2021 with some expanded growth going into this year and following years.
Michael Bilerman:
And I guess in your mind today, would you be more leaning towards likely accelerating dispositions or conversely trying to find and maybe taking down more deals before you sell? I’m just curious sort of where you’re finding the most demand, because I would imagine, even though some of these portfolios are geographically dispersed, given the relationships you have with third party capital sources, you may be able to do something unique there as well. And I just didn’t know where the bias was today, whether you want to hit the bid on the sale or whether you want to be aggressive on the buy?
Ben Schall:
Yes, there is a matching component of it, I would say given the run ups that we’ve seen in our existing markets and also seeing the run ups in some of the markets that were growing and we’re comfortable at this point in sort of the trade capital arena what sort of matching a level of disposition activity and redeploying that capital and expansion markets for incremental growth, then as you’re referring to it would mean tapping into additional disposition activity or potentially tapping into incremental equity. And right now, we sort of look out on it, like we’re going to continue to and progress in a fairly measured way. And then the last piece that sort of emphasize, I mean, from an overall total investment perspective, we’re continuing to invest significantly $2 billion plus this year, but a good portion of that’s going into our established markets around these development opportunities. And so as we look at from a risk return perspective leveraging our existing teams and being able to unlock the next rounds of that 200 to 250 basis point spread that remains very high on our list in terms of attractiveness.
Michael Bilerman:
Right. When you think about all the land that you control either through contract or on the balance sheet, and you have a long runway to continue that growth in your established markets with very attractive returns. That wasn’t a question. That was a comment. I had another just one question for you, Ben now that you’ve sort of been in the seat for the last year at Avalon being in a pure multifamily platform, has your mind changed at all about sort of how you view mixed use in terms of ownership at Avalon, just drawing on your previous experiences. I am just wondering how that has evolved in your thinking, for Avalon in terms of its ownership of other pieces or maybe getting involved in more complex projects. Just sort of walk me through your mindset today on that?
Ben Schall:
Yes, good question. It continues to be, I think, the conversion of retail land -- as well as suburban office land continues to be an attractive source of land inventory for us. And as we’re building, building up our pipeline that’s a decent amount of it. I’d say today, actually, probably a little bit more of it is to defunct suburban office product that we can control, a little simpler on the execution, smaller sites and so we’re finding some good opportunities there, particularly in our established markets, a little bit more broadly. In Avalon Bay of the peers has been the most successful and partnering with others and when it works, it really works well. We open a project recently in Woburn Mass, which is an even sort of the broadest of mixed use environments. But part of the attractiveness there is the ability for our residents to walk out their door and have access to the grocery store and restaurants. And so when we can find those opportunities with the right partners, it is something that we’ll continue to lean into.
Michael Bilerman:
Right, I appreciate it. See you down in Florida.
Ben Schall:
Sounds good.
Operator:
It appears that there are no further questions at this time. I’d like to turn the conference back to Mr. Ben Schall for any additional or closing remarks.
Ben Schall:
Thank you, and thank you to everyone for joining today. We look forward to engaging further with you over the coming months.
Operator:
This concludes today’s call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company we will conduct a question and answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Kathy, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities third quarter 2021 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I will turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason, and welcome. Ben Schall, Kevin O'Shea, Matt Birenbaum and Sean Breslin. For our prepared comments today, Ben will provide a summary of third quarter results, an update on Q4 and full year guidance and provide some thoughts on why we believe AVB is well positioned to outperform. Sean will then elaborate on operating trends in the portfolio, where we continue to see strong momentum and healthy fundamentals that should support robust growth as we move into 2022. And then we'll conclude with an overview of development activity where development economics remain compelling and then offer a brief look at our new expansion markets, including our rationale behind our decision to enter them earlier this year. And then we'll all be available for Q&A after prepared remarks. But before turning the call over to Ben, I did want to take a minute to acknowledge that I expect that this will be my last earnings call as I plan to step down at year-end as CEO, when I'll assume the role of Executive Chairman as we had previously announced last December. I spent the last 32 years at AvalonBay and its predecessors. And over the last 20-plus years or so, I've had the opportunity to interact with many of you on this call on a regular basis. I just want to say that I appreciate your support for and engagement with the company and me over that time. And for the investors on the call, I simply want to thank you for entrusting us as a steward of your capital over the years. It's something we've never taken for granted. And I know that will continue to be the case in the future on the leadership of Ben and this executive team. I look forward to being able to touch base with many of you more directly and hopefully in a little more personal way over the next couple of months. And with that, I'd like to turn the call over and place in the very capable hands of Ben Schall and the rest of the executive team here today. Ben?
Ben Schall :
Thank you, Tim. We wanted to start the call today as a team and an organization by expressing our gratitude and acknowledging Tim for his contributions to the company and the industry over the last 32 years. AvalonBay would not be the company it is today without Tim's strategic leadership, which is deeply intertwined with the company's history and evolution into one of the preeminent real estate companies in the U.S., its exceptional track record of value creation and its inclusive culture focused on continuous improvement. In addition to overseeing AvalonBay's tremendous growth and positioning us as an industry leader, Tim has also had a major influence on the evolution of the multifamily industry and the broader REIT sector during his career. And throughout all of these accomplishments and successes in what is one of Tim's most admirable attributes as a leader and a person, Tim never made it about him. His focus has always been on others, the positive impact he could have on people, the impact that AvalonBay could have in our communities and how he could lead by fostering and reinforcing our evergreen culture and strong organizational values. On behalf of all of those that have been part of AvalonBay and all of us at the company today, thank you, Tim.
Tim Naughton:
Thank you, Ben.
Ben Schall :
As the next section and before turning to the presentation, we wanted to emphasize upfront a number of factors that we believe position AvalonBay for outsized performance over the coming quarters and as we look towards 2022. Our operating fundamentals continue to show very strong momentum with rents now above pre-COVID levels in 5 of our 6 large coastal regions with the strongest performance in our suburban communities, which comprise over two-thirds of the portfolio. Our resident base with concentrations employed in knowledge-based industries are in high demand in today's labor market, setting the table for future rent growth as wages continue to rise. And for the segment of our resident base who would typically be seeking to purchase a home after a period of time with us, this alternative is challenging given the general lack of availability, further supporting our retention rates and demand fundamentals. We also expect our portfolio and market allocation to generate strong growth over the coming quarters. Looking back over the last 18 months, while we've experienced an unprecedented trough and then an equally unprecedented recovery, our rents today are only 7% above October 2019 levels, equating roughly to 3.5% growth per year. With an economy and growth mode, limited availability, low turnover, significant loss to lease and with one-third of our portfolio in urban areas that are recovering, but still held back by the pandemic, we expect strong operating tailwinds as we head into 2022. Our execution on our operating model initiatives also continue to pay dividends with our investments in technology and innovation, offering enhanced value to prospects and residents while also allowing us to improve operating efficiencies. Through these initiatives, we expect to improve margin by roughly 200 basis points, with $10 million of this improvement already captured and with an additional $25 million to $35 million to be captured over the next couple of years. Finally, we're also creating outsized value creation and earnings growth from our development platform with returns trending above pro forma, leading us to ramp development activity with very attractive spreads between our development yields and market cap rates. We are definitely in growth mode, which is further supported by our access to a historically low cost of capital given the strength of the capital and transaction markets, all of which sets up for a strong end of this year and meaningful growth in 2022. Turning to the presentation and starting on Slide 4. The rapid pace of recovery continued in the third quarter with core FFO coming in at $0.10 above the midpoint of our prior Q3 guidance and flat on a year-over-year basis. The outperformance relative to guidance was driven primarily by same-store revenue, which produced a 4% sequential increase in revenue on a cash basis. Our growth orientation is reflected in our ramp in development starts with just under $1 billion of starts through the end of Q3. We've also completed $1.1 billion of projects so far this year at an attractive yield of 5.9%. In addition to development, we are growing through acquisitions, and Q3 marked our first acquisitions in our new expansion markets of Texas and North Carolina totaling $275 million. And subsequent to quarter end, we closed on an additional acquisition in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for $150 million. Funding our growth with low-cost capital, primarily from asset sales and incremental debt proceeds, including a recent $700 million 10-year unsecured bond at a fixed rate of 2.05%, the lowest coupon and lowest spread in AvalonBay history and also our first green bond. Turning to Slide 5 and given these strong operating trends, we have raised our guidance for Q4 and for the full year 2021. Q4 FFO guidance has been raised to a range of $2.19 to $2.29 per share, an $0.11 increase over our previous Q4 guidance at the midpoint. This improved outlook is driven by our improved revenue expectations with residential revenue now projected to increase in Q4 by 5% on a year-over-year basis. In addition to occupancy and rate trends, the same-store revenue outlook assumes approximately $12 million of additional rent relief payments in Q4, relatively consistent with what we received during Q3. Other activity incorporated into our updated Q4 guidance includes $250 million to $300 million of dispositions from our Northeastern markets at an expected cap rate of sub 3.5% and $300 million to $350 million of acquisitions in our expansion markets, one of which is the Fort Lauderdale community and with the others under agreement. Slide 6 shows the components of rental revenue change on a year-over-year basis, residential revenue growth being driven primarily by higher occupancy and rent relief recognized during Q3 leading to a 1% increase on a GAAP basis and a 4.3% increase on a cash basis. On a sequential basis, as shown on Slide 7, the rental revenue increase was driven by our momentum on lease rates as well as the recognition of rent relief payments, leading to a residential rental revenue increase of 3.3% on a GAAP basis and 4% on a cash basis. With that positive backdrop, I'll turn it to Sean to discuss our operating performance more fully.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Ben. I thought I'd share a few slides on the portfolio rent for the quarter and into October, both at the same-store level and across different markets and submarkets. Overall, we have continued to experience a significant rebound in the business. If you look at Slide 8, like-term effective rent change turned positive in June, has accelerated materially over the last few months. It is now running at roughly 11%. If you turn to Slide 9, you can see what's supporting the improvement in our rent change, which is the growth we've experienced in average move-in rent value. Our average move-in value has grown by roughly 24% since the beginning of the year, including a 9% increase since the end of Q2 and is now about 7% above the level we achieved in the fall of 2019. Moving to Slide 10. Improved performance has been broad-based with every region experienced an increase in average move-in rent over the past quarter. As noted in the chart, the recent flattening of move-in values reflect a normal seasonal pattern although the seasonal adjustment has only been about one-third of the amount we typically see moving from the summer into the fall. Rents are now equal to or greater than 2019 levels in every region except Northern California, which has seen roughly 20% growth in move-in rents this year but still remains roughly 7% below the level we achieved in 2019. The time line for a full recovery in Northern California has been delayed in large part by major tech employers extending their return to office state into early 2022. At the other end of the spectrum, the Southern California region has experienced strong growth in movement values, supported by very healthy job growth, including significant growth in the content-producing segment of the media industry. Limited supply and a very tighter sale market. Turning to Slide 11 to address suburban and urban performance trends. The average October move-in rent for our suburban portfolio was roughly 12% above the rent we achieved in October 2019. In our urban portfolio, while demand has returned in a meaningful way and rents have recovered significantly. Move-in rents are still slightly below what we achieved in October 2019. To provide a few examples, in Boston and New York City, urban move-in rents are now 1% above what we achieved in 2019. But the District of Columbia and San Francisco are lagging with move-in rents that are 3% and 13%, respectively, below what we achieved in 2019. Given the continuing adoption of vaccine requirements and steady climate vaccination rates, we expect urban office occupancy rates will continue to rise as we move into 2022 which is one of the opportunities we expect to benefit from next year. In fact, moving to Slide 12. The macro environment should support healthy fundamentals in our markets over the next several quarters. Starting at the top left of Slide 12. While the labor market continues to improve, we're still almost 5 million jobs short of where we started. The demand for labor continues to be robust, which is putting material upward pressure on wages a key driver of rent growth. Chart 1 shows job, wage and total personal income growth for the professional services sector of the economy, which is where most of our residents are employed. As noted in the chart, we've only experienced positive year-over-year growth across all 3 categories since Q2 of this year. And as many businesses are finding as they attempt to recruit and retain professional services employees, the market has only strengthened since Q2. In Chart 2, office usage hit a trough in Q2 2020 at the onset of the pandemic. Since that time, while we've seen steady improvement, the gains have been modest. As we look forward into 2022, gains in office usage should support additional rent growth, particularly in our urban and job center suburban submarkets. And touching on Chart 3 and 4 regarding the housing market, price appreciation in the for-sale single-family market and relatively stable multifamily supply, both support a healthy near-term outlook for rental rate growth. With that favorable macro outlook as context, turning to Slide 13, we also see terrific tailwinds in our portfolio as we move into next year. Beginning in the upper left of the slide, the chart number one , we're starting from a position of strength with turnover trending lower and strong, stable occupancy, which brings with it unusually strong pricing power. Turnover has declined this year. It was down about 1,000 basis points or 15% in Q3 relative to what we would experience a normal year like 2019 and occupancy has been running above 96% for several months now, a point at which we can continue to push rents. In Chart 2, given the very healthy rent change we've experienced a month, we'll be starting 2022 with built-in revenue growth of roughly 3%. The starting point that we didn't benefit from in any year during the last cycle. The strongest starting point in the last cycle was roughly 2.25% at the beginning of 2012. In addition to the baked-in revenue growth in Chart 2, our loss to lease is currently running at roughly 14% and is depicted in Chart number 3. Providing plenty of opportunity to benefit from moving existing leases to market when they expire. Moving to the bottom of Slide 13. There are 3 other somewhat unusual tailwinds that should also benefit revenue growth as we move into 2022. In Chart 4, the amortization of concessions associated with previously signed leases which should burn off as we move through the next several quarters. In Chart 5, a reduction in bad debt, which we won't revert quickly to the pre-pandemic average but should begin to abate as the eviction moratoria expire and our legal remedies become more widely available to us. And then finally, on Chart 6, continuing receipts from the emergency rental assistance program for our same-store portfolio, we receive -- we have received $14 million from the program with $11 million of it coming in the last quarter. Since less than one quarter of the roughly $47 billion authorized by the federal government have been distributed as of September 30, we expect to receive additional funds in Q4 this year and in 2022. So with that summary, I'll turn it back to Ben to address development and our new expansion markets. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thanks, Sean. As shown on Slide 14, these strong operating trends are also translating into outperformance for our 6 development projects currently in lease-up with lease rates up $180 per unit and with projected yields up 30 basis points to 6%, driving further value and earnings. Turning to Slide 15. Our total current development portfolio is poised to deliver meaningful incremental NOI and NAV growth over the coming quarters. Specifically, these projects are projected to generate $145 million of NOI upon stabilization, of which only $26 million is in place today on an annualized basis. These communities are slated to generate $1.2 billion of net value above our costs or close to $9 per share of NAV and meaningful earnings growth. As further highlighted on Slide 16, our industry-leading development platform has created significant value throughout various cycles with consistently strong spreads between development yields and market cap rates, which today sits at a spread of roughly 210 basis points. As we look forward over the coming years, our existing development rights pipeline totals $3 billion of potential projects. Lining us up well for a strong pace of continued profitable development. Turning to Slide 17. Our 4 new expansion markets in addition to our continued growth in Southeast Florida and Denver provide us with meaningful additional growth opportunities as well as the ability to optimize our overall portfolio over time. This slide provides the high-level framework we utilize to evaluate markets and that drive portfolio allocation decisions across our existing markets and our expansion markets. At the top of the list, our focus remains on being a best-in-class developer and operator in markets that over-indexed to knowledge-based employment, which we expect to experience outsized job and wage growth. We also continue to believe that markets with a high cost of home ownership, create an attractive rent versus own backdrop for our product offering. While our expansion markets generally have lower home prices than our existing markets, the rise in home prices, particularly in certain submarkets in these areas create similar positive dynamics for future rental growth. We remain closely attuned to the regulatory environment in each of our markets with local land use restrictions, creating certain favorable barriers to new supply in our existing markets, providing opportunities for our development teams to leverage our long-standing relationships to unlock development opportunities. These coastal markets have, however, seen an increase in landlord tenant regulations, and our expansion into new markets is partially driven by our desire to diversify our regulatory exposure. And the fourth factor highlighted here, public infrastructure and cultural amenities is our proxy for the overall quality of life that large knowledge-based employers and our type of customers will continue to seek out. This thematic framework is, in turn, supported by our proprietary market research, which shapes our market and submarket capital allocation decisions as we drive long-term value. Slide 18 highlights the characteristics supporting growth in our recently announced expansion markets and what we believe positions these markets well in the long term. As we enter these markets, our focus is on creating long-term value by exporting our development and operational acumen as well as our culture to an expanded set of opportunities. And to wrap up, we believe that we are well positioned to outperform as we head into 2022, a favorable macro backdrop, including continued job and wage growth, declining affordability of for-sale housing, a full of return to offices, particularly benefiting the one-third of our portfolio in urban environments and a relatively stable supply forecast in overall AVB markets should provide a strong tailwind. Our embedded growth in of lease along with the benefit of concessions and bad debt normalizing over time should be key drivers of revenue next year. Our operating initiatives are on track to deliver significant margin expansion and serve as one of our drivers of earnings growth over the coming 2 to 3 years. Our development platform is also poised to deliver meaningful value and earnings growth with a development rights pipeline of $3 billion and with development yields substantially above stabilized cap rates and our cost of capital. Finally, our expansion markets provide a broader set of opportunities to leverage our platform for growth. We're excited for the growth opportunities ahead of us. And with that, I'll turn it to the operator to open the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Rich Hill:
First of all, congrats on a really good quarter. It looks like you're showing some real inflection here. I wanted to maybe take a step back and think about '22 and '23 in the context of that loss to lease. Maybe you can help us frame can you get all of that loss to lease back in '22? Or is it some of it going to move back into '23? We've heard some different commentary from some of your peers. So I'm wondering how you guys think about it.
Sean Breslin:
Rich, it's Sean. And good question, of course. Yes, what I would say on the loss to lease is in a normal year, so to speak, as part of what you can say is that there's probably anywhere between 15% to 20% of our portfolio that's somewhat constrained in capturing that loss to lease or the delta between the existing rents and the market rent based on the regulatory environment that's in place. And the typical examples are the rent rates in New York, in D.C., we have an asset in San Francisco, 1 in L.A., et cetera, et cetera. In the current environment, given the, call it, the COVID overlay, that total percentage of the portfolio that is somewhat encumbered at least for the short run, is probably closer to about one-third of the portfolio where there are some rent caps in place in various other jurisdictions that limit the ability to capture that. The question is when some of those additional or incremental restriction -- restrictions expire, which is TBD at this point in time. The 1 that's probably the most significant is the state of emergency cap in California, which is constraining probably, for the most part, renewals in places like San Diego and Orange County, which have experienced pretty robust growth. So the way I would think about it is you have the incremental piece that I talked about, so call it totally one-third that is probably constrained, at least in the near term, how that sort of burns off from one-third back to 15%, 20% during 2022 as a TBD. And then also just factoring in the distribution of lease expectations is the other fact that you have to consider as you kind of run through your model.
Rich Hill:
I think I understand that math. And maybe this is a question for Ben. I wanted to maybe understand a little bit better how you're considering development in the past development early in the cycle has been a big driver of your growth. How are you thinking about that this time? Is it any different than past cycles?
Ben Schall :
Our approach is similar, Rich. And you've seen that with our ramp of activity over the last 6 months, we definitely see it as a differentiator for us, definitely see it as a driver of alpha. Matt can maybe talk some more about our pipeline of activity but our track record and our development franchises in our existing markets, we have full confidence we'll be able to continue to unlock value. And now we have the expanded set of opportunities in the growth markets widen our total opportunity set. Matt, do you want to talk some more on the development pipeline?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. Yes. Just to give a little more color on the development pipeline. So we're -- we've started close to $1 billion so far this year. We are on track to start probably another $350 million here in the fourth quarter. And when you kind of look at the breakdown of the most recent starts this year, it's a nice mix geographically, about three quarters suburban, one quarter urban and maybe 25% of our starts this year and actually in our expansion markets in Florida and Denver and then maybe a little less than one-third in the Northeast and the rest, almost half on the West Coast. As we look out to next year, we'd like to be able to start somewhere in the same range in that $1 billion to $1.5 billion range, depending on how things shape up. But as Ben mentioned in his remarks, we have a $3 billion development rights pipeline. And there's a lot working its way through the system now. We really started putting our foot back on the gas for new business development a quarter or 2 ago. And we've got probably over $1 billion worth of new development rights in addition to that $3 billion that's working its way through the system now. So we will start some in this fourth quarter, but I'm hoping that at the end of the year, the development rights pipeline will actually grow to somewhere at or north of $3.5 billion. So we have a lot of opportunity in front of us.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nick Joseph:
First of all, congratulations, Tim. Maybe just following up on development. Curious what sort of inflationary pressures you're seeing. I guess, obviously, it's coming through on the rent side, but also I would imagine on the construction side for the new starts, how you think about looking at those yields versus cost?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. Nick, it's Matt. There's definitely inflation and like you said, it helps on the rent side and it hurts on the cost side. What we've seen is the deals that we are starting this year the total development cost is probably 10% to maybe even as much in some cases, is 15% higher than where it would have been a couple of years ago. If NOIs are trending up, you do get some leverage on that. And then the third part of the equation is asset values, which, of course, have been trending up more than the 10% or 15% costs have been going up. So when you combine the higher NOI with the lower cap rates, the value creation and the spread is probably wider than it was before. The yields probably pre-COVID, our development rights pipeline yields were maybe in the low 6s. Now they're in the high 5s. If you look at the stuff we're starting this year, it's pro forma to around 7 5 8 and that's where kind of the new business we're signing up or the stuff we might start next year based on today's economics looks to be as well.
Nick Joseph:
And then -- you mentioned the regulatory side of the equation when you're looking at different markets. How do you think about regulatory risk in some of these expansion markets? Obviously, it's more favorable right now than some of the coastal markets, but how do you try to handicap any changes going forward in the future there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Nick, it's Sean. Good question. And I think when you talk about the regulatory environment, there are pros and cons to it. So if you maybe start with sort of our coastal market footprint that we've had for a long period of time. Part of the reason we have been so successful in creating value through the development pipeline is there is a very difficult regulatory environment to work your way through to actually get development entitled and delivered into those submarkets. So it's been to our benefit historically. Obviously, the more active is the jurisdictions become as it relates to landlord tenants and rent-oriented things become slightly more risky for us, of course. In terms of the expansion markets, there are not as many constraints on development, although there are places within those regions that are a little more sensitive to development and have somewhat more constraints, but in general, slightly -- were favorable in terms of development, of course. And in terms of evaluating the risk on sort of the landlord tenant side and the rent side, it is a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction assessment. For example, if you think of our legacy markets, we feel pretty good about Washington state overall, not so good about the city of Seattle. So when you go through some of these markets, for example, in Texas, you look at overall, feel pretty good generally speaking about that environment. Austin, there are some more regulatory constraints in the suburban environments as it relates to land use and the watershed and things like that. So overall, we think the regulatory environment certainly is to our benefit in those markets, but there are places where you have to still work with -- and overall, the landlord tenant, the rent control side, we think the risk is definitely lower than our legacy markets, but it's not without any risk the way I describe it.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Rich Hightower:
And likewise, all the best of Tim in the next phase of his tenure with AvalonBay and beyond. So I just want to follow up on Nick's question there. I guess, look, if you bake it all together in terms of your outlook for job growth, supply growth, regulatory impact 1 way or the other. I mean, if you had to sort of gauge which group of markets is going to have superior rent growth over the next 3 to 5 years, again, taking all those factors kind of in hand. Where do you sort of peg your core coastal markets versus those expansion markets in that regard?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich, good question. I'm not sure we're prepared to I'll call it a lead horse just yet. The way I think about it is kind of the way you described in terms of looking at job growth, supply growth, all the macro factors that we all consider. And I think what we -- the reason we're going into these markets is while we certainly see more supply growth in these markets, say, in the 3% range, if you talk about Denver Southeast Florida, they also produce a lot more jobs and have benefited from much more significant in migration as opposed to the coastal markets, which have typically benefited historically from immigration. So I think when we look through it, I mean, at the end of the day, when we look at our portfolio, we still expect a very significant portion of our portfolio to be in our sort of legacy coastal markets. But for all the reasons that Ben talked about in his prepared remarks related to where we see kind of knowledge-based workers growing. It's growing in our legacy markets. It's also growing in some of these mid-cap knowledge markets, there's more supply, for sure, but you definitely see the demand that more that consumes that. So I think the question is really the supply get maybe too much in front of that in some of these Sunbelt markets where we've seen significant growth the last 18 months? Or does that come back in the check. I think that will dictate kind of how the rent growth equation comes out across the expansion markets versus our coastal markets. But we believe in both, and they may not grow at the same pace at the same time. But over the long run, we feel good about the rent growth that we'll see across the entire footprint.
Rich Hightower:
And then maybe just a different twist on the development question, but this isn't so much a question on inflation as it is, the impact of labor and supply chain constraints on the timing of new deliveries, whether we're talking AvalonBay's projects or even competitive supply? What trends are you seeing in those factors?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes Rich, it's Matt. It is -- I mean we have not yet seen a lack of availability, supply chain interfere with our ability to deliver apartments. We've had spot issues here and there where right now, we're struggling to get appliances in 1 asset, and so it might delay deliveries by a month or so. But we haven't seen it in a more widespread way, but there is that potential. I mean there are certain commodities, drywalls on an allocation right now in some markets. So I think it has impacted the for sale inventory and ability to deliver some. I think for us, it's a place where we benefit a little bit by being our own general contractor and having repeat relationships with our subcontractors. So honestly, the bigger constraint right now on getting units turned and delivered has been the local jurisdictions and their staff. A lot of these jurisdictions are still remote and they're down inspectors and you can't get people at City Hall to print out the documents you need. So I wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff that's in the pipeline takes a little longer to deliver if a deal that you thought you might done in 8 quarters might take 9 quarters instead. So there could be a little bit of delay over time on that, and it might extend the supply some just more broadly.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Bradley Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.
Bradley Heffern:
Looking at Slide 9, it doesn't seem like you've seen some of the seasonal falloff that other coastal names have. So the same chart for other people kind of peaks in August and goes down in September and October. I'm curious if there's an underlying reason you can point to as to why that would be the case.
Ben Schall :
Yes, Brad, good question. I mean, it is correct that we have seen a more modest seasonal adjustment, and we typically would experience historically. If you go back 2 or 3 years kind of pre-pandemic and kind of look at where September rents are relative to the peak rent during the summer in the various regions, which each one peaks at a slightly different time, but just call it the middle of the summer and kind of where it comes down to September relative to this year. Historically, we see about a 2.5% decline from peak to September averages. This year, it's only about 90 basis points in terms of what we've seen in terms of that softness in asking rents, which ultimately impacts move-in rents. So it's about one-thirds of what's normal. And it's pretty widespread across our markets as it relates to the seasonality being less than historical averages. It's hard to speak to the portfolio of our peers, specifically what may be impacting them. But certainly, as we look at our portfolio, we feel good about the fact that the rate of decline has been far less than historical norms. So we'll see how it plays out as we get through the end of the year. It could be just timing differences among the different companies. And it's really a submarket-by-submarket issue that you have to look at. So it's hard to decide for the others in terms of what their real conclusion is.
Bradley Heffern:
And then on the OpEx guide, I was noticing that the third quarter was in line with the guide then. And then the fourth quarter OpEx guide is really quite low, but the overall guidance went up. I was curious if you could reconcile that was the original fourth quarter expectation that OpEx would be down and then there's just been pressures on top of that? Or any help there.
Ben Schall :
Yes. I mean there's a number of different factors kind of driving the timing from quarter-to-quarter, which is a pretty kind of detailed road map. Why don't I ask Jason to follow up with you on that 1 offline as opposed to getting into the. I mean a lot of it is timing of different projects and when they hit what we expect turnover to be and various things like that to sort of come through leasing activity, the impact on bonus. There's a lot of different things that sort of drive that number in terms of the quarter-to-quarter cadence.
Kevin O’Shea:
Brad, this is Kevin. Just to sort of reiterate, we do expect same-store OpEx to decline materially sequentially into the fourth quarter.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Chandni Luthra with Goldman Sachs.
Chandni Luthra:
And Tim, let me extend my congratulations to you on a glorious career and good luck on the next chapter. So this is for the team. As we kind of think about potential interest rate hike or a series of them going into 2022, how do you all think about the spread that you laid out in slides between projected stabilized yields and total cost of capital? I think you guys noted that it's about 210 bps, and it's fairly wide. How should we think about that spread in the event of a higher cost of capital?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Matt, I can start and others can chime in. I'd say, first and foremost, we try and lock in that spread by. So we're generally raising and sourcing the capital when we start jobs. So that if there is a big change to the cost of capital, you think about the development yields we're putting up relative to the capital that we funded those with. And so that's why you see -- we're generally anywhere between 70% and 80% match funded. When you look at kind of the remaining spend in our development book against our cash on hand and kind of the short-term free cash flow. So I think it probably starts there. And then beyond that, I guess you'd have to ask yourself why are rates rising? And if because it's an inflationary environment and NOIs are also rising, then hopefully, you can preserve most of that spread anyway. If rates are rising because it's an increase in real rates as opposed to nominal rates, then that does put downward pressure on the margin.
Kevin O’Shea:
Chandni, this is Kevin. Just to maybe add to Matt's point, I mean the largest -- most relevant point with respect to the activities we're doing is what Matt outlined, which is we are substantially match-funded against our investment commitments when we start those developments. So at the moment, if you look at our current book on the way of development, we are nearly 80% match funded. But also importantly, you have to look at this on a holistic balance sheet perspective, when we are considering incremental investment opportunities in that regard, we are in terrific financial shape and have tremendous financial flex. We're soon to be substantially match funded on investment commitments that we've made from a liquidity point of view, as you can tell from our lease, we have $300 million of cash on hand and nothing drawn a $1.75 billion line of credit. And then from a leverage point of view, we're at 5 time against a targeted range for net debt-to-EBITDA of 5x to 6x and our EBITDA is rising. And so we have increasing leverage capacity as well. So when you kind of put that all together, to the extent we get into a where there's a little bit of volatility in the capital markets, we do have a lot of financial flexibility to choose our time in which we enter a market and try to choose when we source capital to those moments where it's most attractive. So Altogether, we're in terrific financial shape with respect to our existing commitments, and we have a lot of flexibility to think about how we might finance our future investment opportunities in a volatile and potentially rising rate environment.
Unidentified Company Representative:
The last piece I would add is just that the macro level, obviously, interest rates can have an impact on asset values but also be very mindful of fund flows, right, which you think about the correlation of asset values over time tend to be more correlated to asset values. And so as we look out, what we're seeing today and look out over the coming years, we expect fund flows into the real asset space and particularly in the multifamily space to remain strong.
Chandni Luthra:
My second question is slightly more housekeeping in nature. Could you all provide an update on what percent of leases are receiving in concession today? And what that average concession, if at all, is looking like?
Unidentified Company Representative:
Sure. Happy to answer that. As it relates to the third quarter, about 10% of the new move-in leases that we've signed, received a concession and the average concession was about two-thirds of a month's rent for that 10% population of move-in pieces.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Sean, I'm not sure if you can glean this from your leasing data, but just curious about 1 aspect of rent or behavior. So as the impacts of the pandemic fade, are you seeing any structural shift in the propensity to have rates?
Sean Breslin:
Good question, John. At the portfolio level, it has not changed materially going through COVID, but has dipped a little bit, which is something you might expect. In terms of sort of recent quarter leasing activity, -- That 1 I have to follow up with you on. I don't have that off the top of my head. But the overall percentage of the population with the third quarter, I think it was down maybe 150 basis points from historical averages. So not a material move. But it doesn't mean that it hasn't changed in certain submarkets. We have heard about that a little bit, particularly in the context of major urban cities that are home to significant university where they've tried to sort of densify the dorm, so to speak. So there's not as many roommates and pushing people out to sort of market rate housing which is helping to support demand in these markets. But the specific nuance the last couple of quarters that I have to back.
John Pawlowski:
No, I appreciate the details. And the last question for me is a little bit longer term in nature about what's the right -- or what's the needed capital expenditure load to operated apartment portfolio? So in the near term, you obviously have supply issues. But little bit longer-term regulatory issues, balcony inspections in California, green emissions. You go down the list. But the direct question is, do you think there's a step change coming in the capital expenditures needed to operate an apartment portfolio?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Good question. I can take some of that, and there's some ESG things that Matt can talk about that potentially out there on the horizon in the context of the regulatory environment, there are definitely some issues. I wouldn't call it really broad-based, John, that are sort of getting into how we operate buildings. There have always been issues about checking things in New York City as an example, in terms of a inspections and stuff like that. That's ongoing. The balcony issue in California has come at some expense. But mainly, it's an inspection issue. That was originally pushed by the unions. And so yes, people are spending a little bit of money on inspections, but it's not clear that there's a mandate that you have to do X, Y or Z repairs within a very short time frame. So over a longer period of time, it may move the needle a little bit. But at least based on what's out there today, as it relates to physical inspections and ongoing remediation, I wouldn't expect it to be a big driver probably the bigger issues are more on the construction side as it relates to some of the green things that may come through ESG efforts that are sort of a broader envelope of other things that are coming through in various jurisdictions.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, John, it's Matt. I'll just add to that. I think that's right. Honestly, if you look back over the last 5 or 10 years, probably the thing that's driving up CapEx more is just that we're putting more into these buildings, the amenities are a lot more elaborate. And when it comes time to redo those, it's a little more expensive. Going forward, it's an interesting question. you could make an argument that as a regulatory load increases, it may be an advantage for institutional owners like ourselves who have better capacity to manage that and deal with it in some of the smaller private owners. So over time, it might contribute to more consolidation in our space, which is incredibly fragmented. But we certainly are trying to manage on an asset-by-asset basis and our CapEx exposure, and it's one of the things that forms our kind of asset trading strategy and the things we've been really pleased by is our ability to sell assets that are 30 years old that have definitely significantly more CapEx liability embedded in them at basically the same cap rates as buying almost brand-new assets. So that definitely informs our strategy on the margin.
Tim Naughton:
John, last quarter, we spent time talking to our new concept called on right, which is targeted to a customer segment who don't believe places a lot of value, right, on those additional amenities. But there's definitely aspects there in terms of for both upfront and go-forward operating expenses, right, that provide benefits from the growth opportunity with that brand.
Operator:
We will take our next question from John Kim with BMO.
Unidentified Analyst:
This is Larry Valeria Lee calling for John Kim. Just a question on dispositions, like where they were located this quarter? And then just moving forward, where are you looking at kind of term exposure?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I can speak to that a little bit. So we didn't actually close anything this past quarter. We've closed a number of dispositions in the second quarter. But as Ben mentioned, we have about $300 million that we expect to close here in the fourth quarter. All of that is in the Northeast, which is where we've been heavily over-indexed in terms of our disposition activity. A couple of years ago, we sold a significant chunk in New York City into a joint venture, and then we've been balancing that out the last couple of years with more dispositions in the New York suburbs. And a lot of that is just driven by our overall portfolio allocation, given that we have a pretty deep development pipeline in many of those kind of suburban New York areas as well. So as we look forward, we're going to look to continue to rotate capital out of our coastal regions into these expansion markets, and it will probably continue to be a little bit disproportionately in New York, other parts of the Northeast and maybe over time in the Mid-Atlantic and a little bit in California as well.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. Appreciate the color. And kind of moving to Southern California, it doesn't appear to be softening seasonally kind of like your other markets are. And how sustainable do you think that this is?
Sean Breslin:
That's a good question. It hasn't softened as much. We've seen a little bit of softness. It's probably hard to tell on that chart, but it has been less near the market. It's going to be less than historical norms. I mentioned there's a number of reasons that we've got out there. I mean it's been a pretty robust market in terms of job growth the last 6 months. A lot of the travel, entertainment businesses coming back online. The content producers in the media space have been on overdrive producing content. So the market has had a pretty robust recovery. So how long that is sustainable, we'll wait to see how things kind of play out next year as it relates to all the macro variables that we think about. But the outlook for Southern California is pretty healthy given very low expected volume of multifamily supply next year, the lowest of any of our coastal markets, pretty healthy job growth and a very tight for-sale market -- both for rent and for sale. So there are a number of reasons why the general outlook for Southern California is pretty good.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. And my last question was around the Kanso product. Do you see more opportunities to develop this? And if so, like do you think it's going to be harder to push a brand there versus your typical product with more amenities?
Matthew Birenbaum:
This is Matt. We are certainly out there looking for opportunities to grow the Kanso brand. Again, our market research would indicate that there is a large untapped segment of customers that are looking for what Kanso offers. So I do think there's a great opportunity out there and that it's going to take us a little time to get at it, but we're very focused on it. In terms of future rent growth, I mean, I don't see any reason to think that it would -- rent growth in the Kanso product would be materially different than the submarket to which it's a part. Maybe it's a little less exposed to new supply because it's competing at a little bit lower price point. And typically, we found that the more modest price points have a little more rent growth kind of over a full cycle. So we think that it should be well positioned both for initial return and long-term growth.
Sean Breslin:
Just to add on to that, maybe one other comment. Based on what we've seen at the test community, the concept community we have today, rent-to-income ratios are pretty similar to our portfolio in the Suburban Maryland market. And so if you think about -- if you get equivalent rent growth, higher margins because you don't have the same operating costs, you don't have the same, ultimately, CapEx costs as well, NOI growth could potentially be even stronger to the extent you have similar rent growth.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
There's been a lot of discussion this quarter around the embedded loss to lease across portfolios, and the benefit is you're able to capture that mark-to-market. But you guys highlighted the fact in the presentation that rents are 7% above pre-pandemic levels across the portfolio or up around 3.5% in the past couple of years. So do you think as we kind of get through to the back half of next year that pricing power could then exceed the inflationary level given some of the positive variables that you identified like the strong single-family housing market, personal income growth and then the fact that rent-to-income ratios aren't overly stretched today?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean the key point is there room beyond the existing loss to lease. I mean the macro environment is such that there is good pricing power. And as Ben pointed out in his prepared remarks, there's still a number of things out there from a macro standpoint that should continue to benefit rental demand in both our urban and suburban submarkets. I mean if you think about it, that 7% is kind of a blended number. But as you pointed out, in the urban submarkets, it's still trending slightly below 2019 levels. Urban occupancy rates and job center suburban occupancy rates and offices are still very low. They've been ticking up, which is great, and we're starting to see signs of that in terms of people moving back into the cities. That we were still a long ways to go in terms of a full recovery. So should there be incremental pricing power beyond what we've experienced in our portfolio, as all those macro factors have been alluded to start to come together? I think the answer is yes. Obviously, if we see some reversal, it may impact certain markets differently. So one of our expansion markets is Southeast Florida, as an example, and when you look at where the loss to lease is relative to historical norms and kind of long-term trend lines, is it well above historical norms? Yes. So we're going to be buyers there and developers there, but we're going to be careful about the bets we place. Might some of that revert back to New York? In that case, you see a little more softness there, yes. So those are the types of things that we talk about. But at a macro level, there's a reason to be optimistic, for sure.
Austin Wurschmidt:
No, that's helpful. And then, Kevin, just last quarter, you had ranked kind of the most attractive source of proceeds, and with debt and dispositions, I think we're at the top of the list. And here recently, you dusted off the continued equity program with a small issuance. Any change in the preference or ranking today and willingness to use equity as you think about growing the development pipeline over the next year?
Kevin P. O’Shea:
Austin, yes, so it hasn't changed tremendously. I guess probably if we had the heat map out right now and looked at things, probably asset sales would be at the top, pretty close to about the 100th percentile when you look at the historical precedent for that source of capital, particularly so for suburban asset sales. So that would still be our most attractive source of capital. But -- it would be followed pretty closely by unsecured debt, which would probably be in the mid- to high 90th percentile, call it, 95th percentile. And common equity would be not far behind, pretty much in that kind of 90th to 95th percentile, if we had -- again, if we had the heat map in front of us. So I mean, the broader message today is similar to the one that I spoke to a quarter ago, which is each of our 3 primary markets for capital asset sales, unsecured debt and common equity are attractively priced, and they're open and they're available to support funding our investment activity on an accretive basis. And so when you look at what we've raised to date, $1.4 billion, it's been primarily a mix of asset sales and unsecured debt. There has, as you noted, been a little bit of common equity issuance, but only $30 million, so call it 2% of the overall mix, give or take. And so I think where we stand today, obviously, it's a phenomenal position we're in right now from a financial flexibility standpoint, given where the balance sheet is positioned, as I mentioned a moment ago, and where pricing stands in the capital markets today. Obviously, we really can't comment about what we might do in the future for kind of the obvious reasons that the capital market conditions can change and our investment uses can as well. But certainly, we're in a position to tap all those sources accretively on a leverage-neutral basis to try to -- to drive the business forward and drive NAV and earnings growth. And with rising EBITDA, as I mentioned before, there is that -- we have an increasing capacity to issue debt to do so as well. So maybe I'll just stop there and say that it's a luxury being in a situation where we can look at all those choices, and it's a good time for us to be able to drive the business forward and be forward-facing in terms of the investment markets.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Rich Anderson:
And Tim, congrats. The leadership at AvalonBay has kind of been constant, and you're no small part of that, so good luck in the future. The first question for me is on Northern California. Your peer Essex thinks that's going to be the best growth story in their portfolio in 2022. Part of that is tech, returning their employees back to the office next year, and I know that was mentioned fairly in this call. But how impactful is that into your thought process towards Northern California for next year? I know you're not providing any 2022 color. But is it at least possible that Northern California could snap back in a way that it could be the leader in your portfolio in 2022?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich, good question. I think one way to think about that is the potential opportunity there just given that it is one of the markets -- or is the market that has not yet recovered to kind of pre-COVID levels. So if you look at it and judge it just by what is left to come, if you believe that all markets would revert back to their pre-COVID levels and continue to grow, that is the region that has the most to rebound, if you want to describe it that way. So to the extent you see demand come back in a way that supports that, then it certainly could be a leading market as you move into '22 and beyond. Obviously, you have to move through the lease expirations to capture the benefit, but you can certainly see a more meaningful acceleration based on where it's positioned today in terms of rents versus peak as compared to the rest of the portfolio.
Rich Anderson:
Okay. Great. And then second question is on the expansion markets. It's quite clear why you're doing it, and no argument there. But as it relates to how it impacts the stock, 12 of the 15 development projects are in your kind of core gateway markets. So assuming you won't -- no matter what happens to the market, won't associate AvalonBay with the Sunbelt until you kind of have a reasonable amount of your business in those markets, relatively speaking. So with that in mind, what's the time line do you think where you can get like a 5%-ish type number in each of those expansion markets where you're at 25% or 30% of the total portfolio is outside of the core gateway markets and you really have yourself tethered to what might happen in the Sunbelt as it relates to stock performance, I should say?
Benj Schall:
Rich, this is Ben. I would guide you towards our experience in Southeast Florida and Denver as a decent proxy, right? So we've put out a target of each of those being 5%. We're at a point now with our teams on the ground with those franchises building where we are starting to see some accelerated activity, right, and increasingly our own development. So as we think about the new 4 expansion markets, probably on a similar type of process, our growth, just to orient everyone, it's acquisitions, which, obviously, you can get to the quickest. It's our own development, and we do have resources on the ground in each of these markets, spending time developing the relationships that are going to be necessary to unlock that land. And then the third vehicle is through the funding of other developers. And that's been an approach we've been utilizing in Denver and Southeast Florida. That will be -- one of our first projects in North Carolina will be of that approach. And a lever that we expect to pull sort of balance the -- getting some of that development profit, maybe not the full development profit, if we were executing our own, but working with people who have sites that are entitled and ready to go.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
And congrats, Tim. Hopefully, it means more golf in your future. And I also want to say congrats to Bill McLaughlin, your Development Head, on his retirement as well. So certainly talking about ramping up development, Bill has been responsible for a lot of that. So congrats. Two questions there. First, on the development part. You guys do not trend your rents, so that when you guys have in your development page your 5.9% yield that's based on escalated costs but rents as they are. As you guys underwrite new projects, given how rents have grown, do you expect the yields that we see in the supplemental to come up, meaning our rents outpacing the cost of construction, timing delays, et cetera, where we will start to see higher yields in the supplemental? Or we're not yet there yet?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, Alex, it's Matt. So you're right, we -- when we start a job, it's based on today's rents and today's costs, and we basically locked in a good amount of the cost when we start the job. So we have an excellent track record of delivering on the cost side. So what you see is -- and then we don't remark the rents to market until we have 20% leased, give or take. So the rents will kind of stay where they are for the first year plus, and then we'll mark to market. And so the materials that we've shown earlier, what Ben was talking about how our rents are running $170, $180 above pro forma, that's based on those 6 jobs, which are now coming to market. So the first thing is there's jobs that are on that schedule that were started 12 or 18 months ago that have not yet been mark to market. So there should be some lift out of those. And again, that's what we're seeing on that basket that we have currently, and lease up, they're beating pro forma by 30, 40 basis points on the yield. On the deals that haven't yet started, what we're finding is that the greater rent and NOI definitely helps. The higher cost hurt, and it falls through to land value pretty darn quickly. And it's a very competitive market in terms of there's a lot of merchant builders out there. And where it all takes your yield, new business we're signing up today, reflecting today's rents is in that kind of mid- to high 5s yield that I mentioned. So where those yields settle out when you actually start the job in a year or 2, that's the bet what will grow faster from this point, kind of rents or costs. But I feel pretty good that, that kind of mid- to high 5s is probably a pretty consistent number you'll see for a while.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then the second question is, in your expansion markets, like in Dallas, I think your entry is out towards Grapevine area and, at $275 a door, would suggest pretty efficient pricing. Charlotte sounds like it's a little bit more infill at $350 or so. But based on your experience in the coastal markets and then looking at companies like Mid-America and the Sunbelt, is your Sunbelt focused more on the outer rings? Or do you think that you will target infill?
Sean Breslin:
I think it's a little bit of both, Alex. I mean, ultimately, we'll have a diversified portfolio. Some of it is where we want to buy versus where we want to build. So if you look at what we've done in Denver, the assets we bought have tended to be more of the garden assets on the perimeter. And where we're developing, we have a deal in RiNo. We just started a deal in Westminster, which is kind of a second-ring suburb, but we're -- we have a deal that will start here shortly in the City of Denver. So we're trying to balance out the development which tends to be at the higher price point with -- particularly in these Sunbelt markets, where historically, over time, more of the rent growth probably has come in more of the moderate price point. So we are more focused on acquisitions that are younger assets but not necessarily kind of the downtown $350 a foot-type rent. So we like the position. The Charlotte acquisition was a little bit different just because it was an opportunity to pick up a 3-community portfolio in the South end, which is an incredibly dynamic part of Charlotte, where there's just tremendous amounts of growth, retail, employment as well as residential. But I think the Grapevine or the Flower Mound acquisition that you referenced is probably more in keeping with what we bought in Denver and what we've mostly been buying in Florida and where we're looking.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho.
Haendel St. Juste:
And Tim also, it's been a pleasure. Good luck on the next phase of your career. My question here is on the technology platform and how you feel that can help you manage some of the chunkier, controllable expenses across the platform, given the inflation and costs that we're seeing across just about every aspect of life here. And maybe you can just make some comments on the benefits that you outlined. The $25 million to $30 million that you project for the next few years, what's the key driver there and some of the core assumptions?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Haendel, good question as it relates to technology and just for the inflation. And most of what we're focused on relates to, in simple terms, kind of digitizing the business and creating a more self-serve model for customers, which, just so you know, they have expressed a desire for that -- a continuing desire for that to be able to self-serve like they do with any other major brands across the country. And I would say that for the most part, the impact on the P&L will show up predominantly in payroll, probably a little bit in R&M just in terms of the efficiency of in-sourced and outsourced activity. But a lot of the things that we're doing relate to digitizing the application lease and move-in process, as an example, that a customer can self-serve and complete that entire process and move into a community without ever talking to anyone who's an AvalonBay staff member. AvalonBay staff may be available on a centralized call center or other locations regionally to be able to support that activity. But to the extent that they like to do it on a self-serve basis, they can. The same thing applies to the maintenance activity, lease renewals and then what we call the live journey, which is all the interactions that a customer has with us when they live with us. And that relates to all kinds of different things that get into the [indiscernible] about transferring apartments, adding a bed, adding a roommate, et cetera, et cetera. So most of it is focused on digitizing the business. The second piece of it is really around data science and leveraging data science that makes different types of decisions related to a number of different aspects of the business. Probably one use case to mention specifically is lease renewals. And the more we know about customer behavior and various other things will help us how to create a choice to customers and also try to optimize the renewal capture in terms of the process, but also the renewal value in terms of at what rent they renew with us and for what duration. So there's a lot of data science world that will be coming to fruition as well. But the heavy emphasis as it relates to the benefit that Ben mentioned is on the digitization of the business and the various processes that are related to customer interactions, and most of that benefit will show up via payroll.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Got it. Appreciate that. And incremental investments on that tech platform from here, or is the money effectively has been spent? Or how much more are we -- are you looking at in terms of the required investment?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So the total investment that we expect for the activities at least that we have sized up for the next 2 to 3 years is an incremental roughly $20 million to $25 million. We have incurred some costs to date, about $7 million, as it relates to our automated leasing agent and various other things that have already resulted in about an 18% reduction in the frontline sales staff at our communities, which is [indiscernible] payroll. But going forward, there's still some investment to come.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Got it. One last one, if I could, on the rental assistant payments year-to-date. I appreciate the color you guys provided there. I'm curious what's left in that receivables bucket, what's the remaining opportunity for, say, next year, and how much has been reserved against that.
Kevin P. O’Shea:
Haendel, maybe I'll start, and Sean may want to jump in. In terms of the rent relief payments that we received, as you can tell in the same-store portfolio, we received $11 million in the third quarter. It's obviously a difficult line item to predict. Certainly, it's true, as Sean pointed out in his opening remarks, that nationwide, there's $47 billion that's been approved, and less than 1/4 of that has been distributed nationwide. So -- and we certainly have done an awful lot to apply for more proceeds from the various governmental agencies that are involved in that. And so to have our residents, it is hard to predict with great precision when it's going to come in for 2022, for example, but for -- and even for the fourth quarter of '21. But for purposes of guidance, what we have assumed in the fourth quarter in terms of incremental rent relief payments that we'll receive in the fourth quarter, we've assumed about $12 million in our same-store portfolio.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. And I can add on to that. Certainly, Kevin can address the kind of gross versus net receivables and what the total part is. But just to provide a little color on what we've received, out of the funds we received, about 1/3 of it relates to applications that we submitted on behalf of the resident in jurisdictions where we are allowed to do so. About 2/3 of it has showed up via resident applications where we have had no knowledge of the applications submitted by the residents until we were notified by the jurisdiction that they were approved for payment and payment would be transferred to us. In terms of the percentage that we received relative to what we've applied for, again, what we can apply for independent of what the resident may have applied for, we've only received about 30% of the total pot that we have applied for. We've applied for, rough numbers, about $24 million in rent relief, and we've only received about $6.5 million or so to date. So to the extent that we recovered most of that is pretty significant opportunity to come independent of what we may receive in gross volume from either current residents who remain occupied in units but not paying or in some jurisdictions where we are allowed to recover it, payments associated with residents that have left us but left outstanding balances. So still a pot there to come. It's hard to determine exactly what may come through resident applications, again, because of the limited line of sight on those applications being submitted and processed.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will take our next question from Alex Kalmus with Zelman & Associates.
Alex Kalmus:
Given the 210 basis point spread between your development yields and the cap rates that are very low and that's despite the cost inflation and sourcing is very, very favorable, what's your sort of medium-term outlook on the supply notwithstanding the timing of specific markets, how that plays out? It seems like development is clearly winning out in this market, and it can create some supply down the line.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. As it relates to total supply -- this is Sean. I can touch on that. In terms of our markets, our supply expectations for 2021 has come down for the beginning of the year as a result of various things, whether it's some of the supply chain issues that I've described, capacity in local jurisdictions as it relates to inspections and such, et cetera. But we expect 2021 to land at roughly about 1.7% of stock in terms of the deliveries. And based on what we can see in 2022, probably it's going to be relatively similar. There'll be a couple of regions where we expect a little bit of increased supply, and that includes the New York, New Jersey regions, some stuff in New York City that's pushed into next year, as an example. We also expect an uptick in Seattle. There's been pretty heavy volume under construction. Some of that has been delayed and pushed into 2022. Markets that will be relatively flat include probably the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Florida, just based on supplies working its way through. And then we do expect to see a decline in supply in Boston, Northern and Southern California and Denver, just based on what we can see working its way through the construction process and the various delays. So that's the lineup as it relates to overall supply. And again, keep in mind that a heavy influence on the supply side here is in urban submarkets. And kind of looking out over the course of next year, we still expect about 100 basis point spread between percentage of stock that's delivered in urban environments as compared to suburban. Suburban came down potentially into the 1.3% or 1.4% of stock next year versus 240, 250 basis points in the urban submarkets. So there is the distinction there.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Alex, let me just add to that. It's Matt. I mean if you're talking longer term, I think what we're seeing is, to your point about the dynamic of the spread, development is a very profitable business. Supply tends to respond more quickly in the Sunbelt markets than in our coastal markets. So you've seen this year starts nationally are up. But in our markets, they're actually kind of level or a little bit down. So that is one of the factors. I -- and supply can respond more quickly in urban than in suburban submarket in our footprint because the supply -- the regulatory supply constraints are definitely more meaningful in the suburbs than in the urban areas. So across our coastal regions, what I'd say is development in the urban submarkets doesn't work today. And so you're seeing very, very little urban starts because the rents there are not above their prior peak, for the most part, as Sean had mentioned, and costs are up. So my guess is you'll see a relatively muted supply response in our urban markets once we get beyond the stuff that's currently underway, as you look out 2 or 3 years. Suburb is probably a little bit more slow in today. But I think the supply response to the favorable economics is going to be more aggressive in the Sunbelt.
Alex Kalmus:
Really appreciate the color. And earlier today, there's discussion about potential cost inflation and labor pressures driving some problems and lease-up for some developers. Does this seem like a reasonable expectation for potential opportunities to take over struggling lease-ups in the future for acquisitions?
Matthew Birenbaum:
We haven't heard that. I mean we haven't seen any lease-ups having particular issues. We've seen assets being sold during lease-up, just people trying to take advantage of the incredibly robust asset sales market. But frankly, not at discounted, to us, we're all that compelling relative to buying stabilized assets.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.
Joshua Dennerlein :
I had a question on maybe your Northern California strategy going into the fall/winter months. It seems like that, that softening starting in August was the delay in the return to office and something a lot of people pushing back to maybe January 1. Do you think we might see a turn higher as we get closer to the January 1? Kind of how are you guys thinking about that?
Sean Breslin:
Joshua, just to be clear, when you say turn higher, are you talking about occupancy rents just kind of the overall fundamentals of the business or...
Joshua Dennerlein :
Yes. I guess I'm looking at Slide 10 of your presentation. So that, right, is what I would be focused on.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So I mean, as it relates to Northern Cal in general, in my earlier comments sort of reflect the view that particularly in these tech markets that are probably concentrated job centers like San Francisco and San Jose to some degree as well, of course, the return-to-office delays certainly have had an impact. We are starting to see people come back to those environments. We had an uptick in people moving to San Francisco and San Jose from more than 150 miles away in Q3 compared to not only last year, of course, but a stabilized year. So we're starting to see some movement just maybe not as much as I think we all would have anticipated post Labor Day. Delta kicked in and kind of created the issue. So is it likely that San Francisco, as an example, which probably has one of the lowest office usage rates in the country, will come back more strongly early next year as people come back to work? I think the answer is yes. The question is the pace at which that occurs and the flexibility that people are provided as it relates to work from anywhere, based on what we understand and trying to track that as best we can, most of the work-from-home policies that have been adopted, people might live maybe slightly further out or something. But they still need to be within a reasonable commuting distance of their office to be in there 2 to 3 days a week depending on the company. And therefore, given the traffic and the commuting patterns in a place like Northern California, people are -- they're going to be within the MSA that they work in as opposed to some place that's a 3-hour drive away. So we would expect it to come back. And again, the pace really will be dictated by the work-from-home policies based on what we see in vaccination trends, the vaccination requirements coming out and already seeing the uptick in people coming back to those markets. It's just a matter of degree as we move into 2022.
Operator:
There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the conference back to Mr. Tim Naughton for any closing remarks.
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Thank you, Casey, and thanks, everyone, for being on the call today. I know we've been at it for a while here, and look forward to seeing or talking to you at least virtually at NAREIT here in a couple of weeks. So enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.
Operator:
That concludes our presentation. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day everyone, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only. Following the remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, April, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason and welcome to our Q2 call. With me today are Ben Schall, Kevin O'Shea, Matt Birenbaum, and Sean Breslin. For our prepared comments today, I'll start by providing some high-level comments on apartment marketing conditions and how the current operating and capital environment is shaping our actions, including our recent decision to enter new markets in North Carolina and Texas. Ben will provide a summary of second quarter results, including a detailed road map of results on a year-over-year and a sequential quarter basis. Sean will then elaborate on operating trends in the portfolio, where we've seen a robust recovery in fundamentals and performance since the first of the year. Matt will review performance in our development portfolio, including lease-up performance and an overview of our first Kanso community located in Rockville, Maryland, where we completed construction this past quarter. Kevin will then provide an overview of our outlook for Q3 and the full year. And lastly, Ben will provide some summary comments on how AVB is well positioned to deliver earnings and NAV growth as we look forward. Before turning to the deck, I thought I'd provide some perspective on what we're seeing in the markets and how it's shaping our actions in terms of operations and capital allocation. Since the first of the year, the recovery in the apartment market conditions has been dramatic. Effective move-in rents have fully recovered from the trough, up almost 20% over the last two quarters alone. And asking rents grew even faster, up over 20% since the beginning of the year and now stand at 8% above pre-pandemic peak. Concessions which were significantly elevated last year have fallen back to a modest level, closer to what we experienced pre-pandemic. As you might guess the speed and steepness of the recovery has been driven by very strong rental demand. In fact, Q2 traffic was up over 40% from last year. It continues to outpace last year despite very low levels of availability. The combination of strong traffic and low inventory propelled rental rates through Q2 and that has continued through July. While all regions and submarkets are improving and most are back to or near pre-pandemic levels, there's still a fair bit of variability across the portfolio. Specifically suburban continues to outperform urban, Class A is outperforming Class B and regionally Southern California and our expansion markets of Southeast Florida and Denver outperforming the portfolio average, while the Bay Area continues to lag the average. In addition to strong apartment markets, the capital markets are also extremely healthy and constructive for apartment investment. The transaction debt and equity markets are all wide open and are supporting strong growth in asset values, as we've seen cap rates fall below 4% across most markets and submarkets over the last few quarters. Based on the strong market sentiment, we expect capital flows to remain healthy over the foreseeable future. With this operating and capital backdrop, we have shifted to offense and have increased our planned investment activity for the year by almost $1 billion, between new development starts and acquisitions. In addition in our release, we announced our intent to enter the Raleigh and Charlotte markets in North Carolina, as well as Austin and [Technical Difficulty] markets in Texas. As we discussed over the last two to three years, we've been evaluating expansion into markets that we believe will disproportionately benefit from the growth in the knowledge economy and domestic migration, particularly in those markets that figure to see some migration from our existing legacy markets. We'll have more to share with you about our growth plans in these markets over the next couple of quarters. And lastly, as we mentioned last quarter, after completing a comprehensive midyear re-forecast, we are now providing full year outlook in addition to quarterly guidance. While risk remains in our outlook including the impact of the virus and the Delta variant, the exact timing of eventual phaseout of eviction moratoria across our markets and the receipt of any rent relief payments from state and local governments we believe we have enough clarity to provide a meaningful perspective with respect to our operating performance for the rest of the year. With that, now let me turn it over to Ben, who will discuss Q2 results.
Ben Schall:
Thank you, Tim. Slide four highlights our Q2 results and activity. And while we meaningfully exceeded our guidance for Q2 with core FFO of $1.98 versus guidance at the midpoint of $1.90 per share, our year-over-year core FFO figures were down 11.2% for the quarter and 14.8% year-to-date, reflecting the disruption that we've seen in our business over the last 12 months. Notably and reflecting the strong recovery that Tim emphasized, rental revenue increased on a sequential basis turning positive for the first time since March of 2020 with a 90 basis point increase on a GAAP basis and 170 basis points on a cash basis from Q1 to Q2. As Sean will delve into in more detail, rental rates improved during each month of the quarter with continued growth in July. Our development platform also continues to create meaningful shareholder value. We completed $385 million of development in the quarter and close to $1 billion through the first half of 2021. These developments are primarily suburban and are benefiting from the renter demand and increasing rents we're experiencing across our suburban communities. For our completions in the second quarter, the initial projected stabilized yield is 6.4% providing roughly 250 basis points of spread to the sub-4% stabilized cap rates we're seeing in the asset sale market today. These completed projects along with others that are in lease-up also provide a meaningful incremental boost to earnings growth as Matt will discuss in more detail. We also started $580 million of new developments in Q2 and are on track to meet our target of $1.2 billion of new starts in 2021, which we increased last quarter from our initial target of $750 million of new starts. During the quarter we raised $540 million of capital through dispositions at an average cost of capital of 3.7%. By match funding our development activity, primarily with these disposition proceeds, we in turn are able to reduce the capital cost risk associated with the earnings and NAV accretion as we execute on our development pipeline over the coming years. Slide five breaks down the components of our rental revenue change on a year-over-year basis with lower lease rates over the last 12 months and the amortization of concessions being the largest drivers of the decline. As it relates to concessions, at the end of Q2, we had a total of $29 million of previously granted concessions still to be amortized in our same-store pool over the coming quarters. However, concession usage has declined by roughly 85% since Q4 2020 from $1,900 per move-in to just above $300 in July. Slide six provides the factors leading to our increase in rental revenue from Q1 to Q2 with a turn to the positive being driven by higher occupancy and an improvement in uncollectible lease revenue. At a portfolio level, uncollectible lease revenue remains elevated with bad debt at roughly 3% versus a more normalized 50 to 60 basis points with the expectation that we'll continue to see elevated bad debt levels until eviction moratoria are behind us. Before turning it over to Sean for further context on our operating performance, slide seven illustrates our strong momentum in the form of like-term effective rent change, which turned positive in June and now stands at 5% in July. With that, I'll turn it to Sean.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks Ben. I thought I'd share a few slides on portfolio rent trends both overall and across different markets and submarkets. Overall, we've seen a meaningful acceleration in the positive rent trends we spoke about during our Q1 call. On slide eight, you can see that our average move-in rent value has grown by roughly 18% since the beginning of the year including a 13% increase since just April and is now consistent with the peak rent levels we achieved in mid-2019. Moving to slide nine, improved performance has been broad-based with every region experiencing a material increase in average move-in rent over the past seven months. If you look at our July move-in specifically, rents are now equal to or greater than the 2019 peak in every region except Northern California, which remains roughly 11% below peak. The timeline for a full recovery in Northern California will in part be based on when major tech employers call people back to work. The hybrid work policies adopted by major employers will have will certainly have some impact on where tech workers want to live. Silicon Valley will very likely remain one of the world's leading innovation centers for years to come. Turning to slide 10 to address suburban and urban performance trends, the average July move-in rent for our suburban portfolio was roughly 3% above the peak we achieved in 2019. In our urban portfolio while demand has returned in a meaningful way, the average rent in these submarkets fell the most throughout 2020 and is still down about 7.5% from peak 2019 rents. As it relates to the urban portfolio, we expect performance to continue to improve as people are called back to the office, urban universities resume on-campus learning, and the quality of the environment starts to look and feel more like pre-pandemic conditions. Turning to slide 11. Our average asking rent which is representative of the published rent for available inventory has increased 24% since the beginning of the year and is currently about 8% above the mid-2019 peak. Our suburban submarkets which represent about two-thirds of portfolio revenue are leading the recovery. The average asking rent in our urban submarkets is basically back to the 2019 peak and as I mentioned previously is expected to continue to grow as those environments more fully reopen over the next few months. And moving to slide 12, this chart depicts the trajectory and spread between our average asking and move-in rents. As I mentioned a few slides ago, the average portfolio movement rent has increased roughly 18% this year, but trails the increase in average asking rent which is up 24%. The average dollar spread between the two which averaged 12% for the month of July is wider than the 4% to 5% we have seen historically and is representative of the capacity available to grow move-in rents over the next couple of quarters. Additionally, if we see a seasonal adjustment in asking rents the last few months of the year something we have not yet experienced this year there's plenty of room for asking rents to soften a bit and still grow move-in rents. With that summary, I'll turn it to Matt to address development and portfolio trading activity. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to our current lease-up communities, you can see on slide 13 the same positive trends that we're seeing in the stabilized portfolio. We're achieving rents $155 above initial underwriting on the seven communities that are currently in lease-up which is lifting the stabilized yield on those investments to 6.1% generating substantial value creation relative to current cap rates which are at or below 4% across our footprint. This is really a remarkable turnaround in our development portfolio which just a few quarters ago had rents and yields modestly below initial underwriting and continues to demonstrate our long track record of delivering outsized risk-adjusted returns from our development and construction capabilities. One development that we wanted to highlight this quarter is shown on slide 14 which is the first completion of our latest brand Kanso located at the Twinbrook Metro station in Rockville, Maryland. Kanso was born out of customer insight research, which was telling us that there's a large underserved segment of residents that are looking for a new high-quality apartment in a transit-served or infill location, but without all the extra bells and whistles provided in typical Class A new construction. By focusing our investment on the apartment home itself and removing common area amenities that these customers do not value like pools, fitness centers and lounges, we are able to save on both upfront capital and ongoing operating and CapEx costs which in turn allow us to provide a meaningful discount on the rent as compared to a fully programmed Avalon offering at the same location. Kanso leverages technology to provide a primarily self-service experience for residents and prospects with very limited on-site staffing supported by our centralized call center and a design with low maintenance needs to deliver on the brand promise to live simply without sacrifice. We're excited the market has embraced the concept with Kanso Twinbrook leasing up successfully at a strong pace at rents above pro forma and look-forward to growing this new brand via additional development opportunity in the future. Turning to slide 15 we continue to see tremendous demand in the asset sales market and completed six wholly-owned dispositions in the second quarter at a weighted average cap rate of 3.7%. The assets sold were predominantly in the Northeast region with more than 60% of the proceeds coming out of the Greater New York area and were older than average for our portfolio with an average age of 25 years, allowing us to continue to further our portfolio allocation goals to reduce exposure to some of our legacy markets while also minimizing our CapEx profile. And by redeploying this capital into new development starts of $580 million this quarter at projected yield of 5.7% we're match funding new growth at highly accretive margins. And with that I'll turn it over to Kevin to go over our earnings guidance for the year.
Kevin O'Shea:
Great. Thanks, Matt. On slide 16 we provide our financial and operating outlook for the third quarter and for full year 2021. For the third quarter using the midpoint of our guidance ranges, we expect core FFO per share of $1.96. On a sequential basis our third quarter estimate reflects a sequential decline in core FFO of $0.02 per share from the second quarter. This sequential decrease in core FFO per share is driven primarily by an increase of $0.05 per share in same-store residential revenue and a $0.03 per share increase in lease-up NOI offset by a seasonally driven increase in same-store residential operating expenses of $0.06 per share and a $0.03 per share decrease in community NOI as a result of recent disposition activity. On a year-over-year basis for our same-store portfolio using the midpoint of our ranges we expect NOI to decrease by 3% for the third quarter driven by an 80 basis point reduction in same-store residential rental revenue and a 3.5% increase in same-store residential operating expenses. For the fourth quarter our full year earnings guidance implies core FFO per share of $2.13, which would represent a $0.17 or 8.7% sequential increase from the third quarter estimate. This expected sequential increase in earnings in the fourth quarter is primarily driven by a continued increase in same-store residential rental revenue by a seasonally expected decline in same-store residential operating expenses and by further NOI growth in our lease-up portfolio. For our full year 2021 guidance, we expect core FFO per share of $8.02 at the midpoint of our range. And for our same-store residential portfolio, again using the mid-point ranges and looking at growth on a year-over-year basis, we expect NOI to decrease by 6.2% for full year 2021, driven by a 3.2% decrease in revenues and a 3.3% increase in operating expenses. Turning to our updated investment and capital plan, the combination of a strong recovery in revenue and earnings growth and attractive access to the capital markets has prompted us to pivot to offense and pursue increased development and acquisition activity as reflected in our current investment and capital plan on slide 17. For development, we now anticipate starting $1.2 billion in new projects this year, up from our original plan of $750 million, and we expect NOI for new development communities undergoing lease-up to be about $50 million this year at the midpoint an increase of $5 million from our original outlook. For capital activity, we now anticipate a busier year with total capital uses for development, redevelopment, acquisitions and debt repayments of $1.8 billion in 2021. This represents an increase of nearly $1 billion from our original outlook and is driven by increased acquisition activity for the year and an expected early repayment later this year of $450 million in unsecured debt that is scheduled to mature in September 2022. In terms of capital sourcing, our current plan contemplates meeting our capital needs through a combination of unsecured debt issuance and additional asset sales, although, the sources we ultimately tap are subject to change based on changes in capital market conditions or our actual capital uses. Turning now to slide 18 and our continuing efforts in the area of corporate responsibility or ESG, we are pleased to report that we recently released our 10th Annual Corporate Responsibility or ESG Report reflecting our long-standing commitment to this part of our business. As highlighted in the report, we see measurable progress on our science-based emission reduction targets primarily due to our investments in on-site solar generation and efforts to improve building efficiency. We're also proud of our commitments to the communities in which we do business. These funding to our non-profit partners to serve those in need during the pandemic. We continued our important national partnership with the American Red Cross focused on disaster preparedness and response and we initiated a new partnership with the National Urban League designed to engage with them on our diversity and inclusion efforts and provide support to their mission. All these efforts continue to be recognized externally with the CDP rating us in the A band and the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark or GRESB rating us number one in the multi-family sector both globally and in the United States. In addition, NAREIT awarded us their highest honor of sustainability performance. Further, our associates remain highly engaged as reflected in our engagement scores that are in the top quartile on this important metric. And finally, our customers weighed in and we are pleased to be number one in online customer reputation. And with that, I'll turn it back to Ben for his concluding remarks.
Ben Schall :
Thanks Kevin. Turning to our key takeaways on slide 19, we're very encouraged by the continued improvement in our operating fundamentals and believe our portfolio is well positioned for additional growth, as reflected in the growth assumptions incorporated into our second half guidance. Near-term trends in our suburban portfolio continue to look very strong, and we are hopeful that our urban communities, which have been lagging the rest of the portfolio should benefit over the coming months with a fuller return to offices and universities. As Tim mentioned at the start, we also expect that our Class A communities will continue to outperform, as higher income residents and prospects benefit from the economic recovery and seek out high-quality living environments. As discussed, our development acumen and pipeline continue to be a differentiator for us, our projects in lease-up primarily in the suburbs are benefiting from strong renter demand and we've been able to quickly scale up our development activity at attractive yields relative to stabilized cap rates. As we look forward, we expect the breadth of our development expertise will allow us to shift capital to growing markets and evolve our product offering to meet the needs of our targeted customer segments. We also see our operating platform and our investments in innovation as a differentiator. In addition to the expense reductions and the margin opportunities we discussed last quarter, our technology-forward approach positions us to be able to create de novo offerings such as Kanso bringing together the best of our operating, innovation, brand and development expertise as we evolve our offerings and create a better way to live. As we head forward, we're excited about our new growth in Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Dallas and Austin in addition to our continued growth in Southeast Florida and Denver bringing us to a total of six expansion markets. We're actively negotiating on opportunities in these new expansion markets and expect to grow through acquisitions, our own development and through the funding of other developers where we own the asset upon stabilization similar to the growth strategies we've successfully utilized to grow our presence in Southeast Florida and Denver. This multi-pronged approach also allows us to invest capital over different time horizons with acquisitions of existing communities being naturally the most immediate and our own development being medium term in duration. We look forward to sharing our long-term goals and portfolio allocation objectives for these markets with investors over the coming. Finally, thank you to the entire AvalonBay organization for their commitment and leadership on ESG, where our recently issued 10th Annual Responsibility Report highlighted our continued ESG leadership position across the wider REIT sector. And with that we'll open it up for questions. [Indiscernible] [24:23].
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll hear from Nick Joseph of Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. I appreciate the comments on the new markets. How large do you expect each market to be once you get to scale, so either from a unit perspective or as a percentage of total NOI?
Ben Schall:
Hey, Nick, this is Ben. I'll take that one. We're not putting out a specific target at this point. As I mentioned, it's part of what we'll discuss with investors over the coming quarters and also how that ties into our overall portfolio allocation approach. But we do see this announcement as a meaningful one. We are actively engaged with specific opportunities currently on both the acquisition side and on the development side. We've been -- just for some context, we've been growing in Southeast Florida and Denver where we've set a target of 5% for each market as a goal for our overall allocation. And our rough user the Texas and North Carolina have the potential for a similar type of allocation. Overall, we're excited for opening up these new growth opportunities in these new four markets and leveraging our skills across investments development and operations over the coming years.
Michael Bilerman:
Hey, Ben, it's Michael Bilerman speaking. It sounds like you've been pretty active in these markets sourcing is -- can you just sort of provide maybe just how much is under contract or in advanced stage? I don't know if it's like $1 billion already that you've sort of almost circled in terms of opportunities whether they be acquisitions or development, just to give us a sense of how quickly you've been able to work your way into these markets?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, Michael, it's Matt. I can speak to that one a little bit. I mean things are fluid until they close. So I don't want to get too specific, but yes we do have -- we're -- we do have active deals working in three of those four markets that Ben mentioned. Those three deals together probably add up to maybe half of what you're saying maybe it's $500 million not $1 billion yet at this point. But we're continuing to look for more as well. And certainly, we expect some of that activity to close here in the third quarter.
Michael Bilerman:
And then just finally, I know a couple of you have talked about the growth opportunities in those markets in terms of people coming from your existing legacy markets as well as just job growth in those markets. And so how should we think about sort of the initial funding of these? Is this going to be a dilutive exercise or you sell assets or raise equity or other forms of financing that you'll benefit from the growth going forward? Or do you think you can do this on a sort of non-dilutive basis maybe even accretive as you go forward?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey, Michael, this is Kevin. I think in terms of our pacing into these new markets, I think number one it's likely to be measured as Matt alluded to and similar to what you've seen in terms of the rollout in some of our other markets maybe a little bit more a little bit less. Obviously we'd like to be -- to make some progress on that front. But then relatedly the capital impact in terms of how we [Technical Difficulty] it's probably also likely to be measured. And so we've got -- unlike some others because we are so active in development we have that as a tool in our toolkit either to venture with partners or to eventually start doing development on our own. And to the extent we engage in those new markets in that way that obviously paces out the capital deployment and also maps it against investments that are generally pretty darn accretive to our cost of capital. So our intention would not be to do so in any dilutive way. From the standpoint of acquisitions as you know from what we've done so far, we've been leaning pretty heavily into our gains capacity by selling assets in non-core markets or non-core submarkets in our legacy footprint and then putting them into Southeast Florida and Denver and I think we'll likely continue to do that. And that's something that we think actually is marginally accretive because we're kind of moving. And as you can see from the assets that we're selling now in sub four cap rates into asset into markets with maybe similar cap rates, but hopefully a better growth profile. So I think what you've seen us do in the past is probably a good indication of what we might do in the future. And probably from a funding point of view we're willing to do so on accretive basis.
Michael Bilerman:
Got it. Thanks for that color.
Operator:
And next we'll hear from Rich Hill of Morgan Stanley.
Rich Hill:
Hey, guys. Good afternoon. I wanted to maybe just build off of what Michael just asked. Is there any -- do you see any opportunity for you to maybe do a bigger acquisition of our private apartment REIT in these -- or private apartment owner in these markets or maybe even a public apartment REIT? I'm obviously not trying to put anyone in play. But it seems like there's -- would might be some interesting synergies both on a G&A basis and a portfolio basis if you're really looking to make a move into these markets. Curious, if you've thought about that. And if so, what might make sense and what might not make sense about it?
Tim Naughton:
Rich, this is Tim. Yes M&A is always a possibility. It's not our main strategy in terms of entering these markets. I mean I guess sort to step back we're not necessarily looking to -- as Kevin mentioned, we're looking to sort of pace our way into these markets. We're making these decisions because we see these markets as having great fundamentals over a long period of time. They have certain structural advantages. They're going to make them appealing markets over the next yes 20, 30, 40 years much like our legacy markets have been over the last 20, 30 years. So the need either through M&A or to do a highly disproportionate level of transaction activity in these markets is not what is driving us motivate and to also recognize we're learning as we get into these markets. And so, there is obviously a big risk to either do an M&A or a high level of volume in the first year or two as you start to gain market intelligence in the markets which you do have business. So very much a strategy as Kevin mentioned that we deployed -- employed at in Southeast Florida and Denver and how we look to deploy capital here as well.
Rich Hill:
Very fair. I appreciate that response. I wanted to maybe come back to this concept of base effect versus earnings power for the apartment REITs. Obvious -- from our perspective the recovery is happening sooner and faster than we were anticipating and I think we were pretty constructive over the past nine months or so. But I do -- I am curious as you speak to your tenants and you think about supply versus demand, it just strikes me that occupancy is at a really healthy level. There's a tremendous amount of demand coming back. And you mentioned that all of your markets I think except Northern California were sort of back to 2019 levels. How much do you think you can push rents in this market and -- or this sort of market? And are we facing a relatively elastic demand profile, just given a tremendous amount of demand that's coming from Gen Zs and Gen Ys relative to a limited supply of housing? How do you think about that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich this is Sean. I'll take a first shot at that and then anybody else could jump in. In terms of the kind of demand profile and how it plays out how long it could run that's a function of a lot of different variables that would take us quite a while to get through. But still on the demand side things have been quite robust as you noted. The trajectory of the recovery whether you look at asking rents you look at move-in values you look at occupancy all of them quite healthy even by historical standards in terms of coming out of a downturn, in terms of the speed of the recovery and the order of magnitude both have probably been a little bit surprising for everyone. When we look at where we're clearing the market today on rents we kind of put that slide in the deck. It shows where asking rents are relative to move-in values. In the near term I guess what I would say is that, demand has been quite healthy. We have not seen signs of weakening at this point whatsoever and have seen very healthy week-by-week growth in both those move-in values and asking rents. People have asked about the seasonal effect has demand been pulled forward etcetera, etcetera. We don't see signs of that yet. But what we do feel good about is that spread between move-in rents and asking rents being at 12% even if there's a little bit of seasonality that comes upon us in the fourth quarter or the variant creates some disruption and delays we're starting to see a little bit of that. There's still plenty of room in the short run to see move-in rents continue to grow and maintain the recovery. In the longer term, it's a broader question around just overall housing demand and supply which is a function of what happens with the job and income growth and various other factors associated with the demand side. And then on the supply side just overall housing production and multifamily housing production specifically. And at least on the supply side, our markets we feel pretty good about particularly for legacy markets the outlook for supply coming down over the next year or two potentially by a pretty decent amount. We'll be able to refresh our numbers by the end of this year. But we could be seeing a double-digit percentage decline across the footprint and supply as we move into 2022. It would certainly further kind of support healthy demand and rental rate growth as we move through 2022. So that's kind of the near-term and the kind of maybe medium-term outlook. And then yes, Tim or other may want to jump in in terms of the longer-term outlook.
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Well maybe just tag on to what Sean was saying. Yes, Sean mentioned the supply outlook. I do think there's a combination of maybe some onetime items that are fueling demand as well as maybe some structural things that have been accelerated obviously by the pandemic. I mean you do have unprecedented federal stimulus and excess savings that have been created during this downturn that maybe help propelling some household demand at the margin. A lot of it is being fueled by the 25 to 29 cohort. And then in addition, we believe we've had a housing shortage that's been building over the last decade. And you sort of couple that with the federal stimulus and maybe a broader de-densifying of our population where you may have had roommates now get that one household and now they're two households as people want to have their own unit. We think that's probably stimulating some demand. But the other thing I think that is -- maybe is structural is just the nature of this recovery is all people talked about as being K-shaped. And that's very much our view where our renters and sensors are really kind of on the upper part of that K and are really experiencing a V-shaped recovery. And I think from our perspective, it feels like a V-shaped recovery, a very steep recovery. There are parts of the population that obviously are being left behind and not participating as much just given that they're not -- they may not -- they maybe service-oriented jobs as opposed to technology or financial services or the types of industries we tend to over index too. So, I think that maybe more structural in nature and could help propel some household formation, particularly kind of within our target segments.
Rich Hill:
Thanks, guys. That’s helpful. I may have some follow-up questions offline, but I’ll jump back in the queue.
Operator:
Next, we'll hear from Rich Hightower of Evercore.
Rich Hightower:
Good afternoon, guys. Thanks for taking the questions here. I just want to go back to the movement into the four expansion markets mentioned on this earnings cycle. And maybe help us understand, obviously a lot of your peers have been in some of these markets for a long time, and so might have had a view on the different positive attributes, some of which I think were mentioned on this call. But maybe help us understand, what changed directly due to COVID in terms of your view of these markets if it's migration patterns and so forth versus what you sort of knew about these markets prior to COVID that's led to the decision to expand there?
Tim Naughton:
Yeah. Rich, I would say from my perspective, COVID's not really changing our view of the markets. These markets are really formed by how we think they're going to perform over the next 20 to 30 years. Obviously, some of these Sunbelt markets have benefited during COVID as you've seen some migration from some of our legacy markets. Those markets that maybe -- some of it maybe transitory, some of it maybe permanent, but that trend was already occurring at some level in terms of domestic migration. And what we saw in all of these markets, what we saw in Southeast Florida and Denver, there's only so many expansion markets you could take on at one time. Obviously, it's a pretty big deal for us to move into Southeast Florida and Denver three years ago or so and add those to our footprint. And we've seen some success there and that's -- has probably made us more confident about how we can enter in some of these other markets as well. So, I would say, probably if COVID hadn't happened, we might have entered these markets sooner in some ways. Obviously the events over the last 16 months have recentered our focus on a lot of other priorities. But given where we are right now, we felt like we're in a position to continue to grow and whether it's through looking at new segments, whether it's looking through mixed use as we've talked about in the past or potential broader geography we're looking at and willing to pursue all of those.
Rich Hightower:
Okay. That's helpful color, Tim. And then, I want to go back to a comment, I guess from the last earnings call where Matt, you helpfully broke down the development costs across hard costs, soft costs, labor, land and so forth. And I guess talking about lumber price inflation if so 90 days ago, and you actually explained that that's not really what people should be focused on. But labor expense could sort of drive the equation as we think about ultimate yield on development. And so, help us understand what movements are you seeing in labor costs in that context right now? And where do you expect that to be, let's say, over the next 12 to 24 months?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Sure Rich. We're certainly seeing -- it's definitely good to see the top ridiculous air come out of the lumber market a little bit. But you're right as we talked about really the last couple of quarters, hard cost inflation in general is driven primarily by labor and secondarily by kind of the commodities costs. And while lumber has come down, steel is up, dry wells up, some of the other things that we buy a lot of are up. And certainly there is pressure. It's hard for us. We don't have a direct line of sight into what our subcontractors are paying their workers. But we see it in the bids we're getting and we are buying a lot of activity right now. And what I would say is, what we're seeing is that the development starts that we started this quarter -- last quarter it was in the release that we're getting ready to start this quarter, probably our total capital costs are up 5% to 10% from where we thought those deals would have priced at the end of the year. So -- and that in turn has pushed our yields down a bit. I think our development yield on the $1.2 billion that we expect to start this year is about 5.7%. And a year ago or late last year, maybe that was closer to a 6%. So we have seen some downward pressure in yields. And again, obviously, as we talked about before cap rates are down that much more. So if anything the margins are just as strong and we're seeing on the transaction side that every month new records are being broken in terms of where assets are trading. So that's giving us and others confidence to continue building taking that 5% to 10% increase in our basis because the transaction market is giving it back to us and them some. And that's still on NOIs which are – we're starting to see and that's starting to work its way into our underwriting the rent lift that we were talking about. But I would say, our rental underwriting on development is still pretty conservative. So there's probably still a little bit of numerator lift to come there as well.
Rich Hightower:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Nick Yulico of Scotiabank.
Nick Yulico:
Hi, everyone. I guess a question on development. I was wondering in terms of the incremental development starts that you announced and even just thinking about how you're thinking about development going forward. How much is that going to be weighed towards suburban projects? I know that is a lot of the current pipeline. A little perspective there would be great?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I'm just looking at the list now. So of the – looks like one, two, three, we got 10 development starts planned this year and one of them is urban two of them are urban. One is kind of a residential urban neighborhood in Boston and Brighton. It's a relatively small wood frame deal and the deal we just started this quarter in Merrick Park which is in Miami, but really in Coral Gables not Downtown Miami. Those are the only two that are urban. So it's still predominantly 70%, 80% suburban. And as I look at what we're likely to start next year, it's more of the same. That's where we're finding the development economics are working better. And there's still more supply coming in urban submarkets relative to suburban submarkets. Again, when you look out maybe two, three, four, years from now that equation could well change and we're mindful of that as we look at the land market and where that might be in the future. But certainly over the next year or two the starts are going to continue to be the vast majority suburban.
Nick Yulico:
Okay. Great. And then just one other question is in terms of – we just look at let's say Metro New York for – Metro New York, New Jersey as your region for example and I know you don't give the development rights page anymore, but if you go back to last year that is where the bulk of your development rights are. And maybe you could just give us a feel for – because it is – it's over $2 billion that you listed as capital cost for that metro for those development rights the feel for suburban versus urban. And my other question was in terms of – in the supplemental you list the average rents right now for New York City and suburban and they're shockingly almost the same. And so I'm just wondering, if there's a concession impact there or something we should think about or have suburban rents really almost now gone to the point of New York City rents in your portfolio?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yeah. I mean, I can speak to the first part and Sean may want to speak to the second part a little bit. So as I mentioned, we're – today, we have about $3.1 billion in development rights. It looks like about 25% of that is Metro New York. So compared to when we used to have the schedule it has come down quite a bit or we've been adding more in other regions. And of that so maybe $800 million $900 million of it is in Metro New York. And of that at least two-thirds of it is in the suburbs. I think we have one urban development right on the coast in Jersey, but everything else is – a lot of that is Inland New Jersey, Long Island type of locations. In terms of the existing rents in the portfolio a very different kind of unit. I mean, our average unit size in the suburbs is – I don't know the number, but it's probably over 1,000 square feet. So the whole dollar rents may look the same but the rents per foot look pretty different. And frankly that's where we're seeing a lot of success. So we're trying to add more rental townhomes for example in New Jersey or empty nester-targeted product on Long Island. So the unit sizes and the target customers are quite different.
Sean Breslin:
And Nick just in terms of additional context as we look out over our development pipeline over the next couple of years, we took our overall starts for this year up to $1.2 billion. We think over the next couple of years in that $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion type of range is achievable plus the opportunity for additional development starts in our expansion markets as we get moving heavier in that direction.
Nick Yulico:
Appreciate it. Very helpful. Thanks.
Operator:
Brad Heffern of RBC.
Brad Heffern:
Yeah. Hey, everyone. On the expansion markets, can you talk about the path towards getting to that sort of 5% number that you called out? Because obviously Southeast Florida, I think maybe 1.5%, Denver is 1%. So is that like a 10-year process that's largely development at this point? Or sort of what's the time scale?
Matt Birenbaum:
Brad, it's Matt. So I think yeah, as you're talking about Southeast Florida and Denver, I think you're probably looking at our same-store portfolio. So our current weighting is kind of by total revenue or by investment or by units is actually a little higher than those numbers, but it's not. I'd say, we're roughly halfway there. We're maybe 2%, 2.5% where we're trying to get to 5% over some period of time. So it's a combination of all of that. I mean, clearly we can move the needle more quickly with acquisitions. And so we are looking to do that. And we will – as we did in Denver Florida and in many cases in those instances we're actually trading. So we're taking dispositions from our legacy markets and redeploying that capital there. Development takes longer. So, we're – ultimately, it's going to be all of the above. It's going to be acquisitions. It's going to be development. It's going to be funding other developers. Each of those three activities is on a little bit of a different timeframe which does give us a little bit of diversification in terms of kind of the timing and the relative trade. So we kind of like that. But we certainly are staffing up in these regions. We're looking at putting people on the ground. And as we make those commitments certainly, we're expecting to be able to move at a reasonable pace. But yeah, I mean, I wouldn't expect either -- any of them to get to 5% or more of our portfolio within two or three years. It's going to probably take longer than that.
Brad Heffern:
Yeah. Okay, got it. And then, maybe for Kevin, can you talk through the sort of federal relief funds? I know you mentioned in the prepared comments that, bad debt had been kind of consistent at 3% but then, there was that sequential 0.6% benefit on uncollectible lease revenue. So was that relief funds? And just any outlook on kind of what's in the guide for receipts on that.
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure Brad. Yes, it's Kevin and Sean may want to jump in here a little bit, so -- to talk about the relief programs. But just to give you a sense of what has happened so far and what is in our numbers. The current relief programs have been somewhat helpful so far, but only marginally or so. Overall, we received $5 million in rent relief payments of which approximately $4 million in rent relief payments was in the first half of the year including $2.5 million in the second quarter. For the back half of the year, we've assumed we received -- we'll receive $4 million. And that includes what we've received in July which is kind of around $1.5 million. And of that $4 million in the back half most of that will be in the third quarter. So that's how we're looking at it. Obviously, we've been involved in working with our residents and applying where we can on our own for much more but it obviously takes time. And it's a process that is inherently uncertain and for which there's not an awful lot of visibility about what we're going to receive and when. So we've been relatively modest in what we assume we will receive going forward from that opportunity.
Brad Heffern:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
John Pawlowski of Green Street
John Pawlowski:
Thanks. Just a few quick questions for me, curious on the development pipeline moving forward, how big will the Kanso product line, be as a proportion?
Matt Birenbaum:
I wish I knew John. Certainly, we like Kanso. We think that it's got a lot of potential. We don't have a lot of Kanso opportunities in our pipeline right now. Frankly, seeing how it performed helps us understand how to underwrite it, going forward. So -- and they probably will tend to be smaller deals. So one of the things we like about it actually is that it opens up some smaller sites where, it's pretty hard to make the numbers work on 100 unit or 150 unit Avalon when you think about the cost of the amenities and staffing and amortizing that over a relatively few apartments. So, it may -- hopefully, we're going to get a number of new Kanso opportunities into the pipeline. But because they're likely to be smaller, I would expect that it would be a relatively small percentage of the pipeline at least in the next year or two.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. And then, on the operations side the disclosure answers most of my questions. But Sean, could you help me understand kind of total fee income call it, full year 2019? And where we are today, given the divot? And then, when we can get back to kind of a normalized fee income absolute dollar run rate?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah. Good question, John. I want to give you some qualitative answers. And then, we can follow-up off-line with detail because there's a fair amount of details associated with that. But for the most part, I would say, at this point in time, we're back to a pretty high percentage of recurring fee income, across most of the footprint with a few exceptions like, in Washington state we can't charge for much of anything, as a result of some -- you may recall some changes in New York State. We had to change some fees from upfront to monthly, that's still working its way through the system. So it's not a simple answer. But I would say that for the most part we're back to sort of what we expected on a stabilized basis with a little bit yet to come. But I can follow-up off-line with a little more detail to help you kind of roadmap it.
John Pawlowski:
Okay, all right. Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah.
Operator:
Rich Anderson of SMBC
Rich Anderson:
Thanks. Good afternoon. So with regard to the kind of geographic pie chart and how it's changing, I know you made some comments that COVID really hasn't influenced some of the decisions you've made. But I am curious about kind of a reversion to the mean. It's easy to see that Sunbelt is the winner right now. But when you think long-term, are you equally enthusiastic about your legacy gateway markets as you are in these new markets that you're entering? Do they kind of -- they're all different but have maybe a similar level of upside to them, when you think maybe three, four, five years out?
Tim Naughton:
Hey, Rich. Tim and others might want to join. I think, the simple answer is, yes. We've -- and if it wasn't, we should be exiting those markets, right? But we're always -- and we have exited some markets. So it’s not something we're not going to -- we're not going to either reduce our exposure and turn our exposure to certain markets where we think there may be more risk or a little bit less upside or potentially exit a market. We're not prepared to do that today, but we are trying to be intellectually honest in terms of what we see as not the next four or five years of opportunity, but the next 20 or 30 years, as we look at both demand and supply drivers in the business and some of it -- some of the risks that are out there, whether it be regulatory or immigration related that might affect certain markets more than others. So -- and certainly supply. I mean the markets we're talking about are -- they are less supply constrained, as we know, but they are massive job generators at the same time, particularly in some of the businesses and parts of the economy we want to be exposed to. So I would say this is more about diversification and growth, than it is about not liking what we're seeing in our current markets today.
Rich Anderson:
Okay. Good. And then, second question, you mentioned the 3% bad debt. What are the assumptions that you have in the -- sort of, the various state and local headwinds, moratorium issues, about those, kind of, going away? Do you -- can you kind of peel off those that are affecting you the most? And what you think is going to happen in terms of time line?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich, this is Sean. It's a long answer to that one, based on the various -- moratoria and other things that are out there. What I'd say in characterizing is, that we're in the early stages of seeing the various eviction moratoria or rent caps, et cetera, et cetera, beginning to phase out. But we do think that process, for a number of different reasons, will be sort of a slow burn, if you want to call it that, over the next couple of quarters, as opposed to all of a sudden, it's kind of open game everywhere. And you're already starting to see that in terms of what's happened in various regions, whether it's Washington State, ended June 30, but there's a transitional period for 90 days. California extended through September. Local jurisdictions are prohibited from doing anything subsequent to that until March. Biden's requests obviously on the CDC side of what the government can do. So I think people are trying to find the right way to transition it. And therefore, I think, the impact of the bad debt kind of came back to normal levels, is probably a multi-quarter process to get there, as opposed to flipping a switch and it happens in one or two quarters, just based on the way things will bleed in across, not only at the state level, but at the local level as well.
Rich Anderson:
Okay, great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Austin Wurschmidt of KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks everyone. So, you guys had hit on one of my questions with respect to kind of future new starts. It sounds like up to $1.5 billion in the current footprint and maybe some upside from the expansion markets. But just curious, what's the latest thinking on how large you're willing to grow, the total size of the development pipeline today, as I know you've moved that threshold over the years just as a percent of EV. And so, how you're thinking about that, given the various risks and opportunities?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, Austin, it's Matt. I guess there's a number of ways to think about it. You can think about it in terms of the size of the development rights pipeline, which typically represents three years of future start activity. You can think about it in terms of the size of development underway. In terms of the latter, we are well below, kind of -- we've talked in the past about having a target range of 10% to 15% of development underway at any given point in time, as a percentage of our total enterprise value. I think we're at 5% or 6%, right now. So if we can find the opportunities, I think, from a balance sheet point of view [Indiscernible]. So, again, as Ben mentioned, we're feeling pretty good about it over the next couple of years at any rate. In terms of the development rights pipeline, if you think even if you took 10% of TEV underway, a TEV of whatever mid-$30-billion-ish, $35 billion maybe going to $40 billion that would be $3.5 billion underway at any given point in time. I would say you probably want to have a development rights pipeline of $6 billion or so -- and $6 million or even $7 million. So we're looking to grow it.
Ben Schall:
A couple of things I'd add to Matt's comments. One, obviously, depends on the opportunity set and we hit on our prepared remarks. We look at the -- our spread to where we're developing to market cap rates today and our ability to buy match funding and we think there are some pretty attractive development profits, right, that will drive activity. And then the other part, there's our own development, but then there's also our funding of other developers. And that's a method we've been using and are looking to use more fully in our expansion markets and partially from a time perspective, right, we're able to partner up with developers who have sites that are entitled and ready to go and lets us to get activation slightly sooner than if we were going and pursuing our own development right.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That's all very great color. You mentioned the match funding piece and the attractive spread versus dispositions. Clearly, we saw you use that this quarter with the new starts and level of dispos that you -- that occurred. So I'm just curious historically we have seen you use the forward ATM as well as a funding mechanism when you had kind of good light and sight on future development starts and wondering, given where the stock is and maybe some of the uncertainty that's out there today is that something that you'd look to use to lock in an attractive cost of capital today to fund maybe a potentially growing size of the overall pipeline?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey, Austin, it's Kevin. Yes I mean you asked an interesting question but it's -- unfortunately it's one that's inherently speculative. It sort of as you point out begins with uses. What do we intend to do? What's the return profile on that? And then it comes back to sources. And as you know this could potentially also be a long answer but we have three primary markets. We have unsecured debt. We have asset sales, which lately have been suburban asset sales. And common equity, which is what you're alluding to there. Today, right now, all three of those markets as Tim, alluded to in his opening remarks are attractive. And that's one of the main factors when you think about how we might gather our sources one factor is clearly, pricing. And right now all three are relatively attractive from the standpoint of funding accretive developments. Then you get into the debate about, which one is more attractive and you have a little bit of a debate there. My own view right now of things -- where things stand today is probably based on their own historical pricing metrics, I'd probably rank unsecured debt first, suburban asset sales second and then common equity third. But reason of mine can differ and circumstances matter particularly with regard to the assets you might sell and the usage you might put them to and where we are from a balance sheet point of view. Second factor is obviously, our capacity to increase leverage. And the good news is there -- with revenue and NOI growth growing and with modest leverage right now of 5.3 turns, we do have capacity to increase our leverage somewhat to support investment activity and so that allows us to tap that market if it makes sense. And the third factor is our capacity-absorbed capital gains before we had to make a special distribution. And we tend to like to lean into that capacity quite a bit lately to help buy assets in our expansion markets but also to fund development as we're doing here with that activity. So a lot of choices on the menu for us today. So I don't know that we need to decide anything right now in terms of our capital plan for, what's in front of us for the back half of the year. What we are planning to do and what I alluded to my remarks is tap the unsecured debt markets and the asset sale markets to fund, what's in front of us and sort of -- but if we get more uses beyond that which we have in front of us that's a little bit of how we think about it. And I'd say the good news is, having kind of attractive access to capital and the opportunity to deploy it accretively in development is just a wonderful situation to be in. It means we're kind of legging into a very strong part of the cycle, where we can enhance earnings growth through accretive investment activity. So -- and that's an important differentiator for AvalonBay.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That makes a lot of sense. Appreciate the thorough and thoughtful answer, Kevin.
Operator:
[indiscernible] Bank of America.
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes. Thanks everyone. Hope everyone’s doing well. I was just looking at your slide deck Page 10. I thought it was pretty interesting in the suburban verse urban kind of communities the move-in rate. Any thoughts on when maybe the urban communities would get above their 2019 levels? And maybe just what's built into guidance for the rest of this year on where those could get to?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Jeff this is Sean. Good question. It's a question I'm not sure that has a completely knowable answer but I can say the factors that would relate to it. I mean the urban environments in terms of, what's dragging at this point in time its places that you might expect. So places that are below the 2019 peak for moving values are like New York City, the district, a little bit in some of the urban submarkets within Northern Virginia and then the urban submarkets in Northern California. And I think all of those are a function of various stages of reopening that they're in. And as the major employers call people back to work what does that look like in terms of when it happens? Is it around Labor Day? Is it thereafter? Is it everyone? Or is it partial? What happens with the university campuses and their housing? And one of the things that we don't know for sure in every case is some of the universities these have been packing in pretty tight. And as Tim referred to, if there's some de-densifying that occurs that should help support local demand outside the university campuses in terms of their dorm housing. And various other factors like that really will influence, what happens in these urban environments and we should have a much better sense of that as we get beyond Labor Day, I would say. I think a number of us expect pretty good demand through Labor Day. What does that look like and how much does that boost asking rents and therefore, lagging behind that would be move-in values. Those would be the factors you'd want to think about in terms of where you get back to -- when you get back to sort of those peak levels of move-in rents. In terms of what's in guidance, we have factored in continued growth across the markets consistent with what we have been seeing. And right now urban has been lagging and we do expect it to continue to lag the suburban environments, but catch up over the next few months is the way I would describe it in sort of general terms.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. Super helpful. And then maybe just thinking about your strategy, obviously, kind of a weird lease-up period probably longer and more all at once than probably a lot of other leasing periods. How are you thinking about pushing rate into fall? And then is there anything you might have to adjust as far as your revenue management systems go as we get into next year, because I guess the timing of your leases is going to be changing just maybe they are more in August July than they would normally be?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, good question. A couple of different -- actually a couple of different questions in there. So first on the latter part around lease expirations, lease expirations don't -- the one piece that's different today based on the eviction moratoria and some of the rent increase caps that exist is just very little incentive for residents in some jurisdictions to actually go on to leases. So our month-to-month percentage is higher than it normally is. It's normally around 1%. It's about three times that right now around 3%. So in terms of lease expiration profile, we're not too concerned about that. And given lease breaks that occur month-to-month as we move through the year we're always resetting lease expirations as we offer new leases to make sure that stays in check. So that's just something we normally do all the time. As it relates to the first part of your question, which is more around seasonality. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we really haven't seen any seasonal softening this year that would typically occur. If you go back to normal times, rents rise pretty -- asking rents rise pretty materially from January through say mid-July, and then you start to see some seasonal adjustments and downward slope as you move through the back half of the year. We have not experienced that this year. And by all the metrics that we see in terms of lead volume, visit volume, et cetera, low availability we certainly don't see that in terms of the near-term outlook over the next 30 days or so. The question would be if you're thinking about what the risks are the delta variants and the impact on potential delays for reopening of certain companies and things like that might there be seasonality in Q4 that we're not seeing today that's a possibility. We do feel good about where we are positioned though, because again the spread between asking rents and move-in rents is about 12%. Even if those asking rents start to decelerate a little bit there's still a nice spread there to continue to grow move-in rents, even if asking rents do decelerate. So again we haven't seen that seasonal adjustment yet. But to the extent some macro factors impact it and we start to see it, we do have enough spread that we can continue to grow move-in rents.
Unidentified Analyst:
Great. Thanks for time.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah.
Operator:
Alexander Goldfarb of Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey, good afternoon. One, it is pretty amazing how the development have [ph] come back so quickly. So that's wonderful to see, just really eye-popping. But along those lines, you guys now have the Avalon brand, you have AVA, you have Eaves, and now Kanso or Kanso, apologies if I mispronounced. Just some sort of an economic return basis and a development cost basis, what's the range between the four brands? And I understand the Eaves is more of the older suburban stuff, but still as part of your offering. But how do we assess the economic returns of the four different brands?
Matt Birenbaum:
Alex, it's Matt. I guess, I can speak to it a little bit in terms of development economics and others may want to speak to it in terms of the existing asset base. But I mean so you're right, Eaves, we can't build Eaves profitably. Nobody has been able to figure that out in this industry. But -- so that brings growth [ph] in acquisition through Avalon is aging into it over time, which has happened in some cases. It's really not so much about one brand necessarily being more profitable or generating higher yield than another. It's about having more -- being able to serve more customer segments in a more tailored way, so that we're optimizing the opportunity on any given submarket. It's not necessarily that AVA is going to generate a higher yield than an Avalon. In fact in certain locations where AVA is more appropriate, it might draw -- it might be a better investment decision to program that community as an AVA or as a dual brand as we've done in some cases than if it were an Avalon and vice versa. So it's really -- and we think that by doing that, we're able to first do more business, because we can -- we have a broader product line to choose from, and second optimize any individual opportunity that comes along as opposed to having the same offering that we're going to force into multiple different submarkets and locations. Kanso, we did underwrite that and look at that. And our thinking there was that there is this great underserved market of folks that want a new apartment, but don't want -- don't value all the other things that are basically being over-served by an Avalon or even by an AVA. And no one in the market is really delivering to that customer segment. And our analysis would show that between hard cost savings from programming it more lightly and operating savings by operating it more lightly in a more self-service manner as well as for longer term CapEx savings that we can get to a rent point which is 10% to 15% below what an Avalon would be in that location and get a similar yield. So there are locations where you could do both, but -- and what we're finding there at least so far with the one we've done is the discount is less than that. It's more like 5%. So we're pretty excited about that. It's still early. We'll have to see how things play out kind of post-COVID to really see where that settles in. But that's the way I think about it.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. That's helpful. And then the second thing is just sort of along the development. Just given the demands of especially suburban, but also people wanting more space for living or maybe just more housing type. As you guys see new sites, is there more of an ability to either add townhouse or add -- I'm not suggesting you guys get into single family, but add more elements that make your apartments more sort of longer living for people where you can hit sort of a different demographic that's additive, but still within the whole site plan makes all the math work?
Matt Birenbaum :
Absolutely Alex. And I'd point you to our biggest start for the quarter, which is we just started Avalon Bothell Commons Phase 1. That's a deal in Bothell, which is a very high-end infill suburban community on the east side of the lake east of Seattle. That's a 20-acre site that ultimately we're going to program with two phases. And the first phase does have I think about 370 flats and about 100 rental towns. And that's a site where a couple of years ago we might have sold a piece of that site to a for-sale developer. And instead we decided we would do the lower-density component of the product ourselves as well. The average unit size there includes even in the flats we have more flats with dense than we would have built in the past so that there's more from places as well as the town. So I think the average unit size there is about 1,070 square feet as opposed to other communities we might be developing in that last cycle that might have averaged 850 or 900 square feet per home. So that's definitely a trend we're seeing in our portfolio.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll next hear from Alex Kalmus of Zelman & Associates.
Alex Kalmus:
Hi. Thank you for taking my question. A question based on the eviction moratoriums and sort of the bad debt side. How many units are -- is this mostly from sustained non-payers at this point that are causing the sort of sustained bad debt expense? Or is it a little more broad based? And then secondarily, if the eviction moratoriums are lifted, what could this do to sort of the occupancy levels if hypothetically they were unleashed at one time?
Matt Birenbaum :
Yes, Alex good questions. So on the first part of your question sustained non-payers, yes, that is for the most part the answer as it relates to the bad debt. On the second question kind of I would maybe refer back to what I mentioned earlier on the various kind of the eviction moratoria that's out there. Assuming nothing happens there is federal level, there is state level actions in place, there's local level actions in place. The timing of all of those and when they are lifted will likely be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the ability to get people out, based on the court system, how backed up it may be et cetera. As a result of those things, we believe the sort of bleed in process, as it relates to people leaving our communities either of their own choosing or through a legal process will take some time. And therefore, units coming back to the market, so to speak, is vacant units that have to be turned and then leased and occupied will probably be not just a one or two quarter process but potentially a few quarters to work our way through. Yes some people will leave early when they see sort of the light at the end of the tunnel and they need to do something. There will definitely be those people, who will hold out for the very last minute until they are really forced out and everything in between. So therefore, we do believe it will work its way through the system over a period of time. The market where it's probably most concentrated for us and many others is in Los Angeles. So that one could get a little bumpy depending on what happens in that specific jurisdiction but we still think there are residents who will choose different paths to their eventual outcome. And therefore, it may take again two or three quarters for it to work its way through the system. And based on conversations with many others I think people expect a fairly similar outcome.
Alex Kalmus:
Got it. Makes sense. And on the demographic side with the new tenants you have a 70 basis point bump in occupancy sequentially. Do they pretty much match the portfolios demographic base? Or are you seeing a little differences here and there depending on maybe market or the type of age or income levels?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Also a good question. I mean at the portfolio level; the changes have not been terribly material. If you look at the suburban portfolio as an example, incomes are pretty consistent with kind of pre-pandemic levels in 2019. Average age is basically the same. It went from high 35s to low 36 range, so not a meaningful difference. On the urban side at the portfolio level, incomes are down about 6% but average age actually went up. I mean it kind of makes sense, if you think about it because move-in values are basically back at 2019 levels, while the urban movements are still 7% to 8% below 2019. So rent-to-income ratios have remained relatively constant and we've seen incomes come up as rents have come back. So it all kind of lines up. There are some nuances by region. Incomes are up a little bit more and age as well in some of the suburban New York markets. But at the portfolio level, modest changes relative to kind of pre-pandemic 2019 levels.
Alex Kalmus:
Got it. Thank you very much for the color.
Operator:
And that does conclude the question-and-answer session for today. At this time I'll turn the call back over to Tim, for any additional or closing comments.
Tim Naughton:
Thank you, April. I know it's been a long call and thank you all for being on today and just hope you enjoy the rest of your summer and stay well. Thank you.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. . Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Timothy Naughton:
Okay, great. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. With me today are Ben Schall, Kevin O'Shea, Matt Birenbaum and Sean Breslin. Ben, Sean and I will provide comments on the slides that we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. For our prepared comments today, I'll start by providing an overview of Q1 results. Sean will elaborate on operating trends in the portfolio. Our fundamentals have improved materially since beginning of the year, and we'll also review our Q2 outlook. And then Ben will provide some thoughts as to why we believe we are positioned for outsized growth as the recovery and expansion take hold. Now let's turn to results for the quarter, starting on Slide 4. In terms of operating results, it was another tough quarter. Core FFO growth was down by over 18% in Q1. Same-store revenue declined by 9.1% on a year-over-year basis. Given the timing of the pandemic, which began towards the end of Q1 '20, this past quarter will be the toughest year-over-year comp we'll face this year. On a sequential basis, the decline in same-store revenue leveled off at 1.5% from Q4, which compares to a sequential decline of 1.6% in Q4 of '20. And Sean will touch more on the sequential trends in his comments. And then lastly, we completed almost $600 million of development in Q1 at a projected initial yield of 5.6%, well above prevailing cap rates we're seeing in the transaction markets, where cap rates are drifting down to or below 4%. Given the improvement we've seen in fundamentals, we're ramping up the development pipeline and expect to start $650 million this quarter in Q2, with much of that to be match funded with expected dispositions of approximately $500 million in the second quarter.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Moving to Slide 9. We've seen an acceleration in the trends we spoke about on our last call with physical occupancy continuing to increase during the quarter, now approaching 96%, and average move-in rent value growing steadily over the last 4 months. For April, our month-to-date average move-in rent is roughly 5% above what we experienced in January of this year and approximately 8% below the pre-COVID peak rent we achieved in March of 2020.
Benjamin Schall:
Thank you, Sean. Supported by this backdrop of improving operating fundamentals, we believe that we are well positioned to generate outsized growth as the economy recharges. As we look to the composition of our existing portfolio, each of the subsegments highlighted on Slide 15 have been impacted in varying degrees during the pandemic, and each have their distinct growth opportunities as we look forward. Our largest segment at 40% of revenue is in what we've called out as other suburban to differentiate it from more densely populated job center suburban markets. This 40% of our portfolio was the least impacted by the pandemic, and our current asking -- our current average asking rent is 6% above the pre-pandemic peak rent we achieved in March of last year. We continue to push asking rents in these submarkets, and concessions have largely been eliminated. Our next largest segment at 28% of the portfolio represents communities and job center suburban markets, including our transit-oriented development. This is like Redmond, Washington; Tysons Corner in Virginia; and Assembly Row in Massachusetts. Operating fundamentals in many of these suburban locations have been more significantly impacted with asking rents still 3% to 4% below pre-pandemic levels and with the continued use of concessions in certain markets. Our expectation is that as people increasingly return to the office and nearby restaurants and as other amenities start to reopen more fully, we will increasingly see prospects that seek out these environments for walkability, ease of transportation and the array of services provided. For our communities and urban environments, we have a mix of core urban, effectively central business districts, and secondary urban, locations like Jersey City, New Jersey; and the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in Northern Virginia, which make up 19% and 13% of our portfolio, respectively. As Sean noted, occupancy in our urban portfolio has climbed more than 500 basis points, and rents are trending upward in pretty much all of the urban environments. And this has occurred with urban office usage still at very low levels of less than 20%. As a return to offices starts to gain real momentum this summer and leading up to Labor Day, we do expect a significant rebound in our urban portfolio as in prior cycles. This is a theme that we expect to be true across much of our portfolio. And as shown on Chart 1 of Slide 16, Class A communities, which represent approximately 70% of our portfolio, have historically outperformed early in cycles. We expect similar trends in this recovery, particularly as the traditional higher-income AVB resident is poised to benefit financially as the economy heats up. And while our residents stand to benefit from the recovery, it is also becoming more challenging for those interested in buying a home to afford one, given the acceleration in home prices in many of our coastal markets. Chart 2 on Slide 16 shows this long-term affordability trend and the growing attractiveness of renting versus owning a home in our markets.
Timothy Naughton:
Great. Thanks, Ben. And just turning to the last slide and to summarize some key points for the quarter, Slide 20. Q1 was a challenging quarter in terms of results. But as I mentioned before, it is expected to be the toughest year-over-year revenue comp we see this year. In addition, the recovery in fundamentals is taking hold in our markets as Sean discussed. And many suburban submarkets are now at or above pre-COVID levels, while the early improvement we're seeing in urban submarkets should gain strength midyear and into the fall as workers return back to the office. And lastly, as Ben mentioned in his remarks, we believe we are very well positioned over the next few years due to a number of factors, including our coastal market footprint, a portfolio that is heavily concentrated in urban and job center urban -- job center infill urban -- infill suburban markets, excuse me, the rising cost of homeownership, healthy performance and a ramp in our development pipeline, margin improvement in our stabilized portfolio due to innovation in the operating model and then lastly, a leadership position in ESG, where the investment we've made over the last several years is paying off in terms of OpEx savings and stakeholder engagement. So with that, operator, Anna, we'd be happy to open the call for questions.
Operator:
. And we'll now take a question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Maybe just starting off with guidance. I was wondering if you can talk through the decision to not issue full year guidance at this point. Just given that we already have 1Q results and the operating trends that you've walked through, what held back that decision to institute 2021 guidance?
Kevin O'Shea:
Nick, this is Kevin. Yes. I mean as we've indicated before, providing quarterly guidance, which is what we've done this week -- this quarter, is consistent with how we have been managing the business as we move through a pretty dynamic environment and in an uncertain period of time. But given the stability and the growth that we're seeing in April and as we head into May, as Sean pointed out, we do expect to be able to provide guidance for the balance of the year in connection with our second quarter call after we've had a chance to complete our customary midyear reforecast, which is a lot more fulsome than the Q1 reforecast process that we do for this call.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's helpful. And then for the $650 million of starts this quarter, what's the expected initial yield on those? And then is that on in-place rents or trended rents?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Nick, it's Matt. Yes, those deals, the yield is kind of very consistent with where our current development under way is. It's kind of high 5s, and that's pretty much in every case. When we quote yields, we're quoting based on today's rents, today's cost. We don't trend it. So -- and in fact, on our development attachment, we don't mark those rents to current market until we get at least about 20% leased. So that's why we see most of the rents in the attachment are still what we were carrying when we started the job. So my guess is, given where we are today and given the ones we haven't started at today's market, there's probably a pretty good chance that we'll exceed the underwriting on those by the time they stabilize.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Hightower:
I think Nick took two of my questions, so let me fire a different one at you. But just to follow up on the development question. We could -- we probably said the same thing for the last 5 or 10 years, but market cap rates can't go any lower than they are. And so if -- tell us how you think about the possibility of market cap rates expanding from here and perhaps that yield differential narrowing as you think about that high 5s development yield target? How much cushion do you sort of bake into the way you think about that?
Timothy Naughton:
Rich, Tim here. I mean as Kevin has mentioned plenty of times in the past, I mean, we -- it is something we take into consideration. It informs how we think about match funding the development book. And I think we showed this quarter, it's largely matched funded, and we expect as -- if there -- if we believe that there's capital market risk, that we're going to be closer to 100% match-funded, which means, essentially, at the time we start construction is making the big capital commitment, the permanent capital has already been raised either in the form of equity, debt or dispositions.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. That's fine. And then just on the expense guidance, I know that we are lapping a tough comp in 2Q, and there's a little bit of detail in the slide deck on this. But maybe just break down some of the categories where you expect the biggest year-over-year growth in expenses.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich, this is Sean. I mean, I hate to say it, but it's pretty broad-based. I mean, if you think about what happened in Q2 last year, things really shut down. So turnover decline, we draw back to strictly essential maintenance only for our resident customers. We pulled back on marketing, given sort of the demand shock. We had talked to the hiring freeze. So if you think about all the various sort of maintenance activities, payroll, et cetera, we're expecting all of those to look more normal as compared to the depressed levels that we experienced in Q2 of 2020. So it's relatively broad-based. Most of it is on the sort of what I would call the controllable side of things, and it's a more modest increase in taxes and insurance. But all the activity kind of base costs and payroll really are coming up pretty materially on a year-over-year basis.
Operator:
We'll now take a question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
I want to spend maybe a little bit more time talking about your suburban versus urban portfolio. We're right there with you on the urban portfolio and the inflections that we're seeing, and we think they're very real. But as you think about the urban portfolio, you and your peers have noted that rents are above, in many cases, pre-COVID levels. How are we supposed to think about those suburban markets going forward? Is there any chance that they begin to normalize, while urban markets are inflecting? Or do you think that there's more than sufficient demand coming from a younger generation that can support that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich, Sean. I'm happy to start and anyone else can jump in. I think you said that rents in our urban portfolio are above the pre-COVID peak. That's actually not the case.
Richard Hill:
Yes, I maybe misheard. Yes.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. In other words, asking rents in the urban portfolio down about 8% from the pre-COVID peak. But in the suburban portfolio, we're up a little more than 2%. And I'd say, certainly, we'll see a snapback, and we've already started to see that in the urban submarkets. But the suburbs are pretty healthy. I mean if you keep in mind the slide that Ben showed, there's still a number of these sort of job center suburban submarkets that have probably another leg to come because people have not been called back to the office. If you think of just sort of maybe even the kind of the headline FANG stock, as an example, they -- people have gotten called back to Google and Facebook and Apple and Amazon and Microsoft over at Redmond. So there's some pretty good embedded demand that should be coming back to those environments that should support the suburban portfolio. And then additionally, also as Ben pointed out, if you look at sort of the single-family side, it's a very tight market. Prices, if you go look at kind of home price inflation on a year-over-year basis, it's up kind of double digits. So the ability to exit into that product is more constrained. It's just not as available. So I think there's a number of factors when you look at the suburban portfolio that give it a fairly high tailwind. You may not see the same sort of percentage gain over the next couple of quarters as people come back to these urban environments just because it's so concentrated, but there's still some very good sort of demand tailwinds in the suburban -- for the suburban portfolio over the next quarter -- couple of quarters as well. So Tim, do you want to add on to that?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Yes, Richard, I think the other aspect to your question is just the notion that we would expect as the economy reopens and these urban markets reopen, we're going to just see convergence in performance. So there's going to be some normalization. I think Sean is right. It doesn't mean we're going to see suburban rents fall while urban rents rise because there's some -- there's still some pretty compelling supply-demand dynamics going on in the suburbs. But as I mentioned on the last call, I do think as you sort of think out, you look out over the next few years, supply, I think, in the urban markets is frankly to be quite a bit lower than what we see in the suburbs. And in some ways, you may see the relationship between urban and suburban flip this coming cycle relative to what we saw in the last cycle where urban demand was stronger, but urban demand -- urban supply have more than offset that. So the suburbs actually outperformed. You get out 3 or 4 years from now, so I think I mentioned this in the last call, 2024, '25, I would not be surprised if you see urban more than -- urban outperforming the suburban markets. When you look long term at our markets, that's one of the reasons why we've been somewhat agnostic, and we want to have a diversified portfolio. Really, the winners and losers are really kind of at the MSA level, and the performance tends to normalize over time between the urban, suburban markets. It's a dynamic market both on the demand and the supply side. But I think we are at a moment in time, obviously, right now, where urban is massively underperforming suburban. But we think we're kind of on the precipice where those lines are going to start to converge.
Richard Hill:
Yes. And the reason I focus on it is I look at your weekly asking rent chart that looks like we're back to -- pretty close to back to pre-COVID levels. But it just strikes me, given this dynamic that you're talking about, if you're looking at that one singular chart and suburban is above COVID and we're inflecting on urban, isn't there a really good chance that asking rents could completely overshoot on a weighted average basis as this recovery continues?
Timothy Naughton:
No. Absolutely. You think about the reopening combined with the amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus being injected in the economy, I think we could see it really much closer to a V-shape recovery than I think any of us were thinking about 3, 6 months ago. I think maybe with -- inside of a K-shape recovery because it's going to be an uneven -- I think it's likely to be an uneven recovery, still favoring the educated and knowledge-based jobs. But that one slide that Ben showed that actually broke down the portfolio into the 4 buckets is pretty telling, right? I mean you had the other suburban at 6% asking rent growth and the job center suburban a little over -- down about 3%, secondary urban down 6% and core urban down 8%. That's -- those are pretty big disparities from just a year ago, right, that, yes, as the economy reopens, we would just expect things to start leveling off a bit.
Operator:
Our next question will come from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
You've been a very consistent seller of assets at attractive returns and economic gains over the last -- throughout your history. But right now, with cap rates compressing and 1031 on the table for potentially being repealed, do you think about expediting sales at all?
Timothy Naughton:
So John, your question is because 1031 may come off the table, I mean it's -- we've used 1031s, but we haven't had to use them extensively. We typically have a couple hundred million -- $200 million, $300 million sort of gains capacity in a typical year that we can absorb on the sales side. So really -- it's really a function of how much portfolio recycling we really need to do. We've been pretty aggressive about it over the last few years. And we've used the 1031s on a limited basis to help kind of manage the tax impact. But for the most part, we basically have just absorbed the gains capacity that we have embedded in our earnings.
John Kim:
So it's not just the 1031 but just the cap rates compressing so much, and is this a better time today to sell assets that are maybe a little bit older in your portfolio than it would be the last few years?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. No, I think that's a fair point. It's something we debate when we look at asset sales, we look at equity, we look at debt. Debt is still the most compelling source of capital today for us. But asset sales are creeping closer for sure just in terms of what we're seeing, the additional compression in cap rates and asset values. And a lot of the submarkets, particularly the suburban submarkets, are actually up from pre-COVID level. So it's a fair point. It does inform some of our capital allocation decisions at the margin, for sure.
John Kim:
Okay. And then you've had notably stronger rental growth in April in Southeast Florida and Denver. Do you see that outperformance continuing for the rest of the year? And also, how important is it for you to either expedite your exposure in those markets or potentially enter new markets, given this validated your strategy to enter them?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. John, this is Sean. I'll take the first one, and then I'll let Tim talk about sort of the expansion market strategy a bit. But the first one, one thing to recognize is that at present, those 2 expansion markets represent a very small basket of assets. So noise from one asset to another can create some volatility here. So the kind of growth that we've seen on a year-over-year basis in Q1, I would not expect that to be same level moving forward for the balance of the year. There's just some unique factors with 1 or 2 of those assets. And when you only have 3 or 4 in the basket, it can move the needle quite a bit within 1 quarter. So I wouldn't count on that as sort of the run rate for the balance of the year.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. John, this is Matt. I guess to the second question about kind of what our appetite is, I mean we said we are looking to grow both of those markets to be roughly at least 5% of our portfolio. And so I think right now, including nonsame-store, they're probably about 2% each. So we still have a ways to go. We do have starts planned in both of those regions in the next quarter or 2. So we are continuing to move forward with development there. We have additional pipeline starts that are probably '22 starts in each of those regions, and we're out looking for more. And we're actively pursuing acquisitions in both of those markets as well. And we'll continue to do what we've done in the past, which is we find acquisitions, rotate capital out of some of our legacy markets to fund that. As it relates to other markets beyond those, I mean, I think we've said before that we are looking at other markets. We don't have anything to announce at this time. But we are looking for markets that are going to be over-indexed to the knowledge economy and over-indexed to kind of the higher-income jobs, the higher education jobs, which we think will drive outsized performance for our portfolio. And we do think Denver and Florida are 2 of those markets, and there are others as well that probably fit that description over time.
Operator:
Your next question will be from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
So I heard you sort of adjusting maybe at the margin some of the product that you're planning to deliver. You mentioned townhomes and direct-entry-type product. And I'm curious if a hybrid office environment is sort of the first landing point for the office business, is that actually a good thing for multifamily in your property, in particular? Because they need to be close to the office, but they're also going to spend more time at home, so more attention spent on having usable space where they live, too. Do you kind of see hybrid office is a good thing for your business?
Timothy Naughton:
Rich, I think, as I mentioned before, kind of agnostic between urban and suburban and that we're generally looking at where we think there's -- we're going to tilt towards where we think there's more -- there's better value. And I think it argues that there's just -- that suburban household formation should be a little stronger this cycle than last cycle as people don't have to commute as many days. And it just ought to spread the workforce out within an MSA and maybe across broader geography as well as people -- there'll be some folks who could be able to telecommute 100% of the time. But for those that are more in a hybrid situation, absolutely. We think there's going to be some people at the margin that are going to be willing to live 10, 15 miles further out than they otherwise would because they only have to be in the office 2 or 3 days a week versus 5 days a week. And we're in a position to capture them in either case. So...
Richard Anderson:
Right, right. And the second question is, any other sort of post-pandemic changes that you're seeing in terms of how the business -- the cadence of the business? Is there any silver lines such as perhaps more likelihood to live alone, that kind of thing? Are you seeing anything like that? Or is it just too soon to tell at this point?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, it's Sean. I'd say it's probably a little too early to tell. I think when we get up to the sort of other side of the pandemic, things stabilize, we'll have a better sense of has resident profile really changed in terms of suburban or urban assets. And as we continue to communicate with our residents, maybe kind of touching on the last question that you had, that may inform our product choices in some of those suburban markets in terms of some of the larger floor plans, what we provide in the way of workspace or work lounges in the building and program in more townhomes in some cases or things like that. It's probably just a little too early to peg that just yet.
Operator:
We will now take a question from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Matt, curious if you can give us some sense of the compression in development yields, not on starts that you're about -- or projects you're about to start, but if these construction cost pressures prove more persistent a year from now, what kind of development yield compression will we be looking at?
Matthew Birenbaum:
I wish I knew, John. I do think that cost pressures are definitely rising. But on the other hand, there's also the numerator, right? And we're underwriting deals still with rents that are, for the most part, less than maybe they were in the prior peak because a lot of our suburban development is job center suburban. Maybe in some of the other suburban category from Ben's slide, maybe some of that rents are higher than the prior peak in terms of what we're underwriting. So I do think there's still some list to come on the numerator. And I guess what I would say is on the denominator, what we've seen so far, the deals that we're lining up now in many cases, our total capital cost for those deals isn't any higher than it was a year ago. Maybe it's higher than it was 6 months ago as lumber has come up some, but there were some other trades costs which came down a little bit. Soft costs may have softened a bit. So certainly, there's going to be some cost pressures going forward. And we're mindful of that. If anything, the margin right now is wider than it was on deals we started a year or 2 ago just because of what's happened to asset values and cap rates on the other side. So there's probably a little bit of room there.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. John, I guess I'd say, I think the market, if I had a guess, would be betting on NOIs outpacing total development costs over the next 12 months. There's clearly some inflation pressures because of supply chain issues, I think, as your question implies, and a real question in how transitory versus sort of permanent those cost pressures will be. But there's some pretty good pressures building on the rent side, too. And so I think that's -- I know you all have written a lot about the supply side and sort of stay in sort of stubbornly in that 350,000 to 400,000 range. I expect it's going to continue because I think as people are looking at economics, and the people that do trends, things are probably looking better today than they were maybe even a year ago.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. That makes sense. Understood. Last one for me. Sean, in markets where you've had to pull the concession lever harder, as we anniversary the vintage and leases signed with concession, do you expect occupancy to decline in the next few months due to just lower retention?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, good question, John. I mean, I think it speaks to sort of the, I guess, you want to call it sort of the durability of the customers that have allowed us to build occupancy. I mean we'll see. The -- I mean if you look at sort of our portfolio income levels for our residents are down about 6% on a year-over-year basis. So there's -- based on what we've seen, I'd say there's some embedded capacity there to pay. Whether people want to pay or not will be a question that we'll have to come across here. So I mean, in Q1, we started to see pretty good lift. Turnover was up but not for really financial reasons, just for other reasons in terms of people wanting to move for whether it's roommate situations or all the other sort of typical stuff. So it doesn't seem to be, based on what we're realizing from our customers today, much in the way of financial pressure. As we move through the second and third quarter, particularly in the urban environments, we'll have a much better sense for that. So could there be a little bit of pressure there? Yes. I mean the other thing that I think we're going to see is right now, Tim talked about the bad debt kind of lapping the bad debt side of it. At some point, as we get it on the other side of the eviction moratoria, some of that bad debt is going to convert to just physical vacancy. So you'll see a little bit of that start to trickle in, in the back half of the year, just depending on what happens in the overall regulatory environment. So maybe a little noisy in terms of physical occupancy as it relates to that one issue alone in a couple of markets, particularly places like L.A., as an example.
Operator:
We'll now take a question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Just a question on development, given the positive outlook that you have in your markets and some of the benefits you spoke to from the stimulus entering the system, how are you guys thinking about just sizing up the development pipeline overall in the next couple of years?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I can start, and maybe Ben or Matt wants to jump in. As Ben had mentioned, we are kind of up in our outlook here of -- to over $1 billion this year. And as we've talked about sort of years past, middle of last cycle, development pipeline was probably about $1.4 billion, $1.5 billion in terms of kind of how it was scaled. And we kind of rescaled it as we got into later part of the cycle in a downturn to something that's more in the $800 million to $900 million range. We think we can flex that up pretty easily to $1.2 billion without too much trouble and probably to $1.5 billion. So I think kind of -- those are the kind of ranges we're looking at right now, absent potentially entering some new markets and expanding the footprint.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Got it. And then as far as some of the initiatives you guys outlined, the $10 million from some of the things you've already deployed on the technology side and then you outlined another $25 million to $30 million, what's the total investment that goes into generating that incremental NOI?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Austin, good question. So the way I'd lay it out for you is that the technology initiatives around the digital platform, the AI that Ben described and things like that, that will be roughly around $30 million. And then beyond that, the smart access and smart home component is the piece that's up in air. It's a little bit of a TBD based on customer adoption, what they're willing to pay, what features they want. Is it just the smart access component for guests? Or is it more along the lines of thermostat control, lighting, various sort of things. So that's a little bit of a TBD on the investment. But the foundational elements to have the infrastructure, the digital platforms and all that is around $30 million.
Operator:
Our next question will be from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.
Bradley Heffern:
Just circling back to the development question. I'm curious, last cycle and typically at the beginning of a cycle, you've seen a big trough in supply. And that's part of the reason that you ramp development at the beginning of the cycle. Certainly, we haven't seen as much of that this time around. So I'm curious, does that moderate your expectations as to how big the program could go versus how large it got in kind of 2013, '14, '15, that time frame?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. It became awfully profitable, right, last cycle, particularly for the first 3 years. It's -- we're developing a value creation margins that we hadn't seen really before, probably in the 40%, 45% range in some cases. So I think the range I talked about is right, the kind of the $1 billion to $1.5 billion range. It's probably a little less as it relates to enterprise value to maybe what you're driving at. But no, I think it's about $1 billion, $1.5 billion seems about right just in terms of the opportunity set within our markets and kind of where the platform has scaled and what the balance sheet can kind of handle without sort of over-relying on the equity markets being continuously open.
Bradley Heffern:
Okay. Got it. And then you touched on bad debt a little bit, but I was just curious, it's hung out in the 3% range for several quarters now. Has there been any movement on that in April? And have you seen any impact from the federal funds at this point?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Brad. This is Sean. Happy to chat about that, and then Kevin could jump in if he'd like. But yes, I mean, I think, for us, we're not expecting a meaningful shift in bad debt until we get beyond kind of the moratoria that's in place today, which is likely in the second half of the year. There's a number of orders that are right now set to expire in June, I think June 30. Some may be extended. Some may not. It's a little too early to tell. So we're not seeing a lot of movement right now sort of month-to-month in terms of a significant shift one way or another in bad debt. I suspect as customers see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the eviction option becoming available to us, we're going to see some greater movement. And then on the stimulus side, yes, we're heavily involved in that. In some places, we can apply sort of in bulk on behalf of our customers. In other locations, we prompt them with e-mails where they have to sign up, and then we ultimately receive the fund. So we receive some funds, but I would tell you, it's been very slow and it's been sort of trickling as opposed to a big avalanche of funds So I just don't think the agencies that are within these states and counties are set up to administer the funds. They just weren't set up for that. And therefore, it's taken quite a bit of time for them to figure out how to develop a process to make it work at resident certifications, how do we get the funds to the landlord, to validate it's the right owner, all that kind of stuff. It's just been painfully slow.
Operator:
We'll now take a question from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Just going back to the development, I saw that you guys -- the yields on the stuff that you have in the pipeline now are only 20 basis points lower. But just help me walk through. I mean 2x4 lumber, I mean anything mechanical, anything involving construction or -- is just through the roof. I mean double-digit increases, substantial increases. Rents haven't kept pace. I understand the wider margin given the cap rate compression. So just help me understand why development yields really seem unaffected, given that rents are softer, construction costs are through the roof, labor is still a challenge. What's the offset? Just help me understand.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Alex, it's Matt. So on the stuff that's currently under way, that's all bought out. So that part is...
Alexander Goldfarb:
That part, I get. That part, I get.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. In some cases, there are actually savings there because there was some sense that there was pretty strong momentum in construction cost inflation in many of our markets pre-pandemic. So a lot of it has to do with what Tim was saying, is it going to be kind of transitory based on supply chain bottlenecks or not. But I think there's a little bit of an underappreciation about how our cost breakdown actually works. I mean if you think of a typical development deal and you say, for every dollar that's in a total development budget, $0.15 to $0.20 is land. So that -- and everything that's in our pipeline, for the most part, is land that we contracted before the pandemic. In some cases, there was an opportunity to recut some of those land deals in some situations based on the slowdown we saw last year. Then you probably have anywhere from $0.15 to $0.20 that is soft cost, whether that's architectural engineering fees, permits, capitalized interest, which has come down. So there's a little bit of an offset there. And then you have maybe $0.60 to $0.65 that's the actual hard cost. And then when you drill down on that piece, probably 2/3 of that is labor, and 1/3 of that is materials. And actually, even on the materials, when you peel it back further, a lot of those materials, it's not an appliance that you're buying. It's a roof truss, which is lumber, but it's also labor to put the roof truss together. So probably the key is the pressure on labor cost. That's what would really move the equation more. I mean we can see lumbers double, then it probably increases the total capital budget of a job by 3%, for example, 2% or 3%, which is something. But probably, that's the thing I would keep an eye on would be labor cost because if that starts to really move, that would start to .
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. And Alex, maybe explaining this real quick. I think in reality, we underwrite on a current basis, as Matt mentioned before, current cost, current rents, current OpEx. I think in reality, the yields have deteriorated a little bit. So the deals that Matt talked about were going to start in the high 5s. When we first put those in a contract, went through due diligence, they're probably low 6s in reality. So if you think about it over the last 2 years, rents, maybe they're flattish overall, particularly in the suburban markets, given that's where the focus of the development pipeline is. And costs are up, the denominator is up a little bit. And so I think you probably have seen some deterioration of -- I don't know where to bracket, but somewhere between 25 and 50 basis points of yield erosion. But you've seen cap rate compression that more or less offset that.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. That's helpful. And then the second question, as you guys think about the new markets that you want to enter, there's obviously a cost and efficiency, critical mass, get a platform. How do you guys weigh straight-up acquisitions? I'm not saying that you guys go out and sort of bulk purchase a bunch of communities. But how do you weigh pushing on just buying some existing deals even if the yields are a little skinnier than you'd want versus using your development partnership with like local landowners to get better yields, but understanding that it's going to take a longer time to establish that critical mass as you enter new markets. How do you balance those two?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Alex, this is Matt. I mean, basically, what we've been taking the approach is all of the above. So we're looking to buy existing assets. What we found in the expansion market so far has been it's been an opportunity to buy, in general, brand-new or very young assets and not necessarily pay a premium on a cap rate basis versus older assets. So that's where we've tended to buy so far just because of relative value. But ultimately, we'd like to own some older communities in those regions as well just for price point diversification. So we're looking to buy. We're looking to build. And we're also looking to capitalize third-party developers, which we've done successfully. In fact, the deal we just completed last quarter in Doral in the Miami area was a partnership with a local merchant builder there, where we funded it. And we work together on the deal. So that's kind of an expansion of our model a bit that we've -- I think we're leaning on in these expansion markets. So that gives us another way we can get capital into these markets and grow our portfolio more quickly. So I don't think we view it as an either/or. We view it as an all of the above.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. And Alex, the only other thing I would add to that, it also gives us an opportunity to allocate capital over a period of time because they don't -- they're not all on the same time horizon, right? So you buy assets today, if you're funding a third-party developer that may be capital that goes out over the next 1 to 3 years. If you're developing for your own account where you're having to go through the entitlement process yourself, that's maybe more of a 3- to 5-year time horizon. So it allows us to diversify across time as well as sort of buy product in a market.
Operator:
And we'll now take our next question from Alua Askarbek with Bank of America.
Alua Askarbek:
I'll just be really quick. I want to ask a little bit more about Park Loggia. So it seems like you guys had some good traction on the commercial leasing this quarter. Can you tell us who the tenants are and what box sizes are left that you guys have to lease? And then I think a while ago, you guys mentioned that it would be about $10 million in NOI annually once it's stabilized. Are you still on track for that?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I -- just to give you an update on the retail, as we mentioned in the earnings release, we did lease the remainder of the second space -- second-floor space last quarter. So we're now about 87% leased on the retail, and these are about 8,500 square feet remaining on the ground floor with Broadway bunch. And our sense is for that remaining space, we're going to be patient to find -- wait for kind of activity to restart in New York, which hopefully, we'll start to see pick up in a more meaningful way in the next couple of quarters. That is high dollar space. But the second-floor space that we leased was leased to a medical user. So on the second floor, we have them. We have Fidelity, which is open and operating with a financial services office. And on the ground floor, we have spectrum for a small portion of the ground floor. We have Target with their entrance, and then they have below-grade space there. And then we have kind of the remaining available space on the ground floor. So we'll see where it settles out in terms of long term, does it generate the amount of NOI that we had talked about before. Obviously, street retail in New York is softer than it was, but a lot of it is going to depend on what we wind up getting for that remaining ground floor space.
Operator:
. We'll now take a question from Brent Dilts with UBS.
Brent Dilts:
Given the return to office is expected to extend through the fall, how do you think that might impact the usual seasonal leasing trends as this year plays out?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Brent, it's Sean. Good question. Not sure we know the answer just yet in terms of how it's going to play out other than I would say, based on the data that we're seeing from prospects and new leases in certain markets, we are seeing some people come back to some of these urban environments from more distant locations than normal. So like in New York City in the past quarter, when you look at the distribution of the leases that we signed and where they came from, more people from locations that are, let's just say, greater than 50 miles away. So we're starting to see some percentage come back. How it plays out, it's hard to tell. Obviously, as companies further announce what's happening with their return-to-office dates and the trend for universities in terms of on-campus learning in the fall has been pretty positive so far, I think, for our business, where most universities are planning for full on-campus learning, which should be a benefit to these major urban markets for their universities. And even if we -- as Ben pointed out, office occupancy is less than 20%. So it doesn't take a lot to start to move the needle. Even if we get to 50%, 60%, 70% of what it was previously, that's a pretty good movement from where we are today. So I think it's going to be a pretty positive trend between now and Labor Day. It's hard to say exactly how it's going to play out in terms of getting back to what we would think of as sort of pre-pandemic normal levels, and we really won't know that until we get past Labor Day.
Brent Dilts:
Yes. Makes sense. Okay. And then just one other. On new leases in urban markets, what trends are you seeing in terms of demand by unit type or price point?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. The only thing I'd say is in the urban pockets that we're still seeing some difficulty with studio units in terms of single households. So if you look at overall occupancy, they're trailing the portfolio average a couple of hundred basis points. It's most acute in the places you would expect, New York City, DC, San Francisco, urban Boston, places like that. That's really the difference we're seeing in terms of sort of bedroom type at this point in time. There's just not as much demand for single occupancy yet.
Operator:
We'll now move to Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates.
Dennis McGill:
First question just goes back to the margin potential from some of the technology investments. How should we think about the baseline for that 200 basis point improvement. If we look pre-COVID kind of in the 71%, 72% range, that sort of more peakish cycle how would you think about maybe a normalized margin? And then what this savings would do on top of that?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. No. Good question, Dennis. And what we look at is kind of our stabilized base years, what we call it. And so for the most part, it's kind of a blend. But if you use 2019 as kind of a proxy for controllable NOI margins, excluding taxes and insurance. That's how we think of where the base year is. And the movement from there, obviously, things have distorted during the pandemic, given what's happened, but that would be kind of the way we're looking at it at least.
Dennis McGill:
So essentially just controlling for property taxes versus pre-COVID?
Timothy Naughton:
Exactly. With insurance, yes, which pushes those margins. If you look at it carefully and go back there, for example, like '18, '19, those extra margins, excluding that, we're kind of in the 80% range, 80%-plus, if you map out each one in terms of what you've got up there in terms of '18 and '19, but '19 is really kind of a base year.
Dennis McGill:
Okay. That's helpful. And then this is probably tougher, but just wondering how you think about it. With the economies reopening in some of these urban environments, in particular, and you have a lot of young adults that are moving back in who were back home or doubled up in some fashion, there's probably a pent-up demand element that the markets are experiencing right now. How do you get comfort around what that next leg of demand might look like, whether there's a continuation of pent-up demand or whether there's going to be an air pocket at some point once you get through sort of satisfying that first level of pent-up demand?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Good question. I'm not sure exactly how to answer the air pocket question. I mean we certainly expect people that left these urban environments to come back, not 100%, but people come back. What percent is sort of pure speculation. That would be hard for us or anyone else to say what the number is. In terms of air pocket beyond that, it really just is a function of sort of the macroeconomy, what's happening with jobs and income growth and sort of more the normal factors that drive the business in terms of demand characteristics. On the supply side, we talked about that a little bit. We expect that to be relatively constant. Probably have a little bit of a tailwind from the single-family market, as Ben pointed out, just given the affordability issues in our legacy markets. So I think really, I would just sort of pause and look at it as what's the macro environment looks like from a demand and supply standpoint? And how does that support the business going forward once we get to the other side of the pandemic.
Operator:
And it appears there are no further telephone questions. I'd like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Great. Thank you, Anna. Thanks, everyone, for being on the call today. I know it's a busy day and a busy week. We look forward to catching up with you in early June, at least virtually, I think, in NAREIT. So enjoy the rest of your day. Thanks.
Operator:
And once again, that does conclude today's conference. We thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Please stand by. We are about to begin. Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Fourth Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the Company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you Eli and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2020 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the Company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks Jason and welcome to our Q4 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, Matt Birenbaum and for the first time Ben Schall. Sean, Kevin and I will provide commentary on the slides that we posted last night. And all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Before turning to our prepared remarks I would like to take a minute to introduce Ben who many of you have met either during his previous job or since the announcement in early December. Most recently Ben served as the CEO and President of Seritage Growth Properties where he led the company from its inception and oversaw the transformation of the company from a portfolio of stores into a mix of shopping, dining, entertainment mix these destinations. Prior to Seritage Ben was COO of Rouse Properties and owner of regional shopping malls and before that he was SVP with Vornado Realty Trust. Ben brings a deep background developing, operating, activating real estate in addition to broad experience in many markets in which we do business. This is only Ben's second week on the job. So he will likely a limited role on the call today, but I thought I'd given the floor for a couple of minutes to share a few comments. Ben?
Ben Schall:
Thank you Tim. It's terrific to be here and I'm truly honored by the opportunity to join this team and organization. Avalon Bay is one of the rare private group of companies in my mind, led by Tim and the senior team that has been able to successfully shape, build and grow an enterprise of this quality and scale and do so with a core culture with a focus on integrity, caring and continuous improvement that remain a real differentiator for the organization.
Timothy Naughton:
Great. Thanks Ben and great to have you and welcome again. Our prepared comments today will focus on providing a summary of Q4 results and some perspective on 2021, and how it impacts our plans for this year. Before I getting started on the slides maybe just offer a few introductory comments on the quarter and the year. The fourth quarter was a tough end to what was already a very challenging year for the company and the business. The normal effects of an economic downturn on the apartment sector were magnified by work from home mandates, civil unrest in our city centers and the growing strength of the sale market.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks Tim. Moving to slide 7, you could see the impact of the pandemic on physical occupancy and the absolute effective rent we achieved over the past year broken out between urban and suburban submarkets. Chart 1 reflects our suburban submarkets which makes up about two thirds of our portfolio. We experienced some deterioration in both occupancy and rate during the spring and summer of 2020, but have recovered most of the occupancy over the past four months and as of January, effective rental rates were up about 1% sequentially from December and a roughly 4% below where we restarted 2020. The primary driver of the weakness in our suburban portfolio has been the performance of assets located in job centered hubs where employers have adopted extended work from home policies and transit oriented developments with use of mass transit has declined materially during the pandemic. Some examples include assembly row in Boston, Tysons corner in Northern Virginia, Mount View and Cupertino in Northern California and Redmond in Washington State.
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks Sean. Turning to slide 9 we highlight our financial outlook for 2021. Although we prefer to provide our traditional full year outlook the uncertain resolution of the pandemic and the related regulatory orders including evictions moratorium across our footprint has reduced our visibility on a performance later this year. Consequently, for 2021, we are providing operating earnings outlook for the first quarter only and we are providing guidance for development, capital activity and other select items for the full year. Nevertheless, to assist investors in driving their own perspective on our outlook for the year we have enhanced our disclosure and expected performance in the first quarter 2021. Specifically we identified actual residential revenue performance in January, 2021, for our same-store communities which reflected a year-over-year decrease of 7.8% and a sequential decrease of 40 basis points from December 2020.
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks Kevin. Turning to slide 15, I thought I might provide some longer-term perspective on this downturn in our business. This slide shows an index for same-store based rental revenue since 1999 or over the 22 years and plus or minus since the Avalon and Bay merger. A couple of things worth mentioning here, first you can see the long-term trend is positive and reflects a healthy business. Over the last three cycles annual compounded same-store revenue growth has been roughly 3%. Rents have grown a little faster than that during the expansionary phase of the cycle generally contract for one to two years during a downturn as they're doing now and then re-accelerate during the recovery phase at the start of the next cycle. Housing has been a consistent performer over many cycles as demand has generally grow in tandem over the cycle with net completions roughly matching the pace of household formation most years except during recessions with a number of households temporarily contracts. During the downturns it can be difficult to project operating performances. No two downturns and recoveries look exactly alike. Just to demonstrate that the downturn in the early 2000s was reasonably deep for the apartment sector. In fact, it took almost 5 years for rents to recover back to their prior peak across our footprint. And rents didn't fully recover for 15 years. The downturn in the late 2000's was comparatively steeper as the economy and labor market was significantly impacted by the financial crisis and while it was steeper it was also shallower for the apartment sector as rental demand benefited from the correction in the for-sale housing sector. The current downturn brought on by the pandemic has been the steepest yet for the economy after the apartment sector and while we are perhaps seeing the early signs of stabilization it is difficult to predict the timing and strength of the recovery given the myriad of uncertainties that directly impact our business whether the economic, regulatory or health-related. Importantly though, we are confident that the apartment housing markets will recover, that we will return to sustain growth in rents and revenues over the next cycle just as we seen of the last several cycles in a multifamily it’ll be a good business for the long-term. Turning now to the last slide and summary, operating performance continue to decline in Q4 during the quarter and the early part of Q1 we began to see early signs of stabilization and some important operating trends. We saw healthy gains on sequential with urban submarkets recovery about half the occupancy we lost earlier in the year. Rent growth began to level off after declining for most of the last three quarters and some regions even began to see modest sequential improvement. Transaction market has recovered and strengthened significantly in recent months with suburban assets generally now selling at or above pre-COVID values. As Kevin mentioned our balance sheet liquidity remained in great shape and well-positioned to support new growth opportunities. In fact, given recent operating trends and improved capital transaction market conditions, we decided to activate the development pipeline starting three new developments this past quarter after having been cautious for most of 2020. Our start to 2021 will be focusing submarkets that have been less impacted by the downturn where the economic still offer reasonable risk-adjusted return. And with that Eli, we are happy to open up the call for some Q&A.
Operator:
Of course. Thank you. And we will go ahead and take our first question from Nick Joseph from Citi. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, it's here for Nick. I wanted to ask you sort of on development underwriting and ultimately bring that into the conversations because it's a little bit about mixed-use about you're now underwriting these projects, how are you thinking about those ancillary service locations that are going to be part of the community whether they be retail or even office and historically Avalon has partnered with others to do those. I think about the deal you bought in Virginia where Regency took the retail I think about assembly where federal obviously brought you to do the Reggie how do you think it's going to revolve? Can those pieces stay capitalized separately or will it require someone to come in and take a loss on retail or loss on office to support the multifamily rental effectively you have to get higher returns on multifamily to make the math work.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Michael I think we talked a bit about this in the past and obviously it's probably more interested just given the events of last few quarters, yes we talked about mixed-use. We pursued in a number ways often times partnering as you suggest whether it's with federal or Regency or a number of projects where it's more of a condo structure. We may be building out the core and shell and ultimately turning back at retail to them and that's been sort of the MO in cases where it's been a pretty significant pieces of a retail. We felt like it was, we are able to reasonably sort of separate the execution and helps with the management of the two pieces. We are also feeling fair bit of mix-use that I sort of think horizontal more kind of if you will where we may be assembling maybe semi site a good example of this where you would be there may be a separate adjacent used back there would be as part of the community but it was on the free sample not a condo structure but a free sample by a different retail developer that also had a for-sale housing component. It also had a restricted and age restricted component as well. So particularly the suburban locations we will look to do that. I would say it's kind of some of the infill locations will probably contain a partner with the some of the top retailers in the country then the third category, which I think is where your question was headed was when the users are so sort of linking where it's probably in the interest of the asset that it be controlled by a single entity where that entity is a partnership or whether we control the entity a 100%. I think probably our preferred solution that case is where we are again partnering with somebody's expert area of retail and underwrite help operate that but our partners venture with us and so we be looking at the economics of the entire venture together and trying to optimize them in terms of trade off, so we inevitably make between the ground plane which is because of the retail and the residential complex. So I think if you sort of fast forward over the next 5 to 10 years I think you'll see more of the third category emerging and companies like us will be partnering with agencies federals and agencies of the worlds like that to make that happen.
Unidentified Analyst:
And then just in terms of the rent recovery, I know you pointed out that extraordinarily the timing and strength of recovered quickly in the submarkets is difficult to project. You made a comment about the early 2000 and San Jose didn't recover from rent perspective to prior peak for 15 years. I guess when you think about New York in terms of this which you still have a fair amount of exposure to get I guess what are you trying underwrite? So I would assume having a view would dictate your capital allocation decisions about rotating capital out of these markets or trying to go deeper overall if you have a 16 year timeframe that can make it a lot more difficult. So where is your mindset today about when you take the rent recovery and had fundamentals in New York and San Fransisco return?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Thanks. I didn't use the San Jose example to suggest that's what you think is going to happen to New York City and down town San Francisco. Obviously, San Jose case was extreme because there has been a big spike during the tech run-up in the late 90s, and in 2000. So a lot of that period of gain was just before sort of the tech crash but I think your point is, I think part of the point is that some of these can be long cycles. We still believe New York and San Francisco we believe in our costal market as an investment at the I would think they are going to be centers of innovation, homes and great research universities, extend over indexing in our view in terms of the knowledge economy we’re hiring in terms and productivity and intensity of knowledge that's contained in markets it's critically valuable particularly start ups and companies getting up the ground. Now those companies continue to grow and mature they are going to distribute the workforces as we have seen over the last year to satellite, some satellite markets and other markets and with the additional work from home hybrid positions maybe perhaps all over the math. So I think it's too early to underwrite sort of what relationship between demand and supply is going to look like over the next 5 years. We don't see those markets in long term decline to be clear. When you think customer the power core in this country it's still Washington the boss on the East coast and LA to San Francisco on the West Coast and those are long cycles too. Those aren't themselves over 5 or 10 years. So inevitably we are looking to allocate capital to your some of the other markets that I think some within a beneficiaries by may be some spillover effect from New York and San Francisco to DC Seattle or Boston as well as recent expansion markets Denver and southeast Florida. But there is probably other expansion markets in our future as well that they are likely that has some of the same characteristics research university, attractive knowledge workers as particularly some of these larger mature companies disperse their workforces across a wider geography.
Unidentified Analyst:
New York, and Texas that will be other sort of sales to do it or just rating capital to expand.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I think don't think we are at a point where we think it probably makes sense to pursue sales just given the performances of markets right now. I think we, I think all of us we are going to feel a lot better when we see how much they bounce back, I am not saying they are going to bounce 100% back from where they were a year or even two years ago. But until it is little bit more visibility there I just don't think, I think the bit ask is just going to be too wide on assets in those market. And Sean that -- in urban markets we are seeing rents down 18% down more than that in Northern California and New York South of the city side. So I think it's it’s safe to say that some work probably the next growth is going to be for the portfolio just like if your Google or Facebook your net growth is going to in Mountain View and Park. So that doesn't mean you abandon those regions. So there is going to be core to, they are going to be continue to be core of our portfolio but it's probably where the growth is going to come from as it relates to from capital allocation standpoint.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. Thanks Tim.
Operator:
And we will go ahead and take our next question from Richard Hill from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Richard Hill:
Hey, good afternoon guys, and Ben it's nice to hear from you on AVB earnings call. Look forward to working with you. Hey guys I wanted to spend a little bit more time thinking about the bridge from 1Q versus 4Q. I recognize that the sales in 4Q probably had a $0.04 to $0.05 hit and I appreciate the additional disclosure on capitalized interest which is another $0.01 to $0.02 but it still seems like the guide is at mid point to the little bit lower than what maybe we were expecting. So as you think about that given the green shoots is it something to do with the mix of apartments coming online or how should we think about that difference which given the green shoots I would've expected maybe the guide to be called $0.05 to $0.07 higher. Maybe I am just trying to understand like how you get there and if you can break that down a little bit more for us?
Kevin O'Shea:
Rich this is Kevin. Maybe I will sort of take a site of that I try to walk people through that in my opening remarks. So I don't know that I have a whole lot of details. So let me begin by maybe repeating that and then if you have further questions around that we can try to dive a little bit deeper. So just as a reference point we anticipate core FFO per share to midpoint declining from $2.02 in Q4 to the $1.90 in Q1 in terms of this $0.12 sequential decline relative to our budget what we have is an $0.08 sequential decline in residential same-store NOI, $0.04 sequential decline related to dispositions that were completed in the fourth quarter. You need to bear in mind, we did sale about $450 million of assets in the fourth quarter that were present for much of the fourth quarter and are no longer present in the first quarter. So that's the $0.04 sequential decline from that line item. $0.04 sequential decline as well from increased overhead in strategic initiatives and those total call it $0.16 or so and they are partially offset by sequential increase in other community classifications primarily which include increasing lease of NOI from development and a commercial NOI which is expected to recover sequentially because that was burden in Q4 by the way straight line rent receivables. So that was kind of a backdrop for it. Again it's hard for me to reconcile against your expectations would seem to have been about $0.05 higher but that's the backdrop. I would be happy to answer any follow-up questions you may have.
Unidentified Analyst:
That's very helpful. That's very helpful and I follow all of that. What I was trying to understand a little bit more was the $0.08 headwind the same store NOI because it seems like the quarter is going to be maybe a little bit more challenging than 4Q despite some of the green shoots that have emerged and maybe I'm just asking a naive question but I wanted to maybe understand why same store NOI is a headwind versus 4Q despite what looks like to be improving occupancy and improving effective blended rents.
Sean Breslin:
Yes Rich. This is Sean. I am going to provide some high level commentary on that that I think may help and then if you're looking for additional detail we can certainly take it offline but one thing to keep in mind here is that what we're talking about sort of green shoots in terms of leveling off of rents and such we do have sort of the cumulative effect of both lease rent reductions as well as the amortization of concessions that will bleed through the P&L as we move through 2021. So in other words the expectation would be as you look forward over the next couple of months the impact from the amortization of concessions and the cumulative effect of those lease rates will be higher than it has been in Q4. So that's something that I'm not sure people always think about but one sort of broad way to look at it as an example is we granted about $47 million in cash concessions in 2020. We only amortized about $16 million of those. So there is still another $31 million of concessions that will amortize through 2021. So that will continue as Tim mentioned his talking points to impact the growth rates as we move forward over the next several months. So that provides some additional color on the headwind.
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes. That's very helpful guys and I think the simple explanation and sorry for complicated it is there is just an earned benefit that still has to burn off over time which makes it little bit more of a of a tougher comp but that's very helpful. Hey, one more just clarification question and I'll get back in the queue but that $0.04 of strategic initiative that you mentioned is that one time or is that reoccurring as we think about modeling?
Sean Breslin:
It's recurring. It's part of our full year guidance for overhead costs which includes a significant component which is investment in building out our digital capabilities and other strategic initiatives and so it's the capability that we've been adding and continue to add to our business and is therefore occurring throughout the course of the year. So it's something that you can kind of think about as continuing on.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes Rich just add on to that one as well, we may talk about it in more detail in the coming quarter or two but it ties into some of the information that we provided back in sort of late ‘19 in terms of our investment in digital capabilities, AI, Machine Learning things of that sort that if anything has only accelerated as we've moved through the pandemic, if you think about what's been happening with virtual tours and self-guided tours and smart access and things of that sort I think if you talk to not only us but our peers and others there's even probably more conviction in making those investments and the ROI associated with them that we would expect to continue to invest in those capabilities over the next couple of years for sure and then see those payoffs come through.
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey Rick just to add to that as we are making those investments in innovation there's a bit of a geography issue. You get it may be hitting the overhead line but the benefit oftentimes flowing through to the assets and so when we they're able to save some payroll things like that it may not be obvious because the payroll expense is a big number the property is a big number maybe compared to what the strategic initiative number is.
Unidentified Analyst:
Got it. Guys thank you very much. I know this was sort of wonky modeling questions but I really appreciate you spending the time to detail it out a little bit more. Thanks guys.
Operator:
And we'll now move to our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore. Please go ahead.
Rich Hightower:
Hey good afternoon guys and again welcome to Ben on these calls. So my first question I kind of want to hone in again on San Grancisco and New York and the big sequential occupancy gains in the fourth quarter. Obviously a lot of that must have been driven by pricing in the market as opposed to anything related to return to office or sort of the normal seasonal leasing pattern that we might consider but in pattern that we might consider but as you think about the page and the drivers of the demand going forward as we go through 2021, what do you think the key drivers are that we should be expecting and how does that overlay which is what is normally decreasing starting in the spring and how do we fold in return to office and how do you guys think about the moving parts giving the business is going to be a strange year in all respects?
Sean Breslin:
I think the first shot at that and negative, but I think the factors that we would like to monitor our first what you mentioned in terms of basically reopening their offices and clung people back to work and mix-use environment. That is obviously a key driver here. As I mentioned earlier we are quite not expecting 100% to return but certainly a very high percentage are very likely to return. The second component is what I mentioned in my prepared remarks is for the reopening of these major urban universities that really do grow in knowledge but the international too but do occupy apartments in some of these major urban centers and it's not just the student by the staff, faculty, etc. etc. So we think of New York and San Francisco and markets like that that's pretty significant phenomena and then ultimately what's going to follow that is more business activity where there was corporate demand things of that sort for such that you can make 1% to 2% of the market. So the combination of those factors will really sort of drive demand what we will likely see is people lease apartment a little before they need to be here on campus or back at work or going to some consulting assignment etc. And so the timing which that is something I think we probably all be I think our view at this point based on what's happening with the pandemic and vaccination etc. is that it's probably sometime may be in the summer when you might see that happen depending on how the vaccination of the population occurs over the next few months here. So we could see employers want people back in the summer maybe fall when people are returning to school and stuff. So I think those are the key questions the timing of which is just be determined for to have a material impact on 2021 results however, given the lease expiration that we have from quarter to quarter you really would need to see that happen probably in the late spring to early summer to have any kind of meaningful impact on 2021 compared to what occurs in the fall where we only have maybe 20% to 30% of release expirations remaining you would see the list in 2022.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, that's helpful color Sean. I guess my second question here you're obviously ramping up development starts this year. What's the chance that you guys even go bigger than the 650 to 850 guidance if you think we're really on the cusp of the next multi-year recovery in multifamily?
Timothy Naughton:
Well, it's a good question. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks at just some of the function of what we've seen in the market is closed the real estate markets as well as the capital market at this point we're basically funding that development with plan dispositions. Just given where our leverage is right now and trying to sort of protect our credit metrics where it stand. So and I think as we said in the past it's hard to with gain ratios of around 50% it's hard to sell too much if we want to double down we'd end up having to distribution and then it's just not capital. It's not as capital efficient. So I think what would have to happen is, the equity markets. I mean we had a good start today, I guess but the equity markets would need to recover more to level which we think sort of more reflective of intrinsic value and NAV where we might have some, we might have access to those markets as well to really expand the balance sheet in order to accommodate more development. Having said that not all deals we think are sort of ready to go. As I mentioned in my remarks for the most part we're focused on in markets that haven't been as impacted from the run rate standpoint. So that the yields are still at least the current basis so often we think sort of an appropriate risk-adjusted return. That's not true of the entire development of pipeline and how these deals work. You just don't go out and pick up some land options and start the next quarter. These things take even deals that are entitled can take a year or two years to sort of fully gestate before they're ready to start. So the number's probably not going to it's probably just can't flex up too much even if market conditions were great but it's, I suspect it's going to be in this range unless market conditions move dramatically one way or the other.
Rich Hightower:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Pawlowski from Green Street. Please go ahead.
John Pawlowski:
Thanks, Matt could you give us a sense for the two Northern California distributions? How do you think values ultimate allowed to where you what you could have gotten on the sales pre-COVID and any cap rate color for those two deals?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure John. We sold the two deals in northern town the fourth quarter eastern was our only asset in Marin county. That's a pretty unique asset in a very supply constrained part of the world with very little existing stock almost no new construction. So I would say that one I don't think that the value there was really impacted much at all. We think the cap rate was a high threes maybe around a 39. So I'm not sure maybe it's down slightly from where it would have been a year ago but that's just such a special asset that it's a bit of a one-off story. The other asset I think we sold at the end of the year was Eaves Diamond Heights that's an older rent-controlled asset in the city of San Francisco and we were a little bit motivated there to close by year-end because the city through about initiative increased their transfer tax to the highest in the country at 6%. So there was definitely some dollar savings by closing before year end. That deal was about a 37 cap as 470,000 units. I would say a year ago that asset probably would have sold for 8% to 10% more, although it's hard to know maybe not as impacted in terms of the NOI as some of the other assets just because it was a rent-controlled asset and so some of the rents were below market but also may be less lift for the buyer on the way out because there will be more constraints on ability to raise rent. So probably a little lower data maybe than some other assets in San Francisco.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Great. Thanks. And then second question for Sean sticking with Northern California just curious your thoughts particularly in San Francisco, San Jose when a lot of your private competitors occupancy is well below your own level and it feels like the entire market's one to three months free and so the short question is are you going to be able to sustain the occupancy and sustain stable rents as your private competitors play catch up or do you feel like the floor is underneath or is it going to be a choppy few quarters here?
Sean Breslin:
Yes John that's a good question and I think if you look at basically how the quarter unfolded and not just in Northern California but across some of the more impacted markets whether it's ones you referenced or a New York City or Redmond Washington state as an example is we've certainly seen rents decline as we've built occupancy and now they've sort of leveled off and the question kind of rolling forward is or do they just sort of bounce along the bottom here as we basically try to kind of hold occupancy where it is, we feel like for the most part across the portfolio we're pretty close to where we think market occupancies are and so rents should get better. The question is how much as the rest of the market sort of does what it does as you pointed out I think there's some of the other fears are going to be higher in occupancy some are lower trying to catch up but I think just given what we've seen the belief is that we probably just for the next couple quarters are going to kind of be bouncing around a little bit. I wouldn't say that we're expecting a sharp uptick, I wouldn't say that but should we expect some marginal improvement I think that's reasonable to assume given where the rents were to get the occupancy that we needed. Now we're trying to sort of stabilize a little bit so we should be able to compete without as much inventory available and therefore the rents won't need to be as soft I guess is the way I described that. Every pocket's a little bit different that was the way. I think you need to look at it in terms of what's happening. Is there new supplies or not new supply things like that do impact these sub-markets in potentially a meaningful way depending on what's going on there.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Great. Thanks for the time.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
John Kim:
Thank you. Comparing the downturn versus the prior recessions on page 14, it's very helpful, I guess one of the big similarities between now and early 2000s is the home ownership rates and the strength of the housing market and I'm wondering if you think this is a factor that's most important in terms of the pace recovery this time around or have landlords including yourselves aggressively cut the rent so that the recovery time could be quicker.
Timothy Naughton:
Hey John it's Tim. It's a good question. I'm definitely seeing the sell market strength. I think part of that is like the early 2000s is demography. As you start to see the kind of 30 to 34 year olds are the leading edge of the millennials come forward and start to purchase. I do think what's happening is you are seeing again just an acceleration of the folks that may have bought a year from now or two years from now three from now accelerate at first decisions because of what quality of life in the urban markets has been like over the last year. So yes we'll have to see when you look at it it's been our view, I think we've talked about this over the last two or three years that housing demand which we rent or sale is going to be more balanced over the next decade that we've seen over the last two decades. The last decade was kind of the renter decade. The decade before that was kind of the homeowner decade. There was some artificial factors driving in particularly in 2000s as you know those going on with terms of just for the home mortgage crisis. But yes , I just think just given kind of the mortgage finance system we have in place now think it's going to be driven more by fundamental factors and speculative factors and for a long time home ownership rates were just sad and it's like just 64% - 65% and they were kind level on a level and if you look at what's happening in terms of the growth and we've talked about this in terms of this growth single person or a single parent households that population is still growing. And then multi families is a better use for better housing choice for that group. So I think there's a lot of factors when you sort of put it all together to really does suggest sort of balance housing demand going forward. So today we're producing whatever close to the million around a million single family units and three or four maybe 40,000 the multifamily units that feels about right relative to marginal demand. I think it's been accelerated as we are speaking right now just because of the pandemic but as you look at over two, three, four year period it's a sort of strikes us is about sort of the right mix of supply to address marginal demand.
John Kim:
That's very helpful. Thank you. Second question is for Kevin, the impact in your earnings from concession to double this quarter versus last quarter, but can you remind us how the concessions have trended throughout the year last year for the average concessions be granted by each quarter.
Matt Birenbaum:
Well, maybe Sean if you want to speak to the average concession value?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean I think what I can probably describe to is if you look at the leases that we signed kind of what the pace has been in terms of concession. So Q3, the average concession per lease signed was 1100 bucks. When you look at Q4, the average was 1315 but it did take down as we move through the quarter. So as an example October was 1450 a lease. November was 1400 December was 1190 and then they were down just under 1000 a lease in January. So the trend has been our balance in terms of the impact of concessions. In terms of the accounting event just one comment to reiterate what I mentioned earlier and Kevin is going to address it more clearly as well is we granted $47 million in cash concessions in 2020 but we did only amortize $16 million of them in 2020. So it's still $31 million in the deferred concessions in the book that will be amortized through 2021 and then in addition to that whatever concessions cash concessions we grant in 2021 will also prevents amortization. So hopefully that gives you some sense of sort of the headwind as we move in 2021 from the concessions that were granted that deferred 2020. I hope that answers your specific question. If you have a follow-up.
Kevin O'Shea:
I can add a couple of things John. Kevin again. So just to give a sense to frame it if you kind of look at our earnings releases to start the discussion here for Sean mentioned on page 31 of our earnings release for the full year 2020 we granted $46.6 million of concessions. That's just the granted number. If you kind of go back in Q4 we granted about $19.5 million, Q3 granted about $15.3 million. So the difference pretty much is really what we will did in Q2. So that's going to be call it $12 million or so granted in Q2. And again what we amortized --
John Kim:
Is it fair to assume that quarter that year-over-year comps that will be withholding the concession going on?
Timothy Naughton:
It is a function of what concessions we grant in 2021 all of being equal if you just sort of stop today and you stop the concessions going to zero effective February 1, as an example what's on the books today the concession burn off amortization would be sort of in the April/May timeframe. We're still granting concessions maybe at a lower rate, but we're still granting concessions now. So it's very likely that the peak burn off for the amortization will drift into the summer some time depending on the volume of concessions that we grant and the amount of each concession over the next few months.
Unidentified Analyst:
That's helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
We will now take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt from KeyBanc. Please go ahead.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks guys. Just wanted to touch on sort of the occupancy rebound again and economic occupancy is now approaching kind of mid 95% range. I think you were 96% plus pre-pandemic. But anyhow, how do you change your view towards, continuing to build occupancy given I guess your view that it could be until Summer time until you start to see surge in demand as people firm up the back office dates and then into the fall for the student population? How does that kind of balance that continuing to grind down I guess on the concessions versus trying to build occupancy to give yourself, maybe some cushion as you get into the spring leasing season and the expiration start to increase?
Sean Breslin:
Austin this is Sean. Good question. Kind of from strategy point over the 2-3 months as I mentioned in response to the couple of questions ago we think as we look across sub-urban market and urban market that we are in the range of consider market occupancy based on multiple data points that are available out there. We produce various other sort of like that and so we have got the ability triangulate into where we think market occupancy is that we are comfortable sort of operating around market occupancy to slightly above the 100 to 200 basis point. Anything beyond that and you're probably give it up too much rate to hold that higher occupancy. So while occupancy may drift up a little bit over the next couple of months here it wouldn't expected to spike materially somewhat of what we have seen in last four months. So for us it will be more about maintaining marginal improvements and physical occupancy and really trying to make sure we find where we can hope those rent and see sequential improvement in effective rents at that occupancy. That’s going forward for us in the sense that there is a pivot where we head in terms of macro environment that will certainly influence our strategy but that is the strategy as we see it today.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Got it. Thank you and then you referenced the 18% decline in rents. I think it was in reference to urban markets, but as we think about that recovery last quarter you did mention you've kind of gone further down in the renter pool from a credit perspective. Can you give us any type of metric to give us a sense of how that change in rental profile how significant it has been or maybe an affordability ratio comparison versus the years leading up to the pandemic?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No. Also good question. And one thing to be clear about is if any kind of our credit standards have become more stringent during the pandemic given the various regulatory orders that are out there particularly the eviction moratoria where we have deep reach down further in the rental pool is more from an income perspective and obviously rents are down. So people can qualify for apartments that maybe they couldn't qualify for last year when you go to New York City or San Francisco and the rents are down 25% but in terms of maybe where you might be going with this is their ability to pay in the future as a few rebounds and are trying to push through rent increases and while income levels are down, rents are down more than that. So actual rent income ratios have come in a little bit last few quarters which just tells us that there is more ability to absorb rent increases on the other side of the pandemic. We see a rebound and one thing to remember as it relates to concessions is well we have to amortize concession for GAAP purposes we don't amortize the concessions for the individual residents. So they may receive a month free as an example upfront but the next month they are striking a check for the full amount of the lease rent. So any renewal that we provide to them at some point in time that at least expires will typically be based off the lease rent as opposed to the base rent. So people are where they can afford what they're writing a check for as opposed to the effectiveness rent.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Right and what's the decrease in the gross or face rent if you will versus that 18%?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So if you look at it on a rent change basis as opposed to the blended values that we were talking about basically we had effective rounds that were down 112 but if you look at release rents they were down about 7%.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes. I saw that for the quarter. More curious I guess over the course of how that 18% number would compare and is income still down less than that face rent number when you remove the concession as you referenced?
Sean Breslin:
That's correct yes. Yes. Incomes are down less than the reduction of rental rates.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We will now take our next question from Alua Askarbek from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Alua Askarbek:
Hi everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. I know we're going a little too long. So I'll be quick but I wanted to ask a little bit more on the demand side that you've been seeing just to get a clear idea are you still seeing a lot of those bargain hardcores coming in within markets looking for the deals in your urban markets or are you starting to feel a little bit more demand coming in outside of those markets?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No. It's a good question in terms of the bargain hunters. I guess in the current environment sort of everybody's looking for a deal but as I mentioned in response to the last question and people are well qualified with good incomes that are coming in. So it's I would say that we're now looking for people that really can't afford what we're doing and so they're really trying to drive for a deep discount to make comfort for them. In terms of the question about net new demand coming in from sort of other geographies that's a good question. I don't have that right off the top of my head but I would say for the most part what we're seeing is that given the entire market in many cases has improved in occupancy that there is net new demand coming into these markets as opposed to just a recirculating of the existing demand that's already in place that would allow that to happen. So I don't have specific detail for you in terms of how much of a demand in New York City and San Francisco market occupancy to come up there has to be net new demand.
Alua Askarbek:
Okay. Got it. Thank you. And then just a quick question on Boston or New England overall. It looks like the effect the rent really dropped off in 4Q. Is there anything behind that other than maybe the supply that you guys have been talking about?
Sean Breslin:
No I mean it's the same phenomena, I mean the urban markets in Boston are still very challenged. It's quite choppy not quite as bad as New York City or San Francisco but the urban markets are driving most of it and there and there are some sort of infill pockets, I mentioned your assembly row asset Newton Chestnut Hill pockets like that that are sort of the inner ring suburbs are also a little bit weaker. Some of them are more distant suburban towns with good school districts and things like that are performing better.
Alua Askarbek:
Got it. Thank you
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Nick Yulico from Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Nick Yulico:
Hi thanks. I just wanted to go back to the slide in the presentation where you gave the occupancy and lending rents for the suburbs and urban environments. And I guess, I'm just wondering for those two different buckets suburbs versus urban if you had, if you can give us feel for kind of the composition of the blended rent, meaning what percentage that was renewals versus new leases for the different regions?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Nick it's good question. It's a lot of big because of the blended renewals changes five months. talking about offline as suppose to trying to walk you through that because it changes month by month.
Timothy Naughton:
I think to think about. I mean if you want you can just go and look at our turnover rate before we had in the earnings release to get a feel for it though. It shows that year-to-date and last couple of quarters. That will give you some feel for the mix.
Nick Yulico:
Right. Okay. That was sort of I was kind of wondering if it was kind of similar to the turnover rate because I guess my question here is if you turnover is your lowest point in the year in the fourth quarter and first quarter we are looking at a blended rent number that is in some cases stabilizing or slightly picking up versus higher turnover periods. I guess I am just wondering what we should leading into this because that just means that you are starting less new leases which is where the worst pricing is and so the fact that it's starting to stabilize, but you do more renewals versus new leases and going through the period in the spring where you have a lot of new leases, I guess I am just trying to what we should really be reading into this line of improvement for January and the fourth quarter versus other parts last year.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. That's a god question I think to the comment I have made John earlier, it's quite a little too early to tell in terms of calling it a bottom but we are pleased with the fact that during what is typically a sesonally lower period where we had turnover up 15% year-over-year that we have been able to slowly pull back on concessions and see slightly better blended rents sort of that effective basis for now four months basically, three-four months that gives us a sense that we're kind of pricing in the right neighborhood and that was building occupancy. So we don't need to build as much occupancy as we were attempting to do in the last three or four months. Therefore we believe we should be able to do better in terms of absolute effective rents moving forward. To your point though it does what happens in each market as we get to the spring leasing season is yet to be seen. So I think we're kind of bouncing around the bottom now and the question is will we continue to see those sequential improvements now that we're at that occupancy platform that we want to be at that is a function of just through supply and demand in these markets and what happens. So I think it's probably a little too early to call in terms of the specific question that you have whether I should read in this that this is at the bottom and it's going to bounce back I'm not sure we're prepared to say that just yet.
Nick Yulico:
Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. Thanks guys.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Richard Anderson from SMBC. Please go ahead.
Richard Anderson:
Hey thanks good afternoon everyone. So when I think about percentages and talk about percentage you can get sort of misleading if I don't have any jobs were lost in your markets in 2020 but you need kind of 2x growth to get back to where you were in absolute numbers just because you're growing off a smaller base and then the same logic applies to the 18% decline in your urban effective rates you got to do 30 plus off the lower base to get back to where you were in absolute per unit rent and my point is when you look at your slide on page 14 it's taken three to six years for you to just get back to where you were in whether it was the tech bubble or the housing crash. Does this environment which is somewhat more black and white it's sort of virus vaccine it's as bad as it was it's not very complicated, do you think that the recovery back to where you once were in whether you used jobs or rents whatever the metric is will be tighter than that 3% bottom end of the range that you experienced in the history.
Sean Breslin:
Rich Sean here. That's obviously one of the things that they hear is to whether this is going to be either a V-shaped or -shaped in terms of recovery and that's ultimately its job, it's what's going to help propel total household formation and the deconsolidation of households that may have consolidated over the last year and while the employment rate is looking pretty good obviously the labor participation rates are pretty low. So it's going to take some really decent economic growth I think to really, I think some yes, suburbans are going to be back a lot quicker, could be a lot quicker than 3 to 5 years as we’ve seen above. I think the question here is really about urban and some of the really tech intensive suburban submarkets like Mountain View or Park as we're talking about before and that's going to take some economic growth I think. As I think you may see sort of a quick V-shape maybe for the suburban markets and the urban markets, maybe may not be back to those rents for another event three four years.
Richard Anderson:
Yes. So it leads to my second question which is you're not giving full year guidance because you don't have a lot of visibility beyond 90 days, but then you're ramping development. So I just wondered if your confidence in a period of two years from now when you would like to be delivering these assets is higher than it is six months from now and I imagine it is but I am trying to pinpoint where is the development you are turning on sort of specific to those markets in those areas that maybe weren't as impacted by the COVID pandemic.
Sean Breslin:
It's a lot of point that you are making. It's so I think suburban rents could be back, back to where they were in a year. They were only down 4%. It doesn't take a lot of growth to get that 4% back in those markets. And so we're focused we're kind of activating that lever and markets where we think as I said in my prepared comments where I think the risk adjusted return is make sense right now.
Richard Anderson:
All right. Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Richard Anderson:
Yes. Thank you.
Operator:
We will go ahead and take our next question from Anthony Paolone from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Anthony Paolone:
Yes, thanks. On the expense side is there anything for 2021 as we look out that could bring just expense growth back down to sort of an inflation number or does the turnover and some of these other dynamics just step function this up for higher growth this year?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. It's good question. I think it's more the latter. I mean a lot of the stuff that we're seeing is sort of related to the pandemic and then promoted whether it's higher turnover cost, extra cleaning cost. Associates are on leave and therefore driving temporary labor contract laborers overtime, things like that. These are kind of going to play their way through and obviously it's a tough comp just given first half of the last year particularly with second quarter in a number of different areas. The turnover came, down etc. etc. So I think it's just going to put pressure on both particularly as Kevin mentioned in the first half of this year given that tough comp. It will be a little bit easier when in the second half because expenses held turnover and all that will be more comfortable particular the first half.
Anthony Paolone:
Okay and then just same question for Kevin. $160 million to $170 million of total overhead for 2021, do you have the comparable number for 2020 just understand the increase because I think it's a couple items and a variety of adjustments to get there?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sorry you are referring to the kind of core expense overhead number?
Anthony Paolone:
Yes. I think you gave brackets around I guess it combines like SG&A and property management a few things like that.
Kevin O'Shea:
Core expense overhead for core FFO is $160 million and $170 million. The reference point for the priory was about $150 million – $151 million. So it's about $14 million year-over-year increase where most of that is as we alluded before related to investment it's very strategic and related initiatives with strategic initiatives alone were about $7 million of that number probably 5 on the growth basis and there's an ancillary investments as well and there's some additional compensation cost including executive transition costs.
Anthony Paolone:
Okay. Got it. Thanks a lot.
Operator:
We will go ahead and take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Sure. Good afternoon and Ben welcome aboard. I'm assuming that you decline the free rent incentives, so you can do your part to help earnings. Two questions here, the first just going to guidance Tim and Kevin you have laid out definitely that you think things are bottoming. You're not sure how things will go but in general you've laid out sort of a base case. So with that in mind why couldn't you provide s full year number even if it's a wide range because it seems like you're sort of tracking in the sort of 750-760 something like there midpoint and just sort of curious what prevents you from providing even if it's just a wide range something because as I say from your first quarter observations it sounds like you feel comfortable with where things are shaking and you have a general sense that if that continues then you sort of would know where you work for full year.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes Alex. It's a fair question. I mentioned in my kind of earlier remarks it's more than just one or two things that kind of a play here. We didn't even get into the issue of eviction moratoria where we've got call it 3% of our units were tied up and people that are paying we have essentially a federal stimulus that we may benefit from and actually help us to actually potentially even reverse some bad debts that we have taken for. Sean, terms of work from home and dates when they expire makes a big difference in terms of only might get initially a good occupancy boost but with that comes other income and other things as well. So when you put them all together you start plant these variables, it gets arranges until we just think it's not that reliable and frankly, it's I think in the past we've actually haven't given quarterly guidance. We have given annual guidance. That's how we manage our business in typical year manage it quarter-to-quarter. The reality is we’re managing it week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter right now and we feel like we got a enough visibility out about 90 days to provide reliable guidance. Beyond that we just don't think it's that reliable. That's just to be pointed out there and to always be trying to reconcile and sync up it just gets us make really adding anything to the conversation. But so others may choose to provide the outlook with a wide range. I get it and I think if you're here have a portfolio I think it makes total sense that you'd be precise guidance right now but that's not the situation we are in. Kevin I don't know if you have anything.
Kevin O'Shea:
I mean just to add to that I think that covers Tim, can we satisfy the test to providing a reasonably reliable midpoint and a reasonably narrow and useful range. As we know anything's possible to but let me kind of play with these variables and look at the back half of the year. There were things that could be very positive or very negative and they are beyond our ability to regionally produced with accuracy. And so given that we just didn't feel like we could meet the tests of providing a reasonably reliable midpoint forecast, which ultimately would be what we, people would focus on where even if we gave a wide range and then we couldn't provide reasonably narrow range around that. So we just felt like why try to give something that range in the business and Q1 guidance seemed more appropriate.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes Alex maybe last thing to add that's why the reason we showed the slide 14 as well kind of put a circle around the downturns and the recovery, that's when it's hard to protect the business. I mean when you're in an expansion, it's fairly let me you feel like we can get some pretty reliable guidance in terms of how portfolio, how the pro forma over the next 12 months.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay and then the second question is as you guys think about ramping up the development program and using more capital how does that balance with the expansion markets and to the extent that you're looking at other markets like Nashville or Austin or some of the other sort of popular market these days? How do you reconcile your balance of capital between investing and development in your current markets versus using that capital to either in your expansion markets or to enter other new markets?
Timothy Naughton:
Well, it's a good question. I think the reality is if we didn't give guidance around acquisitions and dispositions to the extent that acquisitions let's say to the extent we acquired we would just sell more and existing assets and so it's really be done more through portfolio management basically recycling capital out of certain markets and where we've been recycling largely the northeast into markets like Denver, Southeast Florida and potentially some other expansion markets to come but at this point of the cycle where capital is priced that's probably how we would fund it. If equity values recover in any meaningful way where you think it makes sense to expand the balance sheet in a creative and prudent way that'd be sort of the second alternative.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay and then just finally the New York development site which one was that that was written off?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey Alex, it's Matt. That was the investment that we had in the East 96th street RFP.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay that was the Cuomo De Blasio one got it. Okay. No problem thanks.
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey Aex just to just be clear when we write it off it means it's more probable than not it's less probable than not or did I say that right. but it's more probable.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. We have to do this from an accounting point of view and tip the other way and it’s been less probable.
Alexander Goldfarb:
We got it. Thanks.
Operator:
And we will go ahead and take our next question from Brent Dilts from UBS. Please go ahead.
Brent Dilts:
Hey thanks guys. Just one for me at this point. Could you talk about how the financial struggles of some of the largest U.S. transit agencies who are talking about permanent cuts to service might impact your transit oriented properties?
Sean Breslin:
Yes Brent it's Sean. I can fix that with that one and matter, as Tim jump in but it's probably a little too early to tell right now. I would say I mean certainly ridership has fallen dramatically through the pandemic and all the major transit systems and as a result in my prepared remarks, I mentioned that one of the locations within our suburban footprint that has been most impacted is sort of transit oriented developments just because people don't need it as much. Whether that results in permanent cuts versus just the temporary protections and capacities that we've seen has yet to play out and I suspect that there probably wouldn't be decisions made around permanent cuts until we get beyond the pandemic and people see what ridership sort of normalizes that. So I think it's probably too early to call on that at this point but certainly if there are transit-oriented developments that are out there that are the residents are heavily relying upon transit system and capacity is cut dramatically this would be a negative impact on those assets. It's probably just too early to tell what that might be.
Matt Birenbaum:
I'll just have to say that this is Matt on the other side perhaps marginally it makes the transit agencies a little more aggressive with trying to dispose of some of their land and/or go into some joint development. Actually one of the deals we just started this past quarter was Avalon Somerville which is at a NJT Stop in central New Jersey and we are looking at other sites where transit agencies are probably going to feel more pressure to monetize their land positions.
Brent Dilts:
Okay. Great. Thanks guys.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rob Stevenson from Janney. Please go ahead.
Rob Stevenson:
Good afternoon guys. What percentage of your 2021 development starts are locked in cost wise at this point? And what are you seeing with respect to construction costs especially lumber given what's going on there and how decent is the labor supply these days?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. Hey Rob it's Matt. I can speak to that one as well. If we haven't started a job yet we have not locked in the cost on anything really except for probably the land and a little bit of the entitlement costs. So the starts that we're looking at potentially for next year, I think we own the land on maybe two or three of them and then there is a couple of others where we have, they're under hard contracts. So everything else is subject to the market. The land and the soft cost usually is around a third 25%-30%-35% of the total. Capital cost the hard cost usually around 65% depending on the product type. We had if you asked at the beginning of the pandemic I'd say we had a pretty high degree of conviction that hard costs should come down particularly in some of these markets that had seen a big run-up over the last couple years. I'd say we've less conviction around that today just seeing how the for sell market has recovered so and lumber right now is very very expensive. Unfortunately we're not in the position of really having to buy much lumber as we sit here today because we didn't start anything for three quarters last year but if lumber pricing doesn't adjust back to where we would expect it to some of those starts may be in question and my guess is like a lot of commodities there is a little bit of a self-correcting element to that that we're not the only ones that will probably find ourselves in that position. There are a number of mills that are shut down right now because of COVID concerns. So we do think supply should start to increase again here by springtime but at this point I'd say our sense is more the costs have leveled off and that except for maybe in a few markets where they were really overheated I'd say the expectation at this point is probably move towards more of a flattening than a real nominal decline in hard costs.
Rob Stevenson:
Okay and given that I mean where are the yields on the new start the 2021 starts relative to the 58 on the current pipeline?
Matt Birenbaum:
Right there just about the same and when you look at our current development pipeline and you look at the mix of the current development pipeline it is mostly suburban and even the deals that are in lease up there is a couple of them that are behind pro forma but there is a couple that are actually ahead of pro forma as well. So that kind of makes sense when you look at, when you compare that to kind of near-term start.
Rob Stevenson:
Okay. And then last one for me where are you in terms of the mix of condo sales at Loggia is what's left skewed towards higher or lower price points or is what's left fairly consistent with what you've already sold?
Timothy Naughton:
Congratulations Rob. I was right if we were going to get through the call without a question about Park Loggia, so we've closed 73 units. We have another ‘15 where we've accepted offers or under contract so that would bring us to 88 total. The mix we have sold maybe a few more I think we sold three of the four penthouses. So the mix is going to start to skew a little bit more towards low-priced units just because of that but we still have a reasonable mix up and down the building and that's where we're seeing frankly some pretty good traction now is in the more modest price points in the podium of the building. Traffic's actually picked up quite a bit. We've seen 15 to 20 inquiries a week. In January we've been averaging about four new deals a month the last three months whereas on the last call it was more like three per month. So but we do have a inventory that remains is a little bit more affordable on average.
Rob Stevenson:
And is stuff being sold, I mean thus far been primary residents or these largely secondary residents and are you expecting any impact if New York City and state passes additional soak the rich type of tax measures?
Timothy Naughton:
I don't know. Again this is not billionaires row. I mean this is by Manhattan standards. This is a pretty compelling value proposition which is I think why we're continuing to see our sales face maintain pretty strongly. It is not, there's a lot of people buying condos for their kids, in many cases maybe their kids who are going to university in New York and that market obviously it's been a lot of distance learning since the pandemic hit but just may well pick up. So I don't have the exact breakdown of primary versus secondary residences but I would say that if there is a lot of lot of family type transactions.
Rob Stevenson:
Okay. Thanks guys. Appreciate it.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Haendel St. Juste Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Haendel St. Juste:
Hey thank you. Good afternoon. First question is on the bad debt. Remain elevated in 4Q very similar to the third quarter, I guess first of all are you expecting a similar level? Is that what's embedded within your 1Q guidance here? And second I guess when do you think you can see some improvement there and since you brought it up earlier house extension of the eviction moratoriums until March 31 playing a role into your thinking? Thanks.
Kevin O'Shea:
Well Haendel, this is Kevin. Maybe I'll answer the first couple here in terms of the first quarter we are expecting a persistent level of bad debt expense to roll into the first quarter. So not meaningfully different from what he saw in the fourth quarter and I don't know Tim if you want to add sorry, Sean if you want to add any more about kind of –
Sean Breslin:
Yes. On the eviction moratoria there is sort of various related about eviction, related to late fees, running fees and things like that. So it's not just the federal level that we have to and even local in some cases. So one example you may have noticed that California through June. So and there is Washington state and various other places CBC order as well federal overwrite. There is quite a bit of I would say in terms of what you can do at state level. at this point is that we will probably see most of the whole through mid year very likely depending on how things unfold with vaccination of the population and the economy continuing to recover that is sort of how we view at this point but there's no question that it could be extended beyond that where in some cases if things are going well people let expire sooner. So that will influence our ability to big people. We are continuing other efforts as it relates to collections that we will continue but at this point what we basically feel like it's going to happen is that bad debt that we saw the last three quarters of 2020 will likely continue with that face a little bit of a nice present January but it wasn't quite as bad but the expectation is look more like last three quarters of 2020.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean just to add to that and I mean so you begin to reverse from 250 to 300 basis points of revenue trends that you've seen the last few quarters is something more typical which is more like 50 to 60 basis points of revenue. Obviously we're going to need resolution of the pandemic and restoration of the kind of landlord remedies perspective to those who are not payers and that can be little wide certainly not something you expect to change materially in the first half of the year.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Got it. Very helpful. Second I have a follow-up to some earlier questions on development. You noted has been noted that all three of you development starts our Northeast suburban. So I am curious when you are thinking about new starts what can you see a few more starts in the West Coast or non-Northeast markets in a more urban locations. I'd recognize you have a couple West Coast project underway in the pipeline, but you haven't started a new West Coast project since I think it's the second half of 2019. Thanks.
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. We do have start likely in southeast Florida this year. We have start in Denver that we are planning and we have a pretty large start in Suburban Seattle. We were planning later this year. California is tough. California is where we're probably finding the most challenged economics right now for new starts but we do have starts in the expansion market in Seattle.
Haendel St. Juste:
And with those threads on your expected development deals versus cap rates be fairly similar that call it 50 - 75 basis points spread you referring to earlier.
Matt Birenbaum:
Again, I think the spread is more than that. I mean if you look at we said that the current book is about a 58. I mean those assets today would sell for sub 4 and half probably low 4 so I think the spread is well over 100 basis points. And it's probably just as wide given that how our low cap rates in Seattle, Denver and Florida.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
We will go ahead and take our last question from Dennis McGill from Zelman & Associates. Please go ahead.
Dennis McGill:
Thank you. Just wanted to touch on supply in your views on how it might play out in 2021 especially in urban environments. It seems from our work they're still quite a bit to deliver and maybe some of that slides out but would seemingly limit some of the pricing power once you rebuild occupancy but just wanted to see how you guys are thinking about those competing balances.
Sean Breslin:
Yes Dennis, this is Sean. Good question. Happy to comment on that and hear others Ken as well as well but as it relates to output trend we are expecting deliveries in 2021 to come down about 6% to 7% compared to 2020 and represent about 1.8% of stock. All the regions are expected to be down except for the New York, New Jersey region first where the decline in deliveries and sort of New York area is going to be offset by what we're seeing in northern New Jersey particularly Jersey City increases by about 3500 to 4000 units, even though balance kind of New York City is down maybe 2200. So in terms of trade area is an increase there and then we expected to be relatively flat in Northern California. In terms of urban specific yes we did see a little bit of benefit certainly coming in as I mentioned, New York City, urban Boston a very modest increase in the district. So not terribly different. And San Francisco is basically flat. So no material change there and other market I guess it would LA where is going to be down about 1500 units. So in general the supply picture in the urban environment with exception to San Francisco and DC will be better in 2021 than it was in 2020 with all things being equal it certainly help support a recovery at this point in time.
Timothy Naughton:
Hey Dennis, Tim here. I think one of the things I think about with the urban supplies in ‘21 and ‘22 on stuff that's already been started in ‘19 and ‘20, but the likelihood that we are going to see starts in ‘21 and ‘22 and how that may translate into ‘23 and ‘24 performance. I think it's going to be tough for people to get deals financed just against a narrative of the whole kind of work from home, work from anywhere dispersing your workforce the satellite offices as well as kind of downtown and I think you probably little decade you could be in a position where, we could be a position where we're seeing very little supply delivered where demand maybe down a bit but for the fundamentals actually looks better quite a bit better in urban submarkets and even the suburban markets. It's almost a reverse of what we saw this last decade where at the beginning of the decade 2010 everyone thought was going to outperform and they did from a demand standpoint, but supply more than made up for such that performance, actually asset performance increased in our portfolio and in the suburbs. That story can completely reverse I think in the next three to four years.
Dennis McGill:
That's helpful perspective. Thank you. And then on the share repurchase in the quarter can you maybe just talk about how you triangulate it to getting comfortable on the buyback and then how you might be thinking about that now with where the stock is if it hangs out year or higher is it likely use of capital in ’21?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. This is Kevin. So there are a number of variables take into account clearly. First of all with our alternative use and development is our alternative use and as you can see that based on our outlook for the year, we do anticipate starting development and that reflection and it puts a few that at least relative to where our peers have training lately development represented more attractive use for our capital then buying back our shares although our shares do quite compelling and it is a tougher call in the most normal circumstances given how we're trading below NAV. As you can tell from when we were buying back shares we were buying back shares around $150 this year which we felt was pretty dark compelling when we ran that math and we are at different point today. So that price matters to us as well when we're looking at the alternatives. The other factors we need to take into account is not only our source of proceeds that also would be impact on our leverages and we did then and we do now still have the financial capacity and the proceeds from dispositions to engage in the major buyback if it were to make sense to do so. But every time you do so we have to think about the impact on our leverage metrics and what we knew then and what is still true today is our EBITDA has been sequentially declining over the quarters and our net debt to EBITDA was 5.4 times in the last quarter targeted is 5.6 times. When we began the pandemic our ratio was about 4.6 times and so the movement up in that ratio is really been driven not by taking on more debt, but rather by decline in EBITDA and as we pace through the balance of this year and see that the lower lease rates and concessions work into our rent roll in our EBITDA we need to be mindful of managing that ratio so that stays as possible within our targeted range. Engaging in a heavy buyback could potentially work against that a little bit but all that said we stand still ready to engage in a buyback if it made sense on a major basis mindful of our credit metrics but at the moment when we triangulate around what's the best use of our capital development still figures today to be our best use of capital.
Dennis McGill:
Got it. That makes sense and I know it's been a long call. So thanks for the time and the transparency.
Operator:
And with that that does conclude our question-and-answer session for today. I would now like to turn the call back over to Timothy Naughton for his brief closing remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Thank you Eli and thanks everybody for being on. I know we've been off for a while. Thanks for all you that's that hung in there for an hour and 45 minutes but I look forward to seeing all of you or many of you virtually over the next two or three months. Enjoy the rest your day. Thank you.
Operator:
And with that that does conclude today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]
Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Abby, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call.
Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Matt and I will provide comments on the slides that we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterward.
Our comments will focus on providing a summary of Q3 results, an update on operations and some perspective on the transaction market and our financial position. Maybe just a few comments before turning to the deck. Several of the trends unique to this downturn and pandemic that we discussed last quarter played out in our performance in Q3. The appeal of urban living is, for the time being, diminished due to health concerns of living in dense environments; the shutdowns effect on retail, entertainment and cultural venues that have long been the draw for urban centers; and a civil unrest that occurred in many of our cities over the summer and early fall. Work from home flexibility has been extended through year-end by many, if not most employers, particularly those heavily weighted to knowledge-based jobs like many businesses in our coastal markets. We've experienced a significant reduction in student and corporate demand as remote learning modalities are being deployed at many urban universities and business travel has dropped off substantially. And finally, historically low interest rates are stimulating demand for existing and new home purchases, particularly for young age cohorts where homeownership rates have begun to climb. All these factors have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in apartment demand, particularly in urban centers, beyond what we typically experience in an economic downturn. And while we believe the reduction in demand is mostly temporary in nature, we also believe that it won't be restored until we substantially resolve the public health crisis from the pandemic. A meaningful recovery in our business will not occur until employers believe that they could safely bring their workers back to the workplace. Until then, business leaders are likely to err on the side of caution before reopening their workplaces, which is ultimately what will need to happen before many of their employees return to apartment living. I suppose if there's any silver lining in any of this, it's that our nation's struggle to respond effectively to this pandemic should ultimately lead to improvements in our response to future public health crises, much like we saw in the aftermath of 9/11 and the great financial crisis, when our national response led to building a more resilient system to address the threat of terrorism and financial market dislocation, respectively. We hope then that in the future, our nation and our cities will be better prepared to deal with the public health crisis in a more resilient and less disruptive way. But for now, we need to play the hand we've been dealt, and we'll endeavor to provide as much transparency and disclosure as to the actions that we're taking in response and their ultimate impact on the business. So with that, let's turn to results for the quarter, starting on Slide 4. Q3 certainly proved to be a challenging quarter. Core FFO growth was down by 12%, driven by same-store revenue decline of just over 6%. On a sequential basis, from Q2, same-store revenue was down 2.2% or about half the sequential decline we saw in Q2 as bad debt in Q3 leveled off relative to Q2 after the big increase we saw in Q2 during the early months of the pandemic. In terms of capital allocation for the year, through the end of Q3, we've raised $1.7 billion through new debt issuance and dispositions and repurchased about 140 million of shares. We started only one development so far this year, and that was through a joint venture and opportunity zone in the Arts District of L.A., where we own just 25% of the venture. Importantly, our liquidity, balance sheet and credit metrics remain in great shape as we manage through the current downturn. Turning to Slide 5. Like we saw in Q2, the decline in year-over-year same-store revenue in Q3 was primarily attributable to a loss of occupancy and uncollectible lease revenue or bad debt. These 2 factors drove about 80% of the drop in same-store revenue in Q3. Over the next 2 to 3 quarters, we expect to see continued declines in same-store revenue, but increasingly, the decline will be driven by pressure on rental rates as we saw effective rental rates fall by almost 6% this past quarter. These declines will have a more pronounced impact on revenue over the next few quarters as those leases begin to roll through the portfolio. And as Sean will share in his remarks, the decline in effective rental rates had been greatest in high cost in urban markets like San Francisco, New York and San Jose. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sean, who will discuss operations and portfolio performance in more detail. Sean?
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 6. We experienced a year-over-year increase in prospect visits to our communities each month of the quarter. In total, visit volume was up about 20% year-over-year during Q3, which led to a roughly 10% increase in net lease volume. As you can see from Chart 2 on Slide 6, the most significant increase in net lease volume occurred in September, which is up about 35% year-over-year. And as of yesterday, traffic and leasing volume for October was up roughly 25% and 20%, respectively.
Moving to Slide 7. For the first time in more than 4 years, resident notices to vacate our communities increased by a meaningful amount on a year-over-year basis. During Q3, notices increased by roughly 17%, primarily as a result of the spike in lease terminations in urban submarkets, which is depicted by the hash bars on Chart 1 on Slide 7 and a topic I'll touch on in a minute. Our leasing volume exceeded the pace of notices, however, starting in August and has continued through October. As a result, if you turn to Slide 8, you can see that beginning in September, move-ins exceeded move-outs and physical occupancy has increased from the low point at 93.1% in September to 93.5% for October and stands at 93.9% today. Moving to Slide 9. Our suburban portfolio continues to perform substantially better than our urban assets. Charts 1 and 2 at the top of Slide 9 reflect notices to vacate our communities and lease terminations by submarket type. Notices to vacate our urban communities increased by roughly 40% during the quarter, driven by an approximately 70% increase in lease terminations, and led to a 340 basis point decline in physical occupancy from Q2 to 90.2% and double-digit decline in rent change. For our suburban portfolio, the increase in notices to vacate was more modest, supporting better physical occupancy and rent change. The performance of our urban portfolio has been impacted by a variety of factors, including those mentioned by Tim in his prepared remarks. I'd highlight the combination of extended work-from-home policies and the civil unrest that occurred during the summer months, which impacted the quality of urban environments, is key factors driving residents to break leases during Q3 and leave urban centers for housing options and other geographies. Shifting to Slide 10 to address regional performance. Increased turnover in Northern California, the Mid-Atlantic and New York/New Jersey impacted physical occupancy more than in other regions. In the New York/New Jersey region, the increase in turnover was primarily a function of elevated turnover in New York City, which is 87% on an annualized basis during the quarter. For the Mid-Atlantic, we experienced increased turnover in the District of Columbia and other urban or quasi-urban submarkets like the Rosslyn, Ballston and Tysons Corner submarkets in Northern Virginia. In Northern California, annualized turnover during Q3 was 85%, driven by elevated turnover across all 3 markets, San Francisco, San Jose and the East Bay, but was most pronounced in San Francisco and in Mountain View where Google is headquartered. On a positive note, turnover was relatively flat in New England, which is a testament to our primarily suburban Boston portfolio and was down in both Pacific Northwest and Southern California. Physical occupancy in all 3 regions exceeded the portfolio average. And moving lastly to Slide 11. Same-store like-term lease rent change was down 3.3%, and effective rent change was down 5.8%. Metro New York/New Jersey and Northern California are 2 of the regions I identified on the last slide with elevated turnover and, therefore, available inventory to lease produced the weakest rent change during the quarter. Rent change in New England held up the best, again, supported by our suburban Boston portfolio, which, in many cases, offers differentiated products, including larger unit sizes to those departing urban environments. So with that, I'll turn it over to Matt to address our development portfolio.
Matthew Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks, Sean.
Turning to Slide 12. We are starting to see a remarkable recovery in the transaction market. Ultra-low interest rates have started to bring buyers back into the investment sales market for properties that can support reasonable levels of debt service, primarily suburban assets where operating results have been less impacted by the pandemic. To take advantage of this shift in buyer sentiment, we increased our disposition plan over the summer and brought several communities to market in the past 2 months. As of today, 6 of these communities are currently under contract or letter of intent at very attractive pricing with cap rates averaging 4.4%. This compares to 4 communities that we sold earlier in the year at an average cap rate of 4.7%, putting us on track to complete nearly $700 million in dispositions for the year. Turning to our development portfolio. Slide 13 shows the rents we are achieving at the 9 communities currently in lease-up. For the past several years, we have shifted our development focus to more suburban locations, and we're starting to see some of the benefits of this strategy now as our lease-up rents are only about $45 per month below our initial underwriting, allowing for continued value creation on these assets as they are completed and stabilized. We have highlighted 3 of our lower-density northeastern communities on the slide, which feature rental townhomes and which are showing a nice increase in rents compared to pro forma. This product, which features larger floor plans, private garages and direct entry with no common corridors, is particularly appealing in the current environment and serves as a good substitute for single-family rentals, which are enjoying very strong fundamentals. On Slide 14, we show the future earnings potential of our development [ portfolio ]. At current projected rents and yields, we expect to generate nearly $140 million in annual stabilized NOI with only $14 million of that reflected in our Q3 results. And with more than 90% of the capital needed to complete those assets already funded, these developments should contribute significant incremental cash flow over the next several years. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim for some closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thanks, Matt. Turning to the last slide, Slide 15. It was another challenging quarter, driven by the suddenness and continued strength of the pandemic. Weak same-store performance is being driven mostly by our urban portfolio as Sean mentioned. Particularly in the high cost markets of San Francisco and New York Suburban communities with larger units have performed much better. While pricing pressure continues to impact rental rates, occupancy has begun to modestly improve and stabilize in the 93% to 94% range. The transaction market, as Matt mentioned, has picked up dramatically after having been frozen earlier in the year. For those assets being taken to market, values are generally holding up at levels close to pre-COVID valuations.
We continue to be cautious in deploying new capital, particularly for new development where economics are challenging and construction costs have not abated in any material way. And lastly, the balance sheet is very well positioned and is much stronger than prior downturns, which should give us plenty of financial flexibility to address the challenges posed by the current downturn. And so with that, Abby, we'd be -- we'd like to open the call for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Maybe just on the transaction market. You mentioned kind of the difference of urban versus suburban, but that kind of blended transaction just values are pretty similar to pre-COVID. Can you bifurcate that between the 2, both in terms of buyer interest as well as values for urban versus suburban of what you're seeing today?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Nick, this is Matt. I wish that I could, but the reality of it is that there's very, very little kind of urban high-rise assets that are in the market right now. And kind of that makes sense when you think about where the occupancies are, where the rent changes on those assets, as Sean laid out in his remarks. So the assets that are trading, both that we're trading and that we're seeing others trade in the market, tend to be more assets that can support strong debt service coverage wherever the buyers can take advantage of the rates -- incredibly low rates. And those tend to be more of the suburban assets, more maybe $100 million or less in general asset size, although not universally.
As you mentioned, on those assets, what we're seeing is the values are pretty consistent with where they were pre-COVID. In some cases, the cap rates are down, the NOIs are down a little, but the value is pretty much, some are a little higher, some are a little lower. And the bid on those has been incredibly strong. There's a lot of capital that was raised. If you went to NMHC in January this year, there were a lot more people saying they were going to be buyers than sellers. So there was a lot of money on the sidelines, and that money was frustrated in the first half of the year with very little transactions to shoot at. So you're seeing a little bit of a pent-up demand there. But again, that's all focused really on the assets that are being brought to market. And I'm not aware of hardly any kind of downtown urban core markets -- assets being brought to market in this environment. So the value on those assets is really anybody's guess.
Nicholas Joseph:
And then just in terms of your own appetite for sales, beyond the $440 million that you cite here, kind of what's behind that? And then if you can tie that to the share repurchase program and expectations going forward.
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, yes, Nick, this is Kevin. Maybe I'll begin with the share repurchase. There's obviously a lot of number of uses that we fund with asset sale proceeds as we always do, including development spend under way. But in terms of the share buyback, as you saw, we were active in that program in the second quarter. Really, the fundamental thesis behind the share repurchase program hasn't changed. We expect to be active on it in the third quarter. We believe there's an attractive opportunity to take advantage of the disconnect between private and public market values for investors like ourselves who can see things through to the other side of the pandemic. We have the balance sheet strength and liquidity to pursue a modest share buyback that's executed in a measured way, which we believe we did in the second quarter and we intend to do so going forward, and one that's funded with primarily with asset sales and sized and managed in a manner that preserves our strong credit profile.
So all those things were true last quarter. They remain true this quarter. And so looking ahead, we would continue to plan on a measured buyback, funded primarily with asset sales with an eye on preserving our financial strength and flexibility. So we have plenty of capacity to sell assets over time and don't feel -- we don't believe that's going to be a constraint for us. I don't know, Tim, if you want to add anything.
Timothy Naughton:
No.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Hightower:
In terms of the move-outs that took place during the third quarter and predominantly within the urban portfolio, can you give us a sense if you track this sort of thing, where they're moving to in terms of forwarding addresses? Because we've heard commentary on intracity moves, let's say, where it's more bargain hunting than anything. But are you seeing a structural shift outside the city from your urban -- previously urban inhabitants going elsewhere?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, this is Sean. A very good question. And we do track that just based on forwarding addresses. I'd say there's probably 2 or 3 things I'd highlight as it relates to -- when you look at the data, what sort of stands out, and really, I'd say 3 points. First is we classify the big move for a resident is that they're moving more than 150 miles somewhere. And in that category, New York City, this percentage of move-outs, Q3 of '19, that was about 17% of the population, that increased to about 30% of the population in Q3. In San Francisco, Q3 last year was about 23%. It moved up to about 27% this year. And then the 2 other categories I'd highlight, a regional move, which we define as between 50 and 150 miles away from your departing location. In New York City, that moved from 6% of move-outs up to about 20% and in San Francisco from 7% to 10%.
And then probably the last one I'd highlight is what we consider a market move, which is between -- greater than 10 but less than 50 miles. And the one that really stood out as a meaningful increase was Boston, primarily urban Boston, where it increased from basically 10% to 20%, so about double. One thing you have to keep in mind in some of these things where a local move is obviously less than 10 miles that didn't go through it, but 10 miles can be -- when you think about some of these urban environments, 10 miles does feel like a long way. So someone leaving San Francisco, 10 miles could be going down into the peninsula or places like that. But in terms of sort of the larger move, that's the data that stood out in Q3.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Those are helpful stats. And then just maybe a quick housekeeping question. But for the -- on the asset sales side, the properties that are in the market or under contract, do you expect those to close by year-end? Or what's the timing there?
Matthew Birenbaum:
This is Matt. I think most of them will close by year-end. It's possible 1 or 2 might slip into January, but we would expect most of those proceeds to come in by the end of the year.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Alua Askarbek with Bank of America.
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
Just going back to move-outs and focusing specifically on the Bay Area, which are the highest in Northern California. But kind of where do things stand today? And are you starting to see the move-outs moderating as we head into the winter months? And do you work with residents offers to like suburban market options to keep them within network?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alua, your questions broke up a little bit in terms of residents departing San Francisco, I think you said, and whether we're seeing that accelerate or decelerate? Was that the first part of your question?
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
Yes. I was just wondering if like move-outs are starting to moderate as we head into the winter months?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean as you can see on the chart regarding the move-in/move-outs that we posted up there, we're starting to see volume ease as we move into the fourth quarter in October specifically. That is relatively typical in terms of seasonal patterns. But in terms of whether that's sustainable or not, it will depend on a lot of different factors and many of which Tim mentioned in his prepared remarks, so it's probably too early to conclude that it's a definitive downtrend, other than seasonally, that would normally be the case.
And then I think the second part of your question was around transfers and whether we help facilitate that for residents, and we do. And as it relates to transfer activity, transfers were up about roughly 1/3 year-over-year. So we are seeing increased activity both within the same community and to another community that might within -- be within a reasonable distance of the community they're departing. So definitely an increase in activity there, but it's not a meaningful percentage of total move-outs, if you want to think about it that way.
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
Got it. And then just one other question. So some peers have started to get creative in the urban markets by transforming empty apartments into work-from-home spaces or building in desks into various mix in the apartments themselves to attract renters. Have you guys done anything different to attract renters in your urban markets? Have renters been asking for different amenities like this?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. And a good question. We're exploring a lot of different things that we've done a fair bit as it relates to some people who are looking for, in this environment, a short-term stay in a different geography. It may not just be in the urban environment. It could be a suburban environment where they have left the urban environment, but they are not sure when they may have to return to work in that urban environment. And therefore, they'd like to rent a furnished apartment in a suburban location that's not their sort of normal home location. So we're doing a little bit of that.
And then certainly, as it relates to amenities, we're trying to facilitate food delivery and things of that sort as best we can, given the -- obviously, the constraints to the building from a physical standpoint, trying to facilitate as best we can. So for that, our customers that are home in urban environment, trying to make sure that they have access to the amenities that they would normally enjoy just in a different way.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
I wanted to come back to some of the October updates that you had put in your presentation and you discussed in your prepared remarks. It looked like there was some pretty healthy improvement in occupancy. So the question I'm trying to maybe understand a little bit better is, do you think rents have come down enough in your markets whereby demand is starting to come back up, and you're going to start to see less bad, call it, leasing spreads going forward? So it's really a question of velocity here going forward. And do you think that you're starting to see some stabilization in that demand?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, good question. A few thoughts, and then others can join in. I mean I'd say, obviously, recent trends, particularly September and October, were favorable in terms of demand absorbing some of the inventory we had. Obviously, we had more available inventory given the turnover and the lease breaks that I mentioned, particularly in the urban environments, which did put some additional pressure on pricing. But it really is sort of a macro question as it relates to, particularly in the urban environment, people coming back into this environment because they feel comfortable about it. They need to go to school. They have to be back in the office. All those macro factors really drive that ultimate decision as to whether to return to that environment, and price is more just what am I going to choose within that environment. And as long as you're competitive, you should get your fair share of the market overall. But I think the macro factors are really the things that will tilt it to either kind of stabilize and be more positive going forward or deteriorate. Those are really the key drivers here, and I think that's yet to be told that full story until we move into it a little bit further here towards year-end.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Sean, maybe I'd just add to that a little bit. I think what we're seeing a little bit is what we would normally see in a downturn, which is sort of the housing market is dynamic and kind of resetting its level, if you will. So we've lost about 300 basis points stock. We'd say we've had to reach down a little bit, if you will, into the rental pool. And as part of that, you got to adjust pricing in order to sort of attract your sort of fair share, if you will, of the pool of renters.
I think, ultimately, in terms of whether it stabilizes, it's just -- it's going to be a question, I think, of the macro environment, as Sean mentioned, but also just what's happening on the public health front. I mean as we said, it's really impacting urban centers, in particular, in a very unique way. To the extent we get a vaccine or a therapeutic that starts to give employers confidence enough to bring employees back into the workplace, they're going to start coming back into the -- into these urban centers in terms of their living arrangement, and that's going to create some net new demand for us and help stabilize it. To the extent this thinking needs to get protracted, the vaccines just don't get approved or don't appear to be as effective as we hope or don't have the penetration, then this will obviously continue to be a bit more protracted. But I think that could really help sort of stabilize, if not improve, the outlook for -- particularly for the urban centers.
Richard Hill:
Yes. And so just so I understand, are you -- is -- are you suggesting that the improvement in October that was noted is more seasonal? Or would you -- or are there other factors that are driving that?
Timothy Naughton:
I think a lot of it is price driven, honestly. Rents have continued to come down sequentially, and we've gotten to the point at which we've been able to attract sort of our fair share of the market in the 93% to 94% range in terms of occupancy. So I think that's what's driving it initially. As to whether it stabilizes, I think it's a function of some of the things that Sean mentioned and I mentioned.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Rick Skidmore with Goldman Sachs.
Richard Skidmore:
Just thinking about the development pipeline -- the future development pipeline, both of new starts, how are you thinking about that as -- I know you talked about not doing any new starts yet other than the one JV. But how are you thinking about it as you look forward and then also as you think about mix, both from a geographic mix and, I guess, urban/suburban?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt. I guess I can take that. I don't know, Tim, you may want to add some as well. Yes. It's really a combination of, I'd say, both bottom up in terms of did the deals still pencil in terms of the value creation and are we seeing an attractive cost basis as well as top down, just what are our other options for our capital availability, as Kevin was talking about. So we might start a deal or 2 this quarter. The deals that are more likely to start sooner are going to be the -- some of these suburban northeastern deals where even from my prepared remarks, you saw some of those lease-ups are actually beating their pro formas pretty significantly.
So some of those locations are benefiting from some of the outmigration from some of the urban submarkets. And those are markets that just tend to be much lower beta in the first place. They tend to be less volatile in terms of rents. They haven't seen the same run-up in hard costs over the last 10 years or 5 years, certainly. So maybe there's a little bit less giveback on hard costs in some of those markets. So that's probably where we're more likely in the short term to start. We are still looking to grow in our expansion market, so that's another place that we don't have anything. We're going to start there in the next quarter. But at some point next year, we may have some deals to start there. And then the other piece of it is just what's going to happen with hard costs. And we have not seen hard costs come down. They've maybe flattened out in some of our markets. Lumber is still sky high, although it's starting to come down some. And whether the reaction to this downturn, if you go back 2 cycles ago, the recession there after the great financial crisis, hard costs did come down quite a bit. But prior cycles, it was more that they kind of flatlined for a while and inflation surpassed them. So they kind of fell on a real basis but not a nominal basis. And I don't know that -- we're still waiting to see how that plays out in each of our regional markets.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Matt, I agree with all that. Maybe just to kind of step back a little bit in terms of volume. We were probably running at about $1.4 billion kind of mid-cycle last year. We'd already sort of downsized it to the $800 million, $900 million over the last 3 years or so, call it, '17 to '19. We could start anywhere between 0 and probably $1.5 billion next year, depending upon the factors that Matt mentioned, just the visibility around the rental market and construction markets and then certainly as it relates to the capital markets as well and other options that we might have with our capital, including repurchase of shares.
So it's a mix of all those factors, and it's ultimately -- our views on those are going to kind of form ultimately how we -- how much capital we decide to deploy, somewhere between 0 and $1.5 billion. And so it's probably over the next 12 to 15 months.
Operator:
We will take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street.
John Pawlowski:
Sean, just one question for me. Could you share economic occupancy in October for Northern California and Washington Metro? Just curious those 2 markets, how pricing power is trending and how it could trend into the winter.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. John, you broke out a little bit. You said occupancy in Northern California in October?
Timothy Naughton:
Economics.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I think it's physical occupancy. Yes, physical occupancy, I can tell you. Sorry, say it again.
John Pawlowski:
Yes. Physical occupancy is fine if that's all you have in Northern California and Washington, DC.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So in Northern California overall, I believe we're running today -- I believe, today, running around 92%, which is pulled down by the -- really the lower occupancy that we're experiencing in the 90%, 91% range in San Francisco and pockets of San Jose. How we define San Jose, which is primarily Mountain View and Central San Jose pulling down those numbers. So those are the 2 areas where physical occupancy is weakest, I would say. And then as it relates to Washington, DC, the district itself, occupancy, I believe, is around 91% today, physical again.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. And based on current trends today, do you expect stabilization or improvement in those markets or continued slide?
Sean Breslin:
I'd say based on recent trends, I would say they stabilized a little bit in terms of occupancy and have started to trend up, consistent with the same-store portfolio pattern that I described earlier in my prepared remarks. How quickly they come back is just a function of the velocity that we see in terms of notices, which is primarily a function of lease breaks recently, and then on the demand side in terms of the velocity of leasing that comes through. But as I look forward over the next 6 weeks or so based on availability and such, I would expect both of those to drift up some.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.
Sumit Sharma:
This is Sumit Sharma here in for Nick. Maybe if you could give us a quick update.
Sean Breslin:
We can't hear you, if you could try to speak up a little bit. Juan, is that you? I can't -- we can't hear you -- or Nick.
Sumit Sharma:
So sorry. This is Sumit in for Nick, speakerphone problem. So maybe if you could give us a quick update on the sales pipeline at Park Loggia. I think you guys sold about 59 out of the 172 condos on -- understanding -- interested in understanding if you're seeing any uptick in the NYC sales market or the rental market weakness is sort of filtering in there as well?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I can give you an update. So as of today, we have 65 units that have closed. Again, there's 172 units total in the building. We closed 65, that's $207 million in sales price or about $3.2 million per unit. We also have 9 units under contract today, and we have another 7 contracts out for signature. So we have another 16 -- 15, 16 deals that are pending, many of which would close in the fourth quarter.
I guess I would say the last couple of months, traffic has been pretty good. Interest has been pretty steady. We're running about 3 new deals a month, which would put us at probably the top or among the top 2 or 3 performing condo buildings in all of Manhattan. So there is a lot more supply than there was kind of when we opened the building for sales, but we're still continuing to get well more than our fair share. So I'd say the sales activity has been pretty steady since kind of the initial lockdowns were lifted in midsummer, and we're continuing to get pretty good traction.
Sumit Sharma:
Great. And just a more longer-term question, I guess. With the pandemic and everything, how has it sort of changed your development plans? In terms of -- outside of the pipeline today, what should we be thinking of when we think about your development plans? When you shift towards suburban to urban or even the unit mix, does that shift towards 2 or 3 bedrooms or more in line with your classical kind of the unit mix?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I'll try to speak to that. Again, you're breaking up a little bit. But in terms of -- long term, in terms of development, it's an important capability, and it's a distinguishing competitive advantage that we've had in the public markets. As markets stabilize and start to strengthen, we think the development will be economic again. And I think we've said many times in the past that we're relatively agnostic between urban and suburban. We're trying to go where we think fundamentals are the best at any point in time and where there's greater value.
And having said that, for all the reasons we've been discussing, we pivoted -- we had already started pivoting maybe 3 or 4 years ago to suburban in part because there was just better value, and we've started to see the suburbs start to grow as the leading edge of millennials were approaching sort of the time of their lives where they're maybe buying homes or starting to move -- double back to the suburbs. So we're just seeing more economic activity. That's only been obviously exacerbated by the pandemic. So I suspect suburban demand would continue to outpace urban for a little bit. We did talk about sort of product mix on the last call. I do think there's -- particularly with the work-from-home flexibility that it is going to translate into some unit mix and program changes, an extra bedroom that can double as an office, providing dedicated workspaces within the units. Our survey data suggests that a majority of the residents still would prefer to work within their unit, but they're also -- about 20%, 25% are very interested in a co-working space as well. Pretty much everything we've touched, either redevelopment or new development over the last 2 or 3 years, has a significant co-working space. So the types of spaces are likely to continue to change, more sort of dedicated versus just kind of open table format but giving people an opportunity to either meet or have more sort of safer spaces or confined spaces. I think we expect we'll see that. So those are some of the changes we think are likely to come as a result of either the work-from-home flexibility that we think it's a real -- it was already a trend. It's only going to be greater kind of going forward. Our portfolio really needs to respond to that.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Juan Sanabria with BMO Capital Markets.
Juan Sanabria:
I'm here with John Kim. Just had a couple of questions. First, just on the pricing that you noted in October, was there a change strategically, either dropping the rent or increasing concessions in October versus the previous months in the third quarter just to stimulate that improvement in the occupancy?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Juan, this is Sean. Yes, fair point. As I noted in my prepared remarks, obviously, we had additional inventory become available as a result of the increase in turnover that occurred during this quarter, particularly in July and August, in those urban environments, as I mentioned. And you can see that, I think it was on the second slide where we showed notice to vacate and lease breaks. And obviously, that put additional pressure on pricing. So that -- for example in -- kind of on all leases signed in the third quarter. If you look at July and August, as an example, in urban environments across all leases, the average concession was between half a month to 3/4 of a month. As we moved into September and then in October, getting beyond Q3, that increased to about a month on all leases signed.
So certainly, price response, as it relates to the additional availability that came through. Could we have leased some of that faster? Probably, yes, if we had been even substantially more aggressive as it relates to price. But when you have that kind of inventory delivered to you quickly because there are lease breaks as opposed to having 30 to 60 days advance notice, you would have had to discount that price pretty heavily to try and absorb the incremental inventory that we receive much more quickly. So our strategy was to absorb the inventory at a reasonable pace but not put out a fire sale, so to speak, to absorb it very, very fast, if that makes sense.
Juan Sanabria:
Yes, good. And then I was just curious on the relative pricing between some of your urban core and sort of transit -- close to suburban assets. And kind of are we getting closer to parity to maybe where you could see a flip-flop between some of the people in the suburban market switching back to the urban given the relative pricing and the proximity to work and significant time commuting for whenever we do return to the offices?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean, good question. I'm happy to comment on that and others can jump in. But if you think about the markets we're talking about, New York City, as an example, think about the rent levels in New York City as opposed to kind of moving into the Westchester, Long Island or Northern and Central Jersey, it's a pretty big trade. Even though rents have come down quite a bit in New York City, it's still a big trade. So I think it's really more a function of the macro factors that we were talking about earlier in terms of people's either desire or need to be in those urban environments as it relates to either being in the office because they're required to be in the office, they need to be in the office, returning to school at some of these urban universities or just feeling comfortable in those environments that we've moved into a place where they feel better about retail establishments, restaurants, et cetera, and part of that will be driven by the health care situation and whether that crisis is resolved in a meaningful way. So I think those are the bigger issues as opposed to just purely price.
Timothy Naughton:
I just said -- I mean -- and today, they're just -- they're not having to commute. So obviously, they've tried to take advantage of lowering their rent. I guess I would say we do expect them to come back when they're forced to come back to market. I mean you sort of have to just ask yourself the question, was your life sort of better before COVID or after COVID, and all the things that make urban living great sort of pre-COVID. Once we get on the other side of this, they're still going to be there. These are great mixed-use environments. Particularly the markets that we're in. They are dynamic environments. It's certainly more proximate to jobs. There's been a lot invested in infrastructure in these. It's environmentally more sustainable to people that care about that, I guess.
But I think I'd say the one caveat is this work-from-home flexibility, I think, at the margin will cause some people to maybe stay in the suburbs. If they only have to commute, call it, 2 or 3 days a week versus 5 days a week. They may be able to tolerate that where they wouldn't 4 or 5. So I'd say kind of at the margin, you may not expect to see urban demand as robust as it was pre-COVID. But I think when you layer on the pricing changes that we've seen, there's going to be plenty of people coming back to the urban centers.
Juan Sanabria:
[ That you ] noted in the New York MSA?
Timothy Naughton:
I'm sorry. Did you say including the New York MSA?
Juan Sanabria:
No. I'm just thinking, is Northern California different from New York in terms of the relative rent differential in Downtown San Francisco versus Oakland or the South Bay?
Timothy Naughton:
Pretty big deltas.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Those rent spreads are pretty big between the pockets of the East Bay or even moving down into the peninsula or lower peninsula as compared to being in the city of San Francisco. It's a pretty big spread. I mean I think it really is more around the quality of the lifestyle and the reasons you want to be in the urban environment, I mentioned, just not necessarily being able to stay and you don't have to be in the office.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
So when I was thinking initially about the environment, I thought AvalonBay would be in a better spot than it's turned out to be because of the lion's share of your portfolio is in the suburbs. I didn't think people would move from New York to Nebraska maybe as much as they had and more New York to Edgewater, New Jersey or something. But I understand transfers are up a little bit, but I also understand that's a relatively small piece of the turnover puzzle. How would you respond to the idea that when people -- when we do get some sort of resolution here that people want to step back into these urban worlds and not maybe go all the way into Manhattan but someplace around it and thereby putting AvalonBay in an interesting spot to sort of tease people back into these urban centers without having to go full in. Do you have a sense about how permanent these moves away from you have happened and how much flexibility people have to come back as soon as they feel comfortable to do so?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Rich, I think it's a really interesting question. I would say even going back before sort of pre-COVID, there was already -- I mean we were already a believer sort of in the infill kind of urban-light, sort of mixed-use lifestyle environments. We think sort of post-COVID, that's still a great opportunity. Maybe it's even a stronger opportunity when you sort of add affordability in the mix, when you can maybe be in an infill suburb for a couple of bucks less a foot than being downtown and then you couple that with maybe decent transit and only have to hop in the train 2 or 3 days a week versus 5 days a week.
So I think kind of that infill suburb is really extremely well positioned. I think it had been anyway. But like many things, as we've talked about COVID, it just seems to be accelerating kind of these trends that were already occurring before. But even as I mentioned on the last question, it doesn't make -- urban living is still very attractive. But when you layer into demographics, affordability and work-from-home flexibility, that does make -- that does change the calculus a little bit for that marginal renter.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. And second, unrelated to the first, but you talked a little bit about how your future development activity might be informed by this environment and how it may change. How does that apply to your fledgling businesses in Denver and South Florida? Do you think those markets are performing perhaps better or feeling more resilient and maybe they become a bigger piece of the pie chart now in the aftermath because of all of this? Or does that not change relatively speaking?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Rich, it's Matt. So those markets right now are doing better than most of our legacy markets. I think some of that's a function of their lower-cost markets, their markets where initially, anyway, there was less of a shutdown. So that's probably part of it. And the assets we have in those markets seem to be more suburban as well, at least that's definitely true of our Denver portfolio.
So when we went into those markets, we said our goal was to get them to be about 5% each of our portfolio, which would be about $1.5 to $2 billion each. We're only -- not even quite halfway there yet. So we are looking to be aggressive there. We'll continue to look to be aggressive there. Over time, could that migrate up to more than 5%? I mean it could. But I think, again, like Tim was saying, to the extent what we're seeing is that the kind of COVID response is accelerating a lot of the trends that we saw pre-COVID, and those were the same trends that have led us to those markets in the first place.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Rich, maybe just to add to that. I agree with Matt's -- what Matt was saying. I think we've said on prior calls, too. It might lead us to go into new markets as well that are likely to have some of the spillover benefit from -- whether it's New York or the California markets but also are kind of heavily indexed to knowledge-based jobs as big tech and knowledge-based industries continue to kind of diversify their workforces across the map. We want to be kind of where their workers are. And if there are going to be places like Denver and Southeast Florida, we think strategically, those are the places we need to be and our allocation is going to need to respond to that.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
I was wondering if you guys can walk through your effective rent growth month-to-month in the third quarter as well as provide October? And do you think now that you're through the peak leasing season, you could see rates improve due to fewer expirations? Are you more apt to keep rents closer to maybe September and October levels and continue to try and grow occupancy?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Austin, this is Sean. Good question. In terms of walking you through the rent change in the quarter, basically, we move from sort of mid-3s up to mid-8s in terms of the reduction in rent change as you move through each month of the quarter. And then October, right now on a blended basis, is down about 10%. And in terms of the broader question as it relates to stabilization, I mean the only thing I'd say is that, particularly in the suburban environment, concessions have kind of leveled off in the past couple of months here. We've had good volume. So we haven't necessarily had to kind of dig deeper into the concession bag to generate that velocity. And I'd say we're reasonably comfortable with the velocity we're seeing today, which is what I expressed in my prepared remarks that you saw on the slide.
So to the extent that we continue to see good velocity in pricing, we wouldn't have to dig deeper into that concession bag to the extent things fell off then we'd have to reevaluate. But based on where we think we're priced today, we feel like we're in pretty good shape. And again, I'd say on the suburban side, [ I think it ] is a little bit better than urban. So I'd say it will take a little while longer here to see how it plays out in these urban environments, if that's going to be the right kind of pricing level to continue to attract demand at the pace that we need it.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Got it. No, that's very helpful. And then earlier to your comments going on where fundamentals are best as it relates to new investment activity, does any of the trends you've seen since you decided to enter into the expansion markets change your target allocation of those markets, either higher or lower, as you kind of look forward over the next several years?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt. No, I mean I think as we were talking on one of the prior questions, we like those markets. We're looking to grow in those markets. Like I said, our objective is to get to about 5% in each. Some of that is driven by just the size of those markets relative to the size of ours. And as Tim mentioned, there may be additional markets that we add into the mix here at some point that would get that kind of total allocation to other markets like that above that 10% over time.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So 2 questions. Tim, just going back to development. We had talked about this on the last call and you had said that you guys were adamant with your current development program and the team that you have in place, no changes. But in some of your answers earlier on the call, you talked about starts, obviously, this year being much down. Next year could have a wide range, 0 to $1 billion, I think you said. So as you think about where you would be on that front with development, what do you think the impact would be on the P&L? Like would we start to see some of these capitalized costs end up as expenses on the P&L as you try to keep your team in place? or do you think that there would be further changes afoot, especially if you can't do the level of development in the suburban markets that would necessitate -- that would keep sort of the level constant where it is today?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Alex, I think sort of simple answer is too early to know, to be honest. I think as I mentioned on the prior call, we have actually cut back our development capacity over the last 2 or 3 years as we've gone from about $1.4 billion to about $800 million. I'd say the group is scaled to do around $1 billion -- $800 million to $1 billion a year. It can probably flex up or down a little bit from that, depending upon the needs.
When you talk about expensing versus capitalizing, it starts to get into a lot of other things that are probably worth maybe another call. But if you look at the past downturn, we suspended development for 4 or 5 quarters typically. So again, if this is a downturn in length and it looks somewhat like those, I don't think we're talking about what -- I don't think there's a concern about the things you're talking about. To the extent we're looking at a downturn where it just doesn't make sense to start a new development for 3 years, we're going to have to rightsize the group or expense some of those costs. So -- but I think it's premature to kind of know kind of where that's likely to fall out.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. The 4- to 5-quarter pause actually is a helpful reference. So thank you on that, Tim. The next would be -- so if you -- maybe for Kevin, just thinking about the operational, whether it's at the property level, G&A or on the balance sheet, where do you think are some cost saves or efficiencies that you guys could peak out that would help mitigate the revenue drops for -- as we look forward into next year?
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, I mean maybe just to put some context, Alex, this is Kevin, I think we experienced year-over-year NOI decline $38 million, $39 million this past quarter. If you add the quarterly property management costs, overhead costs and G&A, they're about that number. So proportionately, our overhead costs represent a small part of the puzzle. And in terms of how we -- relative to the overall business and the revenue structure and so forth. So it's not a particularly acute issue, I would submit. In terms of how we can manage it, we manage it throughout the cycles. There are potentially some opportunities -- one of the biggest opportunities simply is just a fair bit of overhead costs or incentive costs, and those are going to naturally correct here this year. So there's a little bit of a self-correcting piece. And then in terms of kind of property management overhead, Sean, did you want to add something?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, it's Sean. One thing, I think, that's fair to address is we were already on a path to create more operating efficiencies throughout the portfolio based on some of the things we talked about. I think it was one of the calls last year as it relates to automation, digitalization, various things like that, the great use of data, centralizing different things, whether it's leasing, renewals and such. And we're still on that path. And if anything, I would say it's accelerated certainly as a result of what happened through the pandemic as it relates to the operating model. And we were talking about somewhere in the order of magnitude of approaching $20 million to $30 million of operational savings through those various initiatives. And we're still plowing forward on that. And probably, we'll be investing more in some of those technology initiatives over the next couple of years to help offset what we're seeing at least at the property level P&L.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Alex, just to add, finally -- this is Tim, Alex. Maybe just to add, finally, in terms of G&A, as Kevin was mentioning, it's a pretty efficient business model. I mean you're talking about G&A costs are maybe 15 to 20 basis points of total asset value. If you compare that -- I mean, so as a business, it's pretty G&A efficient. I think compared to other business models, particularly on the private side, it's efficient again. So this is -- there aren't a lot of opportunities on the G&A side. Some of it is self-correcting through the incentive system, as Kevin mentioned. As performance weakens, incentives pay is less. But it's -- there's not a lot of extra bodies to look to. And G&A is -- it's 85%, 90% bodies, when you get down to it.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Yes. Tim, that's exactly the point I was after. And I was thinking at the property level, the bulk of the expenses are insurance, real estate taxes and payroll, and those categories would seem like they'd only go up. So it seems like the expense savings are sort of on the margin. It doesn't sound like there's anything big picture. It sounds like it's on the margin, but a lot of the expenses seem -- like are sort of set. Is that a fair takeaway?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I would say on the payroll side at the -- on the property level, that's where the opportunity is. Those are some of the activities that we think we can automate or centralize, get the benefit of some scale and the benefit of some automation as well where there could be real savings in terms of number of bodies. Not as clear on the overhead side, G&A side, when you may have a group of 2 people within a particular function that's working across a 300-unit -- a 300-community portfolio. So...
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we will take our next question from Zach Silverberg with Mizuho.
Zachary Silverberg:
Just a couple of quick ones. Can you talk about the profile of the residents entering the portfolio today in some of your more challenged submarkets like New York and Boston, where concessions appear more prevalent. I'm wondering if the income and credit profiles are any different and if there's any concern over future rent payments maybe a year from now.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Zach, good question. We haven't really changed our credit standards other than to be probably even more diligent as it relates to detecting fraud. Particularly in certain markets, I would say, like L.A. tends to be one that comes to mind. But we've not relaxed our credit standards as it relates to it, and we are still qualifying people in diligent manner so that as we look to the other side of this, lease rents aren't changing materially, that we can really have customers that can afford renewal rent increases as you move into -- pick a time frame that you're comfortable with, late 2021 or whatever it may be. So is there risk? There's always risk. But we definitely have not relaxed the standards. If anything, they are a little more stringent as it relates to the fraud detection.
Zachary Silverberg:
Got you. And I guess piggybacking on an earlier question about coworking and communities and with flu season around the quarter, are you guys taking any preventative sanitary measures to combat the spread within the communities, given the potential uptick with flu season around the corner?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. We've done a lot as it relates to kind of promoting a healthy environment. If you look at our operating expense table, we've noted that we've spent a couple of million bucks already this year as it relates to PPE and then beyond that for cleaning and disinfectants and various other things. We have a reservation system where people have to reserve amenity time within a gym or a chill space, whatever it may be. And so we're doing a fair bit to promote healthy environment.
And for the most part, I think we're getting very good feedback through our Net Promoter Score comments around people appreciating our efforts. There's certainly some frustration that they can't just walk into the gym whenever they want. But it's very understanding as it relates to the need for a professional protocol to limit any impact at the community. And so far, knock on wood, we've been relatively lucky in terms of what we've seen at the community. So we feel good about what we're doing and continue to look for ways to promote that healthy environment.
Operator:
We will take our next question from Dennis McGill with Zelman.
Dennis McGill:
A question is on Slide 9. As we look at that split between suburban and urban, I think it's easy to understand the pressure on the urban environment and the change in living conditions and so forth. When you analyze your suburban portfolio, though, it looks like rents there are down maybe 3%, 4% based on the chart. You are seeing move-outs up and vacate notices up as well. Where are those tenants going? If you were to sort of quantify or speculate the weakness in the suburban market, what do you think the leading factors are there? And what are the causes of turnover that you're seeing and the weakness in pricing?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Good question. I mean on the suburban side, you did peg it right, rents are down, call it, roughly 3% or so. I would say it's a variety of factors, really depending on the market. I'll give you a couple of examples. So we would consider various pockets of San Jose, as an example, including Mountain View, Central San Jose to some degree [indiscernible] Northeast San Jose at suburban. But I can tell you just based on the current protocol for companies like Apple and Google and others, there is not a need for those residents to be in that location. As a result, we've seen pressure from turnover in some of those pockets where the demand has just fallen off, obviously, not as much as what we've experienced in San Francisco. But because of those policies, there's pressure on demand there. And some of those pockets, particularly Central San Jose, Mountain View and a little bit in Northeast San Jose, there is supply.
So we're seeing a compression there in terms of what's [indiscernible] at the higher end of the price pyramid coming down to compete with other assets in the existing inventory of sort of A minus to B-type assets, which are representative of what we have in those markets. So that's the kind of pressure you see in that type of environment. That's similar to what you might see in certain pockets in Seattle, like in Redmond. And then there's other pockets in the Northeast, say, Boston is holding up relatively well. Long Island is holding up relatively well, but you still do have -- we are in the midst of a recession, and people are making different choices to some degree as it relates to a living environment. Some people are moving into those environments from densely populated urban environments, but others are making different decisions as it relates to staying there or moving elsewhere. So demand overall, we're seeing just household contraction. So that will impact suburban environment, just not nearly as much as what we've seen in urban environments. So that's kind of the macro view. And Tim, do you want...
Timothy Naughton:
And part of that is you're seeing, particularly younger age cohorts moving back home. So the number -- percentage of under 35 moving back home, particularly under 25 [ continues to hit ] sort of historical highs. So you get sort of normal consolidation you get with any downturn. Probably what we haven't seen yet is it doubling up. If anything, people are trying to get away from their roommates if they're both trying to work from home in the same space. So -- but we're definitely seeing people move back home and camping out in the basement or just where they have more room to [ fill out work ]. We mentioned earlier sort of the parents' homes are more fully occupied, self-storage is more fully occupied, and apartments are a little less occupied. So that seems to be part of some of the trends that we're seeing.
Dennis McGill:
That's helpful perspective. Actually, that was going to be a second question, Tim, if maybe continuing on that. If you think about the demographics of those early terminations or vacates, is that skewing more to the younger cohort that can be more mobile versus the families? Or are you seeing it fairly distributed across your tenant base?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, that's a fair point. I mean if you look at sort of occupancy and related lease breaks, there's definitely more pressure in the studio floor plans. Urban environment studios during Q3, I think, the average occupancy was 87%, 88%, as an example. So people less -- more flexible moving home to mom and dad, for sure.
Operator:
And with no additional questions, I would like to turn the call back to Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Thank you, Abby. I know everyone's busy, a lot of calls today. But thanks, again, for joining, and we'll see you in the virtual world, I suppose, maybe at NAREIT in November. Take care.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call, and we thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Your host for today's conference is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Matt, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to the Q2 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin and I will provide commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing a summary of Q2 results, an update on operations and some perspective on development in the balance sheet now that we've entered an economic recession. But before getting started on the deck, I thought I would offer a few general comments about the environment we are currently facing. To say things have changed over the last 4 months is certainly an understatement. We are in the middle of the largest global health care crisis in a century. The economic downturn is the most severe we've seen since the Great Depression and on the heels of the longest expansion on record. And social unrest is at a level we haven't experienced since Vietnam and the civil rights movement over 50 years ago. It's been said, but these are indeed unprecedented times. And these events aren't just having an unprecedented impact on economic activity but also on income and wealth distribution across industries in the broader population. For those companies and workers leveraged to the virtual economy, they're actually doing quite well, and some are even thriving. For those companies and workers that operate in the real economy of bricks-and-mortar like AVB, we're certainly feeling the normal effects and then some of the downturn. And then for those companies and workers in the travel, leisure and entertainment sectors, among others, they are basically in shutdown mode. These sectors as well as others will undoubtedly need to be restructured over the next few years. Many companies will not survive, and their employees, if evenly temporarily furloughed for now, will join the ranks of the permanently unemployed over the next several quarters. And unfortunately, those impacted by these events or most impacted by these events are those in lower-paying service jobs and minority populations. As a result, this downturn carries not just the normal economic risk of prior recessions but also profound health, social and political risk that are likely to shape the length and shape -- shape the length and of the economic recovery. So while this was a sudden and quick downturn, the timing and shape of the recovery is hard to project. And that presents a unique challenge in managing our business and communicating our expectations to you, our shareholders. Having said that, we'll do our best to be as transparent and direct as possible as we all try to understand and engage how the current environment will play out in our business in the months and quarters ahead. Right now, let's turn to the results for the quarter, starting in -- on Slide 4. As expected, Q2 was a challenging quarter. Core FFO growth was down almost 2% driven by a same-store revenue decline of almost 3%, or 2.2% if retail is excluded. And on a sequential basis, from Q1, same-store revenue was down 4.5%, or 3.9% excluding retail. We had no development completions or new development starts this quarter. And we've had no starts so far year-to-date. And lastly, we raised over $700 million in capital this quarter at an average initial cost of 2.8%, with most of that coming from a $600 million long 10-year bond deal at a rate of around 2.5%. As Kevin will share in his remarks, our liquidity, balance sheet and credit metrics are very well positioned heading into this downturn. Turning to Slide 5. I wanted to drill down a bit more on the decline in same-store residential revenues this past quarter. As this slide demonstrates, the decline was primarily attributable to a loss of occupancy and uncollectible lease revenue or bad debt. Economic occupancy was down 120 basis points, while bad debt was 200 bps higher than normal. Higher-than-normal bad debt is likely to continue, given the breadth and depth of the downturn, coupled with eviction moratorium in many of the markets in which we operate. We also experienced higher concessions in the quarter and lower other income as we waived various fees this past quarter for our residents, including late payments, common area amenity and credit card convenience fees. Average lease rate for our same-store portfolio in Q2 was actually up 1.8% over Q2 of 2019, reflecting embedded rent growth on leases entered into in 2019 through Q1 of this year. Turning to Slide 6. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this downturn poses a unique risk relative to other recessions. In addition to the household contraction and consolidation that occurs due to job losses in any downturn, the pandemic is driving other trends that are impacting rental demand. These include work-from-home flexibility that is shifting some renter demand from higher cost and urban/infill markets. Many renters are relocating, perhaps only temporarily, to lower-cost markets or submarkets, leisure areas or even back home with their parents. Second, record-low mortgage rates and the desire for space is accelerating demand for single-family homes. Many homebuilders reported strong orders in sales this past quarter, particularly towards the back half of the quarter. And homeownership rate is on the rise. And lastly, we're seeing reduced demand from 2 important segments of renters, corporate and students, as most temporary corporate assignments have been canceled, while higher education is adopting remote learning models and limiting on-campus activities for the fall. These factors will likely weigh on performance until the public health crisis has abated. On the other hand, they will also likely contribute to a more robust recovery once employees begin to return to the workplace. With that, I'll turn it over to Sean to discuss operations and portfolio performance in more detail. Sean?
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 7. The factors Tim highlighted on the previous slide impacted leasing volume throughout the quarter, which is down roughly 10% year-over-year. Turnover for the quarter fell about 5%. So the volume of resident notices to leave our communities exceeded leasing velocity, most materially in May when we experienced about a 25% increase in lease breaks for a variety of reasons, including corporate apartment operators shutting down operations in certain markets. As a result, move-outs exceeded move-ins for the quarter. As of yesterday, net lease volume for July is roughly on pace with the volume of notices to vacate our communities, which should help stabilize occupancy as we move into August. Moving to Slide 8. We experienced a 120 basis point decline in physical occupancy from April to June, with most of it occurring in May as a result of the lease break volume I mentioned a few moments ago. Chart 2 on Slide 8 depicts both lease and effective rent change for the quarter. As detailed in our earnings release, blended lease rent change was down 40 basis points in Q2, while effective rent change was down 3.1%. Rent change for July has improved slightly from June, but the nature of the health crisis and economic environment will dictate the ongoing demand for rental housing and our pricing power as we move through the balance of the year. Turning to Slide 9. You can see the regional distribution of both lease and effective rent change for Q2. Northern and Southern California were the most challenging regions for a variety of reasons, while the Pacific Northwest performed the best. Moving to Slide 10 to look at performance metrics by submarket type. Urban submarkets deteriorated more materially during Q2 as compared to suburban submarkets. From an occupancy standpoint, urban submarkets declined by 270 basis points from April to June, while suburban submarkets fell by only 50 basis points. And from a rent change perspective, urban submarkets trailed suburban by roughly 200 basis points. While the weakness in urban environments is pretty broad-based across our portfolio, it's most pronounced in San Francisco, Boston and parts of L.A. Unfortunately, demand in urban submarkets is suffering from a variety of factors, several of which Tim mentioned in his prepared remarks, including a desire for more affordable price points, extended work-from-home policies across corporate America, a lack of short-term and corporate demand, uncertainty regarding on-campus learning at urban universities and a general concern about population density. Shifting to Slide 11 to discuss our development portfolio. Construction delays at the beginning of the pandemic weighed on both deliveries and occupancies during the second quarter. As noted in Chart 1 on Slide 12, deliveries and occupancies for the first half of the year fell short of our expectations by roughly 450 and 650 units, respectively, which translated into an NOI shortfall of approximately $2 million. Fortunately, following some initial shutdowns at about 1/3 of our construction sites for a short period of time, all of our jobs are currently under way, albeit with a slower pace of deliveries expected across certain assets. I will now turn it over to Kevin to further address development starts, funding and the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 12. In response to the current environment, we have chosen not to start any new construction projects so far this year despite having initially guided in the beginning of the year to about $900 million in new construction starts for 2020. Looking ahead, we expect lower construction costs will benefit many of our future planned starts. And we are prepared to wait for this expected correction on hard costs before breaking ground so that we can lock in a lower basis on these investments. Although real-time construction cost data are difficult to come by, initial indications suggest we are beginning to see a softer labor market and a reduction in overall construction activity makes their way into subcontractor pricing. As for development that is currently under construction, as you can see on Slide 13, we are in a remarkably strong position from a financial point of view. Development under construction is already 95% match funded with long-term capital, which not only mitigates the financial risk of development, but also means that we have locked in the investment spread profit on these developments by having matched the long-term expected returns on the projects with equity and debt price when we were starting these projects. Finally, as shown on Slide 14, we continue to enjoy an exceptionally strong financial position today. This is particularly evident when comparing our key credit metrics today to those from the fourth quarter of 2008 when we entered the last recession. Specifically, since late 2008, our net debt-to-EBITDA ratio has improved to 4.9x from 6.5x. Our interest coverage ratio has increased to 6.9x from 4.5x. Our unencumbered NOI percentage has increased to 94% from 77%. And our credit rating has improved to A3, A- from Baa1 to BBB+. This strong balance sheet position provides us with great flexibility to pursue attractive investment opportunities that may emerge as this downturn unfolds. And with that, I will turn it back to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
All right. Thanks, Kevin. Just turning to the last slide and offering a few summary comments. Q2 was a challenging quarter driven by the suddenness of the pandemic and the depth of the downturn. So far, the impact on same-store performance has been driven by lower occupancy and elevated bad debt. Contributions from NOI and new development lease-ups were less than expected due to construction delays and weaker absorption. We have curtailed new developments dramatically and have not started any new communities so far this year. Despite the strength in the for-sale market, we do expect construction costs to fall over the next few quarters. And we'll incorporate that into our capital allocation plans. And then lastly, the balance sheet is very well positioned in both an absolute since -- and relative to prior downturns, which as Kevin said, just gives us plenty of financial flexibility to address challenges or opportunities as they arise. And so with that, Matt, we'll open the call for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question will come from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Appreciate the color and the rationale behind pausing new starts. Just curious how long do you think the delay will be until you actually start to do projects again. And then what signals are you looking at before actually making that decision to proceed?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hey, Nick. This is Matt. Yes. I mean it is -- we have deals that could start. And we are -- we do have a fairly high degree of conviction that hard costs should start to correct here. So that's -- the main thing we're looking at is kind of where our hard cost is trending, what the subcontractor bid coverage look like. There may be one deal that we would start here that's kind of got some exceptional circumstances that's actually in an opportunity zone. And we're looking at starting with some third-party joint venture capital, which is, as you know, is very unusual for us. But for -- kind of for wholly owned balance-sheet-funded starts, that's really what we're watching. It's kind of interplay between potential reduction in hard costs and, frankly, reductions in NOIs on the other side and kind of looking at what the total basis looks like, what costs look like relative to their long-term trend line and what rents and NOIs look like relative to their long-term trend line as well.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Nick. It's hard to know exactly. If you looked at last cycle, we've lost about 4 or 5 quarters. Part of my introductory comments around what this economic downturn might look like, it's maybe different from others that we've seen where others may have been sort of -- maybe drifted a bit more into the recession. This was quite sudden. And others were maybe in a quicker bounce back. We think this could be a more drawn-out bounce back and likely to be more and more -- you've heard certainly the Nike Swoosh with more people -- more and more, you're hearing sort of the K-shaped recovery, where it's going to be very uneven depending upon even demographic and the population. So just given the public health and economic aspect of this one, it's hard to know for sure. But as we showed on that one slide, we're just starting to see construction costs correcting. Last cycle, they correct on the order of 15%, maybe a little bit more. And it's -- we're probably going to need to see the kind of double-digit corrections before we start to have a little bit more faith that we're buying deals out of the basis that we'll look good sort of next cycle.
Nicholas Joseph:
I think you announced the $500 million share repurchase program. How do you think about actually executing on that? And where does it currently stack up in terms of the use of proceeds maybe relative to development or any other kind of acquisitions or redevelopment, kind of other options that you have for that capital?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. Hey, Nick. This is Kevin. I'll jump in here, and Tim may want to add a couple of comments. And you're right, as we -- as you saw in the earnings release, we did announce a share repurchase program of $500 million. And really, the genesis behind that is we believe our stock is, as you alluded to, trading at a compelling value, both absolutely and relative to our other investments, including development. And because we have the balance sheet strength and liquidity to pursue a program, we intend to do so. Though as we indicated in our earnings release, we're likely to fund that on a long-term basis with asset sales and potentially some incremental debt, but we do intend to proceed. And probably we'll do so initially on a measured basis until we have clarity on those sources. But I think at this point, that's probably our most attractive investment that we have today.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes -- no. I -- maybe to just add a little bit, Kevin, I agree. I think you had 2 things working. It's the best -- it's the most attractive investment, and you've got the disparity between what equity's costing and what -- certainly what debt's costing as being supported artificially by the Fed right now as we know. And our belief is while there's not a lot of visibility on asset pricing, we're -- we feel pretty strongly that asset prices haven't corrected near what equity prices have corrected. We've seen in the order of 30% on the equity, and probably -- we think probably less than 10% on asset sales. So that informs our conviction as well in terms of what the alternatives are in terms of capital sources.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Hightower:
So I'm on the second chart on Page 8, just on the blended like-term rent change chart. And just help us understand some of the details there across new and renewals and what you're seeing currently, urban and suburban and maybe some of the weaker markets you mentioned, Boston, San Fran and L.A. Just help us understand some of the -- what goes into the mix there.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich. It's Sean. Happy to walk you through it a little bit. I mean as we noted on an effective basis, blended rent change was down about 3% for the quarter. If you look at it on a lease basis, it was down only about 40 basis points. And certainly, based on what I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we're seeing the greatest weakness in Northern and Southern California. And if you double-click through those regions, probably the softest spots are San Francisco and throughout L.A., particularly in some of the entertainment-oriented economies around L.A., so think about Hollywood, West Hollywood, Burbank, San Fernando Valley, et cetera. And then the other markets, we're basically anywhere from sort of 0 to minus 2%. And across the other markets, the softest spots are probably in New York City and throughout the urban submarkets within Boston. And as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, generally, across the portfolio, what we're seeing in the urban submarkets is rent change is trailing suburban by about a couple of hundred basis points. And as you probably noted in the chart, our economic occupancy and physical occupancy are both trailing what we're seeing in the suburban submarkets as well. So certainly, a tougher place to be as it relates to both rent change and occupancy in those environments. And as it relates to kind of where things are today, if you look at it in the context of July, effective rent change is down about 3.5%, a little bit better than June. And lease rent change is down about 2%. And in both cases, renewals do remain positive right now, sort of in the 50 to 70 basis point range, slightly lower than what we experienced in Q2 but still positive in July at this point.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Sean, that's helpful. And then just thinking maybe a little more broadly, in some of the bullets highlighted in the prepared comments about the work-from-home shift and the fact that suburban is outperforming urban. And I would also assume, with respect to home purchases, I mean, given the price points in Avalon's markets, maybe you're a little more insulated from that effect than the average apartment landlord out there. So at what point does that sort of mix start to help Avalon in the sense of having a highly concentrated suburban portfolio? When do you think we'll really see that show up in the numbers there as a net positive, you think?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich. It's Sean. I can provide a couple of comments, and then Tim can chime in. I mean it's really a function of how some of those factors evolve over the next few months here. I mean urban submarkets, we've mentioned several of the factors that are sort of driving it. So I think what I mentioned in my prepared remarks is sort of the nature of the health crisis, and the economic environment will dictate when people start to come back to the urban submarkets and at least some in a more material way. And on the suburban side, it's really a function of sort of portfolio mix. And in some places, it certainly is very helpful. There are some submarkets where, even though it's suburban, it's a little bit painful right now. I'll pick one specifically, like Mountain View in Northern California, where Alphabet is headquartered. Given their extended work-from-home policies, it tends to be a weaker submarket even though it's technically considered suburban. So I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all answer here as it relates to that. At least, that's my general thoughts at this point in time. But Tim, do you have anything you want to add?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I just -- maybe just -- I've mentioned suburban had been outperforming urban before -- prior to the pandemic. And we had been seeing a trend, both on the demand [Technical Difficulty] next year, urban supply to outpace suburban by a fair amount in our markets, but also on the demand side, which, last cycle, supply and demand was stronger in the urban submarkets. This cycle, it's probably going to be the opposite, where both -- when you get beyond sort of '21, '22, where you're likely to see stronger demand in some of the suburban submarkets and more supply. And that's partly because millennials are coming of age, there's more economic activity starting to occur in the suburbs, and part of it's affordability. So as you see more economic activity, that ought to drive more rental -- renter demand in the suburbs as well. But -- and we already started to see that trend a little bit before the pandemic, but it's just a longer secular trend that we expect that will continue over the next few years.
Operator:
Our next question will come from John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Sean, I want to go back to your comment about you see signs of stability in at least occupancy heading into August. Does that comment hold for the current pockets of weakness that you alluded to, L.A., Boston, San Fran?
Sean Breslin:
In the short run, John, yes. And we are starting to see some student demand come back in some of these urban submarkets based on announcements that have been made to date as it relates to the hybrid learning environments, both on-campus and distance learning, and just anecdotally, getting a lot of feedback from some of the student population that they had enough time at home. And even if they only could be on campus a couple of days a week, they want their apartment back. So whether that holds or not, obviously, it's a function of the health crisis and the decisions that are made across the university systems. But in general, I would say we are seeing it relatively sort of stabilize a little bit. That being said, between now and year-end, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, the health crisis and the economic environment will dictate whether things kind of shift up or down in terms of demand as we move forward here.
John Pawlowski:
Makes sense. And then the 200 basis point drag from bad debt in the quarter on the residential portfolio with the opening remarks or something to that effect that it remains elevated. Is that a reasonable betting line just the trajectory over these coming months? Or will it get meaningfully worse or meaningfully better? I guess I don't understand -- I don't know how to completely think through markets like in L.A., where this eviction moratorium keeps getting kicked down the road. So just curious, comments around the trajectory of bad debt from here will be helpful.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John. I'm happy to comment, and then Kevin or Tim can chime in as well. I mean at this point in time, it's obviously difficult to predict, given the nature of -- we already have mentioned the health crisis, the macroeconomic environment. Obviously, there have been federal support for people to date in terms of being able to sort of subsidize their incomes, which I think came through this morning in terms of personal income growth. So I think assuming it's a relatively static environment through year-end, you probably expect those sort of collection rates to hold within reason. But to the extent there is significant shift in any one of those variables in a meaningful way, obviously, that could pick it up or down as a result. But I think those are the primary variables we will all be monitoring to try and determine whether we think it's going to tick up and/or down. So...
Operator:
Our next question will come from Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeffrey Spector:
I just want to go back to some of the big-picture comments, Tim, that you've discussed so far, including some of the comments during the Q&A. And I very much appreciate how difficult it is to figure out the medium to long term. As you're thinking, again your comments about the lower-cost options elsewhere, Southeast, increasing homeownership, I mean can you talk a little bit more how this is impacting, let's say, Avalon's medium- to long-term strategic plans, whether that includes new markets? I guess can you share some thoughts on that?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Sure, Jeff. I think we've spoken to this in the past. As many have said, I mean, I think the pandemic is -- they're -- these trends aren't necessarily new. They're -- a lot of them are being accelerated. And you can certainly think about sort of big tech and employers in places like New York and California. They're already diversifying their workforces in other markets whether it's Amazon in D.C. or having bases in Austin or Denver. And so we want to be leveraged really to the innovation and knowledge economy. And so that means kind of going where those workers are going. And to the extent jobs -- employers continue to chase jobs, rather jobs -- sort of the job is chasing the employee rather than the employee is chasing the job, then we want to be in those markets. That was one of the reasons we got into Denver and Southeast Florida. I would say one of the things that -- you look at the -- just a fiscal situation of some of the blue states, obviously, are being exacerbated as well. And so I think that probably informs our thinking also and just the overall affordability driving -- in driving some of the populations as some of these markets, we want to be in those sort of spillover markets. We think what's happening is good for the innovation economy. So I don't think it's bad necessarily for San Jose and San Francisco and Boston but recognize that some of the -- some of those benefits are going to spill over to some other sort of secondary innovation markets as well. And those would be good markets for us to be in. And so we look to do a few things. One is to kind of reallocate or recycle capital -- some capital in New York certainly, and probably in the future, some out of California to both expansion -- our existing expansion markets as well as markets like D.C., Seattle and Boston and then also potentially some new markets that we're not into today.
Jeffrey Spector:
And is that -- and I appreciate the comments. I mean I guess, the -- your thoughts on work-from-home and the permanency of work-from-home, does that impact the decision process at all? Or do you feel like that it's just a temporary adjustment right now, but maybe it will be more going forward but not to the extent that some in the media are portraying or some on The Street are portraying?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Yes, it's hard to know. And I know that the office guys get that question a lot. I can sort of speak from our own experiences. We would expect we would have more work-from-home activity kind of going forward. But there are certain jobs where there -- that are more kind of individual contributors where they can be efficient working away from the office space, but that is not close to the majority of the jobs in this company or most companies. And so we view it as kind of more of a marginal effect that gives people a little bit more flexibility about where to live if they want to work from home. And secondly, they're probably not that focused on career growth. They're probably not going to manage a lot of people working from home at least over the next few years in my view. So I would say, does it really affect our view in terms of where we want to be? Probably less so than the fact that big employers like the Googles and Apples of the world are already diversifying their workforces in other markets with satellite operations there. So whether it's a satellite operation or people working from home, they're likely to get out to some of the same markets, I would think.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
I wanted to follow along those lines of bigger-picture questions and go back to some of your prepared remarks. Specifically, about homeownership, we've seen some similar trends with homeownership, particularly under the age of 35 cohort. Do you think those are just near term given the decline that we've seen in interest rates? Or do you think there's a more secular shift that's going on there?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Rich, I can speak to you, and others may have a view. I think part of it may be -- if you just looked at the composition of the millennials, it's a little bit as a -- that they have gone through the pipe. So there's a lot more of those that are under 35 in that 30 to 35 cohort than there were 5 years ago. So they're starting to enter into those kind of prime homeownership. Yes, so I think a lot of this is being stimulated by demographics and really being accelerated by what we're seeing in terms of interest rates. We're not seeing it yet with our residents. Reasons for move actually went down to purchase homes. But homeownership is going up nationally, and it has an impact on the overall renter pool that affects all of us as landlords at some level. We may be a little -- we think we're probably less at the sort of the epicenter of it. It's probably mostly coming from single-family rental and other demographics and other markets. But it does have an overall -- it does have an impact on a broader sort of renter pool, if you will.
Richard Hill:
Got it. That's helpful. I've been a little bit surprised there hasn't been more focus this earnings season on the election coming up in a couple of months and potentially a rent regulation depending upon what parties have power. I'm wondering if that is something that you're focused on. Obviously, the Biden plan has housing as a big focus, and affordability on the other side of COVID-19 is obviously more challenged. How are you thinking about that maybe over the medium to long term?
Timothy Naughton:
Richard, it factors in. I mean most of the regulatory risks we face is really at the local and state level, not as much at the national level. I think we'd would probably be a little bit more concerned if there was another nominee that was a Democratic nominee at the national level. But our markets have always been more regulated than other markets. We are in blue states. It's always -- it's part of what's been the appeal of our markets is sort of the barriers to entries created some supply constraints on new housing, which has helped elevate rents and rent growth over time. I think the issue that you're starting to touch on is the key one, which is when it starts to leak into the price controls and rent control, that becomes the issue for us and the type of rent control. Certainly, in New York and parts of California, you have vacancy we control. That's usually pretty manageable in terms of as an owner of apartments. Where you have -- when you lose and you have to control pricing on vacant as they become available, that's the kind of rent control as an industry we have to absolutely avoid and it is -- it will be awful for the housing markets if that occurs. So that's something we're going to continue to watch, we're going to continue to fight as an industry because it's -- one, it's not good for us as landlords for sure, but it's not good for the housing market long term. And it's not a way to solve any housing crisis at any local level. It's politically expedient, but it's -- from a policy standpoint, it's absolutely poor policy.
Richard Hill:
Understood. And then one more question, if I may. In the past, you've done a really good job thinking about how your development and your land development is really under option and you don't have to move forward with it. So I'm wondering, as you survey the landscape post-COVID-19, are there any land that you have under option and maybe high barrier or blue states that you might want to not move forward with? And you had mentioned Florida, I think, earlier in your remarks. Are there any other markets where you prefer to maybe focus on the development going forward versus some of the markets that you're in right now?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey, Richard. It's Matt. As it relates to our current development rights pipeline, you're right, we only own 2 of those 28 deals, our land owned that we bought from a third party. So we give a lot of optionality. And it's really deal by deal. There may be deals in there that are not going to work without some type of restructuring. There are other deals that probably will work. And there are some deals where we may say the land is a good price, and we may close on the land and carry it for a while and wait for hard costs to come down. So it's a little bit of all of the above. It doesn't really factor into the geographic mix. It's really bottom-up in terms of where we're finding the best opportunities. And so we have a couple of development rights in some of our expansion markets, including 2 in Denver and one in Florida, that are working their way through the system. We have development rights in our legacy markets as well. I don't think we've seen any particular trend yet in terms of kind of an impact to the land market or development economics more so in one market than another, other than where you're seeing, obviously, rents taking the biggest hit so far.
Operator:
Next question will come from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wesley Golladay:
Another development question for you. I was wondering if you could frame up how the development pipeline that is active is positioned relative to the headwinds you cite on Slide 6. And then I'm basically trying to get a sense of the potential volatility around your 5.7% projected development yields.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hey, I'm sorry. Is that about the development under way or the development rights on the future starts?
Wesley Golladay:
No -- yes. Sorry, the active pipeline. I mean I believe you guys pivoted a few years ago to more of a suburban footprint, but I don't know if they technically qualify, in your view, as more of the infill that you cite as a headwind on Page 6.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean when you look at the 2.4 billion in development under way, you can kind of look at it in terms of -- you're right, the current yield is at 5.7%. Those deals are still -- there's only 5 of those 19, where we've actually done enough leasing that we mark the rents to market yet. And on those 5, actually, the rents are slightly ahead of pro forma by about $30. So now the yields are a little bit behind because there's been some cost overruns on a couple of deals. Generally speaking, so 5 of the 19 are more or less mark-to-market. The other 14, you could handicap them. A lot of them are in markets that have seen less downward rent pressure so far. It is a predominantly suburban portfolio. In fact, looking at it, I think the only deal in that, that we would consider urban other than Hollywood, which is under construction, would be the one deal in downtown Baltimore right now. And yes...
Wesley Golladay:
And then what about with the work-from-home trend? Are you noticing any demand for your larger units, people looking for maybe another room for an office or maybe rooms with a view?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Wes, this is Sean. I mean we've been digging into that, and at least based on sort of early returns, I would say it appears as though suburban direct-entry product, which often is a townhome, is doing a little bit better in the current environment. And the data is a little bit mixed. But overall, that appears to be a positive trend for us in terms of that product type across the portfolio.
Matthew Birenbaum:
And I would say, just to add to that, this is Matt, that when you look at our development, as an industry, the average unit size has been trending down really for the last cycle, probably came down 10%. What we've seen, at least in the last year or 2, our development starts, the average unit size has started to move the other direction. A lot of that has been our shift to more suburban assets. But also, even before the pandemic, we were starting to see, just with demographics heading where they were, greater demand for 3-bedroom units, which we didn't use to -- hardly build at all, now almost every project we build has at least about 3 bedrooms in it. And more of the kind of 1-bedroom den and 2-bedroom loft, we're definitely building more of that product than we were 5 years ago.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.
Sumit Sharma:
This is Sumit Sharma in for Nick. A question about your bad debt expense. And I just want to be clear. Maybe you've stated this earlier, so I apologize in advance. But of the 2.7% of uncollectible rent, I guess how much was part of the bad debt provision or reserve? Some of your peers have talked about reserves of the tune of around 200 basis points or so. And just getting a sense of how much went into reserves, how much is deferred, how much is write-offs and cash bad debts.
Kevin O'Shea:
Sumit, this is Kevin O'Shea. I'm not -- I'm having difficulty hearing you, but maybe just to give you an overview of what we did with respect to bad debt, and then you can ask questions to the extent that I'm not responding to some of your questions. So first of all, our policy is to reserve delinquent base residential rent for 3 months and other delinquent items after 2 months. For residential revenue, we typically take a reserve of about 50 basis points of residential revenue. And we did so in Q2 in our same-store portfolio. In addition, in Q2, we took a further reserve of about 200 basis points or $10.7 million, including for residents who didn't pay anything during the quarter. That resulted in a total reserve for the same-store residential revenue portfolio of about 250 basis points or $13.6 million. So of course, we continue the collection, our effort -- our collection efforts, and we're certainly encouraged by recent collection trends, which show collections against unpaid April and May rents improving to about 97.5% from about 93%, 94% at month end. So that's the story in residential revenue. Is that helpful? Is that responsive?
Sumit Sharma:
Yes. No, that's great. And apologies for the bad sound quality. Another question, following up a different kind of area. I'm just wondering, in terms of the concession activity, you actually provided a lot of information on urban versus suburban. Trying to understand where -- what kind of unit types are being -- are seeing the biggest concessions, 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms. I think a few moments ago, someone was talking about developments and how it's changing with the unit mix. I'm just wondering, from a concession standpoint, where you're seeing the biggest drop in rent or where you have to give the largest amount of concession.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, this is Sean. I'll give you some general thoughts on that. So first, as you might imagine, from what we described in our prepared remarks, concessions are generally greater in urban environments as compared to suburban environments. So let's start with that. Within urban environments, we tend to see fewer concessions on the more affordable price points, which tend to be the studios and 1-bedrooms in those submarkets as compared to the larger units. Initially, we thought there might be sort of steadier demand for larger units and people looking to work from home with extra space. But I think the affordability issue sort of weighed on that a little bit, and we've seen better performance out of the studios and smaller 1-bedrooms. And then the suburban environment, I wouldn't say there is a common theme as it relates to unit type. It's really submarket-driven and the nature of the demographic within that environment. We've got very high-quality towns in suburban Boston with great schools, and 2 and 3 bedrooms are -- have solid demand and ones not quite as much. And if you revert to some submarkets in L.A., the more affordable price points in studios and 1-bedrooms are in better shape as compared to the larger 2- and 3-bedroom units given the shutdown of some of the entertainment studios and such. So it's not a common theme as much as it relates to the suburban unit type as much as the specific suburban geography.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Alex Kalmus with Zelman & Associates.
Alex Kalmus:
Looking into bad debt and delinquencies, have you guys run an analysis on your resident base to see what age, income or profession this is mostly centered on?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, this is Sean. We have to run some data on that. And I think what I would tell you is it's more industry-specific than it is typical demographic make-up in terms of gender, age, things of that sort. It tends to be self-employed, sort of freelance workers, content producers, folks like that, that have been impacted most materially. And then some of our East communities, some of the service-based sectors that have been impacted as well, whether it's foodservice, hotels, things of that sort, some of the occupations that Tim alluded to earlier in his opening remarks. So it really is more occupation-driven than anything else.
Alex Kalmus:
Got it. And just to touch upon the Park Loggia sales, how was the selling on that this quarter? And I noticed the average unit price was a little higher. So I'm assuming some of the higher units got sold. Was there any discount to February levels that you needed to offer to enhance the sale process?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Hi, Alex. This is Matt. So the closings that we saw in the second quarter were almost completely deals that have been under contract earlier than that. Not entirely, there were a few deals we did in the second quarter that were quick closes, including, I think, one of the penthouse units which -- so the average price that's settled in any given time period is really more a function of just what units happen to settle based on scheduled settlements and so on. So you can't draw a lot of conclusions, I don't think, from that. We have 54 units closed right now. We have another 12 under contract. When you add that together, it adds up to a little bit more than 200 million. We have -- there certainly is negotiation, and there's probably more negotiation at the higher price points. And that was a trend even before the crisis hit. So we have not really taken a different approach to pricing post-COVID. There just hasn't been enough traffic and transaction velocity in the market to really even justify it. I'm not sure that if we were to drop prices, we would see a significant change in the volume. And we were offering a very compelling value, we believe, before, and it's still a pretty compelling value. And that was validated by the pretty strong sales pace we had before everything shut down in early March. So there is more supply coming. And I would say that there is a little bit more negotiation at the higher price points, but we expected that. So relative to our expectations, nothing's really changed with our pricing yet.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our next question will come from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So two questions. The first one is do you guys have an idea of how many residents are living in your apartments who are paying rent but aren't actually there? So they've moved away, but they're still paying rent.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, this is Sean. That's a tough number to come up with. So the blunt answer is no, we don't. Unless they voluntarily come to us and say, "Hey, I'm going to be gone for x period of time. Can you do something for me?" That is not necessarily a tracking mechanism for that, that would give you any sense of -- any real sense of accuracy there.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. So as your apartment managers are seeing, I guess, maybe mail not being picked up or what have you, there's not a way to sort of track and understand if those people plan on coming back or they're going to exit whenever their term ends?
Sean Breslin:
Not necessarily. I mean people have mail picked up. I mean you think about buildings that are 500 units and they have 1,000 people in them, it's really hard to get a sense for that unless there is something specific related to a mail hold that we're aware of or a package delivery. But I wouldn't say you could count on that as a representative sample that would give you an accurate estimate.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then, Kevin, on the development program, you guys were planning on doing meaningful starts this year. You haven't. At what point -- as you deliver but you don't replace the deliveries, at what point do the capital -- the current capitalized costs start to burn off and that starts to -- those expenses start to accrete to the income statement? Like where -- how far would the delays have to go, meaning before we would see the expenses start to appear on the income statement because they could no longer be capitalized?
Timothy Naughton:
Hey, Alex. This is Tim. Maybe I'll jump in, and Kevin may have something to offer. I mean certainly, if we have people working in development or construction that are not actively working on a job, whether it's one that's under construction or one that's going through the planning process, they get expensed. They go to the income statement. They don't get capitalized. I think you still need to -- while we haven't started anything year-to-date, we still have over $2 billion under construction and $4 billion under the process. So we're still managing a $6 billion pipeline. Now we are trying to rightsize it. If you look at this quarter, it's about 10% lower than the last 4-quarter average of total capitalized overhead. And it's been trending down as we've seen -- we've had some recent departures and retirements over the last 6 to 12 months of some senior folks as we try to really start to sort of rightsize it for the sort of the next cycle and where we're currently at. The other thing to remember, well, you probably don't know this, but roughly about half of that group's comp is incentive-based. So if they're not doing things or if they're not doing as much production, there's a sort of automatic adjusted factors in the overhead piece as well. But our objective is really just to be really -- is to be well positioned and rightsized kind of for the early part of the next cycle to be able to flex up if we need to as the opportunities arise if you -- so capitalized overhead this quarter is about $11 million. About $6.5 million of that is development. About $3.5 million is construction. And about a little over $1 million of it's redevelopment. If you annualize that, you get about $25 million in development, about $12 million maybe construction. That is a level that supports kind of in the -- I think we would talk about $800 million to $900 million range, sort of plus or minus. And that's what we're still geared for. So to the extent we decide over the next 3 or 4 years, it doesn't make sense to be doing that kind of volume. Obviously, head counts will need to be adjusted. But we suspect, over the next couple of years, we're going to be in a position to sort of ramp up that group. We want to make sure we've got the leadership and the right personnel in place. And they're still managing as we go into this recession about $6 billion worth of a total pipeline, which is probably only about 25% off of kind of where its peak level, probably in the $7.5 billion to $8 billion range.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Robert Stevenson:
What's the positive impact that you typically see in terms of traffic- and leasing-wise in the May, June, July time period from the influx of new college graduates renting for the first time in your core markets in a normal year? And what have you seen thus far this year? It seems like very few college grads in your core markets have actually rented apartments this year versus a normal year given how early COVID hit and so that might be a big driver.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rob, Sean. Good question. A couple of thoughts on that, not necessarily specific data since it's a little hard to capture. But in our particular case, I mean we don't have a lot of student-oriented assets. They're pretty select across certain markets, particularly in the urban environments, I would say. But your broader question really probably relates to the percentage of the market that is really made up of the student population that sort of brings the occupancy up in the entire market. That's something, to be honest, we've been trying to get our arms around that. Not quite there yet in terms of what that represents in each one of those submarkets. But there are certain submarkets, like we have a property here in the district that's pretty tied to ABU that when they announced their plans to have a hybrid learning model, we did 80 leases in 1 week. So there are submarket stuff like that, that are highly dependent upon it. But I think the broader question is one we're still trying to answer, which is sort of collectively what the demand is. From the student population is one segment, and then from the short-term and corporate rental market is the other segment. We think the short-term corporate piece is probably in the 2% to 3% range. And we're trying to understand that in terms of the student population, particularly as universities may shift their on-campus housing options to the extent that they're trying to sort of de-densify some of those communities. So it's a little bit of a moving target. It's probably hard to answer right at this exact moment. But certainly, the peak time for that demand is, as you described, as we're moving through the pre-leasing season, that you're going to see sort of basically April through June, like you might see on some of the student housing rates. And you want to be pre-leased in those buildings in the 90%-plus range as you get towards the end of July and before they show up in August. So we're on track for that at some of the buildings, but there are places in and around urban Boston, Berkeley, places like that, where they are falling short because of the uncertainty around the ultimate learning model.
Robert Stevenson:
Well, I mean, beyond the student stuff, I mean, I was really focused on the 21-, 22-year-olds that just graduated, that have a job with, let's say, an investment bank, a tech company, a consulting firm or whatever, that you normally get in New York, San Francisco, Boston, et cetera, renting for the first time, where they're bringing in an offer letter to you and they're leasing off of that. I mean that influx of students -- of former students, but now people entering the workforce for the first time, I mean, how significant is that typically in these big sort of gateway cities?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. And that's a -- it's probably a tough one to answer other than the stuff that's related to people that are coming in for a specific kind of program, like a training program or some other kind of corporate program, I guess, 2% to 3% of the market [Technical Difficulty] our markets. What you're really talking about is just ongoing demand as people are graduating from universities, moving into the rental market. That's a little tougher to quantify overall at this point in time.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. No, Rob, that is part of -- I cited earlier in my remarks about the typical household contraction and consolidation that you see in a downturn. That is part of it, which you're describing to me. Kids that can't get jobs when they get out of college, they stay at home or they go into a house with 6 guys, and there are 6 people instead of getting their own apartment. So you'll see -- in past recessions, you've seen occupancies fall by a couple of hundred basis points. You may still be seeing a little bit of new supply. So it's not unusual to see contraction of household demand on the order of a million, 2 million housing units across the country in a normal downturn. And a big portion of that is, I think, exactly what you're focusing on.
Robert Stevenson:
Okay. And then lastly for me, what are you guys seeing today versus at the beginning of the year in terms of construction costs, both hard and soft? I mean how meaningful has been the delta? And where is the greatest amount of slack today? And is there any of these buckets that are -- that you're seeing more cost pressures either up or down on now given what's happening in single-family or what's happening elsewhere or the falling off of new construction in other sectors?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Hey, Rob. This is Matt. It's -- we are starting to see it, but it is early. So where we started to see it first is really in some of the smaller-contract CapEx work. So if you think about it, those are the types of jobs that are short in duration. So if you're a subcontractor that's doing a facade restoration project for us or some concrete repair work, that might be a 2- or 3-month or 6-month job. And if they finish one up, they don't necessarily have stuff to replace it. So we are starting to see it there. And in some markets, we've seen mid-single-digit buyout savings on that work, which isn't all that meaningful. But given where we've been coming from, where we've just been seeing construction costs growing much faster than inflation for the last 4 or 5 years, it is a significant change. On the new construction, it's probably still too early in almost all markets because everything is under way, and there's a lot under way. It's going to have to get finished first. So again, where you're going to see it first is going to be in early trades, earthwork, pipework, demolition, maybe a little bit concrete. And then regionally, it's going to vary as well. So what we've heard others say is maybe we're starting to see a little bit in South Florida because a big part of what drives that is also -- there's no wood frame construction there for one thing. It's all concrete because of the hurricane codes. And there's a lot of cruise ship restoration work. And hospitality work is not happening. That's been canceled. So the sub base there has more excess capacity. It hasn't really worked its way into most of our markets yet. Some commodities are down. Lumber is up. Lumber is up quite a bit right now. So -- and that's probably in response to what's going on in the single-family market and just home renovation market. So there are some cross-currents there, but it generally takes a while. Construction pricing is a lagging indicator. And it's going to take a while for it to work its way through the system in our view.
Operator:
And our final question will come from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
So Tim, you mentioned, or maybe somebody else, but in kind of the suddenness of what happened, made a lot of decisions for you, particularly as it relates to development postponement. If memory serves, in the '08, '09 time frame, you did have a sizable write-off related to your development pipeline. And if I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I'm going on memory. I'm curious, though, as you fast-forward to 12 years later today, is there anything about what happened then that you took from a lesson learned and is sort of allowing you to sort of walk the tight rope here without having any sort of disruption like that? I'm just wondering how that experience during the great financial crisis has manifested itself at how you look today. I know you mentioned the difference in balance sheet in your prepared remarks, but I'm just wondering just in terms of how you approach the business, particularly on the development side.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Hey, Rich, Tim. I would say it's largely been in land. And when you say we had -- like we wrote off or had impairments on the order of about $80 million total, and a good portion of that was in land. And I would just say relative to the size of the development rights pipeline, we've had deals where profits have been larger than that in terms of value we created. So I -- we weren't -- I mean the homebuilders are -- were taking impairments into billions. We took a -- I think we took an impairment of -- on the order of $60 million. This time were just on our land. And so we've been really very disciplined about maintaining optionality. And some of the -- as Matt was talking earlier, some of the deals may not make. And we may have sellers that are unwilling to restructure to the extent restructuring sort of could close the gap. And we could have some future write-offs, I suspect, but it's really out of the pursuit cost, which is pretty cheap capital relative to the size of the pipeline that we control. So I would say the biggest issue is just -- we just don't have land inventory of any significance this cycle compared to the last one.
Kevin O'Shea:
And the only thing I would add to that, this is Kevin, Rich, is just, obviously, we've discussed many times in recent years, one key lesson we took from that downturn was to be a whole lot more match funded with respect to the development under way in terms of having the long-term capital in place. And so you see that lesson being applied here in a very visible way with respect to the $2.5 billion we have under way right now, with 95% already match funded. So that obviously leaves us a lot more foot forward this time around to pursue opportunities that may pop up.
Richard Anderson:
Great. And then secondly, a lot of talk in this call about suburbs beating the urban core. You guys are, I think, pardon me if I'm wrong on this one, I think you're 60 -- 2/3 suburban, 1/3 urban, and perhaps, you're still an expensive option in those suburbs. But do you think that, that sort of breakout could ultimately help you out long term here as this sort of situation settles and that people maybe don't go all the way back in, but they come back close enough where it benefits you in your suburban portfolio?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Again, Rich, I think I was talking earlier, there already was a trend. We already were sort of started to tilt the portfolio suburban. And if you look kind of about our history, probably where we created the most value, at least in the development pipeline, is kind of that suburban infill. And I think as millennials get a little bit older, you see more economic activity in suburbs. I think the kind of this kind of urban-light kind of lifestyle, mixed-use kind of infill/suburban areas is probably -- provides -- offers one of the more attractive opportunities that's less dense than an urban environment, also has -- generally is more affordable than what we delivered in our urban areas. So we were already kind of moving in that direction. And maybe this just pushes us a little bit harder. But -- so I think the demand factors that were already in place are just -- are probably just being magnified by what's happened here in the last few months.
Operator:
And with that, I would now like to turn the call back over to Tim Naughton for closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Okay. Well, great. Thank you, Matt. I know all of you have a number of calls you need to be on today. So I just want to thank you for being with us, and enjoy the rest of your time. I look forward to talking to you soon.
Operator:
Once again, that does conclude our call for today. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference is Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Riley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Kathy, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during the discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Tim Naughton:
Yes, thanks, Jason. And welcome back to Q1 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I will provide a brief commentary on the slides that we posted last night. And all of us will be available to Q&A afterwards. Our comments today will focus on providing a summary of Q1 results. An update on operations so far this year, including through April, an overview of development activity and the status of construction sites. And lastly, highlighting our liquidity position. Before getting started, I just like to acknowledge that the last seven or eight weeks have been far from normal for any of us on this call, or any of our more than 3,000 associates in AvalonBay. Given our market footprint in large coastal metro areas in the US, we've certainly been impacted by this pandemic, professional and personal level. Many of us have had to learn to adjust to a different work environment at home while managing new and shifting family dynamics at the same time. But even more of our associates have been asked to leave the comfort and safety of their homes, most every day to provide housing and service for the more than 100,000 residents that call one of our communities home. What we do is fundamentally essential, and we are grateful and inspired by our team's amazing dedication and thank them for the commitment they demonstrate every day and service to our customers. I'll start the results of the quarter starting on Slide 4. It was a solid quarter. Highlights include core FFO growth of almost 4% driven by healthy internal growth with same-store revenue and NOI growth coming in at 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively. All of our major regions except Metro New York, New Jersey, of course, the same-store revenue growth of 3% or more in Q1. In Q1, we completed the three development communities totaling $215 million at an average initial yield of 6.4%. Continue to track record of creating significant value through this platform over the cycle. Given the current economic situation, we have not started any new development or acquired any new community so far this year. And lastly, we raised over $900 million in capital this past quarter at an average initial cost of 2.9%, with most of that coming from a $700 million 10-year bond deal at 2.3% completed in February, a record low reoffer rate for a 10-year bond issuance in US REIT history. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sean who will discuss portfolio operations including what we've seen so far and in April and now in May. Sean.
Sean Breslin:
All right, thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 5, the impact of COVID-19 and the various shelter in place orders had a material impact on leasing velocity in March as noted in Chart 1, with year-over-year volume down roughly 40% from March 2019. In April, however, as a result of our teams becoming more proficient with virtual and no contact tours, prospective residents becoming more comfortable venturing out to tour apartment homes and the various incentives we offer to increase conversion rates, we've seen velocity rebounded, it was only modestly below 2019 levels. It's similar to the volume of notices to vacate for the month. Unfortunately, the reduction in leasing volume in March coincided with our normal seasonal increase in the volume of notices to move out from our communities. As noted in Chart 2, this resulted in fewer move-ins and move-outs during the month of April. Taking collectively and as depicted on Slide 6, availability increased and occupancy suffered. As indicated in Charts 1 and 2 on Slide 6, availability was trending well below 2019 levels throughout most of the first quarter. That spiked in the second half of March, when leasing velocity fell materially. 30-day availability peaked at roughly 50 basis points greater than last year, during the third week of March, but has ticked back down a bit over the past six weeks or so. The impact of reduced leasing volume in March ultimately impacted physical occupancy as well as noted in Chart 3, with April down roughly 75 basis points from March and 50 basis points from last year to 95.3%. In Chart 4, you could see the impact of the recent environment on April rent change, which ended the month at essentially zero. This diagram reflects our efforts to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on residents by offering a no rent increase lease renewal option to undecided folks, and our response to the weakening environment, which included offering incentives to increase prospective resident conversion rates, which did in fact increase from about 23% of March to 34% in April. Turning to Slide 7, we collected about 96% of what we would have typically collected in an average month from our customers, which is noted in Chart 1. And if you look at the collection rates by segment, the rate for our market rate customers was the highest, with our corporate housing or short term rental customers, which only represent 3% of build residential revenue, the lowest. In terms of May collections, over the past few days, we're trending at about 94.5% of normal levels or about 150 basis points behind April, but it's early in the month. There are differences in how the calendar lays out with deferrals being on a Friday in May versus a Wednesday in April, and other nuances that influence daily payment volume. Moving to Slide 8, the collection rate for our highest income customers has been the best, which isn't too surprising given the impact of the pandemic on the various service-related businesses throughout our markets. In terms of regional collection rates, the tech lead Pacific Northwest and California regions have been the strongest and Southern California the weakest. Unfortunately, the impact of the pandemic on entertainment and tourism businesses in Southern California has been pretty severe. Most of the studios and other businesses producing content have been shut down for several weeks now. And all the major tourism-related sites, including Disneyland, Universal Studios, and many other venues are closed. Without operational overview, I'll turn it over to Matt who will address construction and development. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks, Sean. To provide an update on how the pandemic is impacting our construction operations, Slide 9 shows our 19 development communities across our eight regions. We started to experience slowdowns in the second half of March in Northern California and Seattle as regional shelter in place, orders were announced and availability of both labor and sections started to be impacted. By early April, the Northeast saw similar impacts, as such in April across all 19 projects. Our average daily manpower was reduced by an average of roughly 50% with wide variations as reflected on the slide. Projects indicated in green have seen relatively little impact, while those in yellow have been proceeding at a significantly reduced pace, and those in red are temporarily shut down except for basic life safety and asset preservation activity. Residential Construction is considered an essential activity in many jurisdictions. And just in the last week or so, we started to see a listing of some of the more extreme restrictions. And the four projects in Seattle in the Bay Area just recently moved from red to yellow. We have been working diligently to adjust our on-site health and safety practices to ensure appropriate social distancing among our subcontractor trade partners, add daily health checks and onsite wash stations and move our supervisory staff to staggered shifts as part of our ongoing response. These 19 development communities represent a projected total capital cost of $2.4 billion, which is our lowest volume of development underway since 2013. As shown on Slide 10, we shifted to a more cautious stance as far back as 2017. And our development stocks over the past few years have average shift $800 million, a little more than half of our mid-cycle run rate of $1.4 billion per year. This puts us in a strong position as we navigate the shift from expansion to recession. Slide 11 shows a breakdown of our future development rights. We've been managing this pipeline of future growth opportunities to provide us with maximum flexibility at relatively modest cost and control over $4 billion of next cycle development projects with a total investment of just $120 million. The development rights pipeline includes 28 different projects, with more than 20% of the projected capital in flexible public-private partnership deals, and another 20% in an -- in asset densification opportunities, where we are pursuing entitlements to add additional apartment homes at existing stabilized communities. Both of these types of opportunities offer flexibility to align timing with favorable conditions in the construction and capital markets. Kevin will now provide some comments on our liquidity and balance sheet.
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks, Matt. Moving to Slide 12, as shown in the next two slides, we ended this recession very well prepared from a financial perspective with a healthier liquidity position, modest near term maturities and a well-positioned balance sheet. Turning first to liquidity As you can see on Slide 12, liquidity at quarter-end, totaled $1.8 billion, for our credit facility and cash on hand. This compares to the $900 million in remaining expenditures and development underway over the next several years, of which about $400 million is expected to be spent over the remainder of 2020. As a result, at quarter end, our $1.8 billion in liquidity exceeds remaining spend on development in 2020 by roughly $1.4 billion and our liquidity exceeds total remaining spend on development over the next several years, by nearly $1 billion. Turning next to our debt maturities. On Slide 13, we show our debt maturities over the next 10 years and our key credit metrics. For debt maturities, we have only $70 million of debt maturing in late 2020 and only $330 million dollars in debt maturing in 2021, for a total of $400 million in debt maturities over the next seven quarters. Plus looking at over the balance of 2020, and incorporating both development spend and debt maturities, our quarter and liquidity of $1.8 billion exceeds remaining debt maturities and spend on development over the rest of 2020 by $1.3 billion. In addition, our liquidity exceeds all of our main development spending over the next several years. And all of our debt maturities through 2021 are $500 million. So you can see from this, that we enjoy healthy liquidity relative to our open commitments through 2021. In addition, we also enjoy considerable incremental liquidity from cash flow from operations and excessive dividends, as well as from our ability to source attractively priced debt capital from the unsecured and secured debt markets, to the extent the asset and equity markets remain unattractively priced. In this regard, at quarter end our net debt to core EBITDA of 4.6 times is below our target range of five times to six times leaving us meaningful capacity to absorb leverage increases as we proceed through these challenging times. And unencumbered NOI with at or near an all-time high of 93%, reflecting a large, unencumbered pool of assets that we could tap if necessary for additional secured debt capital. With that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Tim Naughton:
Great. Thanks, Kevin. Just wrapping up and turning now to Slide 14. So, overall, Q1 was a very good quarter, with results a bit better than we had expected. Despite the slowdown, we began to experience in the second half of March and April, we felt much of the impact of the shutdown, certainly, although we were able to still coalesce most of what was built for the month with only 6% uncollected by month-end, which is about 400 basis points lower than normal. Progress at many of our construction sites were impacted by the pandemic. We expect that orders by some of the state and local governments temporarily halt inspections and construction will result in the delay and delivery options scheduled in several communities, which in turn will push some of the lease-up NOI projected for 2020 into next year. Most sites that have been impacted are currently in the process of either reopening or slowly returning to full manpower, as most states are now permitting new construction as an essential service as Matt had mentioned. Our shadow pipeline of $4 billion in development rights, which is controlled mostly through options or represent densification opportunities at existing communities offers good flexibility in terms of timing future starts well supported by market conditions. And lastly, as Kevin just mentioned, we're in great shape financially. We have ample liquidity to fund existing investment commitments, modest level of debt maturing over the next several quarters, and strong access at attractive pricing to the debt markets. So with that, Kathy, we're ready to open up the call for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Nicholas Joseph from Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thanks. Hope you guys are doing well. Just first, maybe on construction on the delays that you've seen and also being seen really across the space. So just wondering how that impacts expected supply in 2020? And on average, how long you think individual projects will be delayed in terms of deliveries?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure, Nick, this is Matt. In terms of what happens to total delivery in 2020, obviously, I think it's too early to tell. What we found the last couple of years, even before the pandemic was that deliveries wound up being 10% to 15%, below what we had thought at the beginning of the year just due to flavor constraints, inspection constraints, and so on and so certainly, I would expect more deliveries to be down by more than that relative to what maybe third party reports were at the beginning of the year. But it really depends obviously, on how things play out over the next couple of months. As it relates to our pipelines, so far, what we've seen is, and what's reflected on our supplemental, five projects, we've delayed initial occupancy by a couple of months, call it, and these projects we -- as of right now, we think probably the final completion is going to be delayed by about a quarter. So that's maybe a third of our 19 that are actively underway right now. Some of the others are either in areas that have been less impacted or early enough in their process that they haven't been materially slowed down. Obviously, that could change, but kind of that's the way you see it as of right now.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thanks. And then just -- states and different cities start to reopen, how are you thinking about kind of repositioning your amenities space to allow for social distancing? And then maybe medium and longer term for the developments on the progress or any kind of future developments, how do you think about changes to different amenity space, given maybe potential bigger picture trends, such as work from home or anything else?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Nick, this is Sean. I'll take that one, the third and others can jump in if they like. But in terms of the existing amenity space, yes, we do have a team that is taking a look at what the occupancy standards are for different types of spaces. Not only in our communities, but at our offices as well. And what kind of limitations that will place on the occupancy limits that were in place before the pandemic, so they're going to see that reduced pretty materially, but it depends on the type of space. Depending on what they're talking about, fitted center equipment with space two feet apart, we may have to go back and redistribute the equipment to have more spacing as an example. Chill spaces where there were, what's called soft seating that was side by side with tables around, that may have to be a space where we just reduce the number of items in there, in terms of chairs and same thing in terms of our swimming pool. So, there's a fair amount of work underway to sort of, redensify the various spaces that our communities to make sure they comply with the proper social distancing protocols, and it's just going to take some time to work through each one. And then in terms of the longer term trend, it's probably a little too early to tell now but certainly there was a trend, see more people working from home, whether they were telecommuting, or whether they were just sort of independent contractors working from home, that are producing content or -- and sort of contracting business and things of that sort for different types of industries. Entertainment, in particular, comes to mind for a place like LA, so that trend likely continue. I think it's probably a reasonable conclusion from what we see. But to what degree, it's probably too early to tell at this point.
Nicholas Joseph:
Thank you.
Tim Naughton:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll take your next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Rich Hightower:
Good afternoon, guys. Hope all is well. So I wanted to get your reaction to one of your competitor's comments yesterday, regarding a little bit more underperformance in garden style communities versus high rises, due to the collections Are you seeing the same in your portfolio or do you have any comments along those lines?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich. It's Sean. I can share a few thoughts on that just -- we've looked at collection rates in maybe a few different ways. Certainly, we talked about it by segmenting in terms of what was presented on the slides in my prepared remarks. But in terms of some other metrics that we look at and have been following, first is sort of price point, As versus Bs. As are running about 100 basis points higher than Bs at this point in time. And that may look suburban, urban. What we're generally seeing across most of the markets is, suburbans are performing by about 25 basis points or so. So a little bit, but not terribly material. Probably the one exception is New York where the urban environment collection rate better than the suburbs, given the impact we've seen in Westchester. It's been pretty material in terms of the pandemic. And then in terms of high rise versus garden and mid-rise, high rise is slightly better, but there's not a lot of high rise products to benchmark against to be honest. And most of that for our portfolio is going to be in New York, a little bit in D.C. It's just not a big sample size, so I probably wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the product type differences.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, so maybe a little bit of differentiation there in terms of what you're seeing versus maybe I guess elsewhere in re-planned. Okay, that's helpful color. And then I guess just as you think about foot traffic and demand patterns picking up now that we're into May and things have kind of come off the bottom, are you seeing any differentiation between suburban and urban within the portfolio along those lines?
Sean Breslin:
Not material at this point. It's more market driven, I'd say, where you've got -- certainly the hot spots are a little more sensitive to the rebound and we're seeing people wanting to still continue with more of the virtual tours as opposed to self-guided, as opposed to maybe like the Mid-Atlantic, where people seem to be more comfortable given the state of the environment, either with self-guided tours, for the most part at this point, and not as many virtual tours. So I think it's really a market based on [ph] as opposed to maybe price point at this point or location, as you pointed out, urban versus suburban.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, great. Thank you
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Alua Askarbek:
Hi, everyone. This is actually Alua Askarbek for Jeff Spector. Thank you for taking the questions today. So I was just wondering if you guys could give some more color on the condo sales going on right now. So I think you went one more under contract in Q4 '19 on the call. And so, I was just wondering -- I assume all of those were the ones that were closed so far. And are there any new projects underway? Is the market as expected or are you expecting to take a lot of price cuts or are you just holding out [ph]?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I think some people couldn't hear the question. It was about Columbus Circle condos sales and recent progress. So as of today, we have 41 units closed and have generated 1$29 million. That's an average price of $3.15 million per condo. We have 22 others under contract with binding deposits. That represents another $70 million of proceeds. It's actually slightly higher priced, $3.17 million, $3.18 million per unit. The sales activity -- the new contract track activity was pretty strong in January and February. In fact, if you go back to our first quarter call, we had 54 contracts at that time. So we've actually added nine since then, about $40 million in incremental sales since the first quarter call. And really all that came in February in the first half of March because once the stay-at-home orders came into place, we went to 100% virtual tours in mid-March with our sales agents there, and traffic did slow dramatically in the back half of March and the early half of April. I will say in the last just two weeks or three weeks, traffic has picked back up. And although they're virtual tours, traffic is back up to over 30 per week, which is a pretty strong number and comparable to where it was kind of before things stopped in mid-March. But until people can actually get in and physically see the product, which we hope they'll be able to do within the next month or so, we won't really know how that traffic might convert to additional contracts. Pricing has been consistent. We haven't really seen a difference in terms of the pricing levels, either asking or what we're achieving, for the last 10, or 15, 20 contracts in the early contracts. It's a -- there's a lot of different price points in the building, depending on what line and what floor. And so, it's not exactly apples to apples. But so far, we haven't seen any impact there yet. But again, until we really get people back into the building and start seeing some additional new contract activity, which hopefully will happen soon, we'll have a better sense.
Alua Askarbek:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Hey, thanks. Sean, as you guys roll out concessions in different markets, which markets are responding better, in terms of traffic coming in and the rollout specials? And which few markets just aren't responding no matter how generous [indiscernible] become?
Sean Breslin:
I mean, the general response has been pretty healthy across most of the markets. I mean, I guess I'd have to tell you that based on what you probably have heard from others and are -- just pointing out some of the weakness in L.A., probably taking slightly more concessions on average in the L.A. market as compared to others to get those conversion rates to sort of reasonable levels. But in terms of the rebound, for the most part, I would say that it's been pretty steady with some limited exceptions, and the exceptions really more relate to hotspots, and obviously, specifically in and around New York, where people are still pretty hesitant, given the environment, to be out shopping for apartments, people are doing virtual tours, and the concessions are reasonable, but not as much as what was required in L.A. to get people to spur to action to give us -- given what was happening in that market environment, which was already weak, as you may recall, at the beginning the year. And the pandemic certainly only made it that much more difficult in terms of people who are qualified being able to come out and shop for an apartment and be able to afford to rent an apartment, given what was happening with all the studios being closed. And a lot of people that produce content in Southern California, with their shops being closed. So that's probably the one market where it's been a little more challenging.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. And then last one for me, just a question about D.C. and the defensiveness of that market. Obviously, a winner on a relative basis during the GFC. In your mind, the price point of your portfolio in the D.C. metro and the employer base, now that it's shifted, is D.C. different this time, or would you still put it up there against any other market the next 12 months, 24 months, just in terms of rent growth and occupancy trends?
Sean Breslin:
I think based on what we know as of now, and just thinking about the composition of the workforce, I think D.C. should hold up relatively well. If you think about the nature of the pandemic and how things have started, and the impact on joblessness to date for the most part, as opposed to kind of a trickle down, it's really a trickle up type thing where a lot of the job loss is heavily concentrated at those lower level service jobs. You're talking about food service or bars, restaurants, hotel workers, things of that sort. It may trickle up some. And in certain geographies, where people are paid well, again, like L.A., to produce content, maybe disproportionate impact. But D.C., highly educated population, a lot of professional services, defense, et cetera. But expected to hold up relatively well. And we've seen that thus far, even though it's only been sort of six weeks at this point in terms of what's happening. But others may have different thoughts to add.
Tim Naughton:
No, I agree. I mean, between the knowledge base, knowledge nature of the economy, the federal government, state local governments are going to be pinched and are beginning to see cutbacks there. But not as much in areas of the federal government. I think it's just saying that -- I think D.C. was hurt a little bit initially just because our of exposure to hospitality. You have obviously both Hilton and Marriott here, which had massive furloughs kind of early on in the pandemic. But I think I think over time, Sean is right. I would expect it to stand up pretty well relative to the rest of the world, John.
John Pawlowski:
Okay, great. Thanks for the time.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. I was curious if you were to negotiate a new contract today on a construction project, what do you think hard cost would be versus pre-COVID-19?
Matt Birenbaum:
Good question, Austin. It's Matt. We certainly think the direction is headed down. I think as you see here in this very moment, I'm not sure that you would see that yet. And several of our projects, we have decided to defer. One of the reasons we deferred some of our potential 2020 starts is because we think that there will be a better buying opportunity in, I don't know, three quarters, four quarters maybe. So I think it takes a while to work its way through the system, and probably we'll see it first in some of the early trades were -- like concrete or site -- or paving where deals aren't starting. Those folks will start to see they have excess capacity and probably start to cut the pricing first. They'll probably take longer before it gets to some of the finished trades where there's funding stuff underway and that's need to be finished, and if anything, may take longer than finished over the next four quarters to six quarters. So one of the advantages we have is because 90% plus of our construction, we are our own general contractor. We can kind of time that and play that strategically a little more than if we were using a third-party general contractor, which is the way a lot of the private side of the business works. So still too early to tell. We'll see what happens. In the last downturn, it was down maybe 15%. And that was an extreme correction. But time will tell. I think Tim wanted to add something.
Tim Naughton:
Yes, Austin. I just would say, I think going into this, obviously, we've seen a lot of pressure on construction costs. We've probably been seeing 6% to 8% increases for the last three years. So it was probably already well roughed terrain, and that provides us with a bit more conviction that we're likely to see a correction. And certainly in terms of wages, commodities, materials, profits of subcontractors, those should all come down, putting downward pressure on pricing. Offsetting that somewhat, we would expect a little bit general conditions just given changing protocol, social distancing, things like that. And perhaps, productivity being a little bit strained, offset again by -- as subcontractors start to reduce their workforce, they're left often with their most productive crews, and you oftentimes get cost benefits from that, as you come out of a downturn in the early part of an expansion. So overall, we do expect cost to come down. They're going to need to just to make sense of the economics, given NOIs are flat, on their way down and account for costs, if anything, are up since the beginning of the pandemic. Looking for sort of a bargain in the equity markets, obviously.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That's really helpful. I mean, you guys had previously expected to start $900 million. That I think you alluded to. Some of those projects you delayed purposefully would be potential for cost to come in. What percent of that $900 million of cost is fully baked at this point?
Tim Naughton:
I would say none of it. I mean are you talking about the cost or the start commitment? We haven't committed to starting anything with year.
Austin Wurschmidt:
The cost on some of our projects.
Tim Naughton:
The only cost that would be baked would be where we bought the land already. I think two of those nine -- and we did buy two parcels of land in the first quarter deals that could have been or could be 2020 starts. So we spent $38 million on those two deals so far. A little bit of the soft cost is baked, but we haven't bought any of the construction on any of those jobs.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. Understood. Thank you. And then last one for me, Kevin, maybe to pull you in here a bit. The balance sheet's certainly in great shape. But if you don't start any or only a small subset of that $900 million, where do you expect leverage to finish the year?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. I mean, Austin, we're probably going to have to throw out a more fulsome update on what we expect our capital plan to be for 2020 when we have our mid-year call and provide -- have clear visibility on a whole range of things, including not only NOI, but also investment activity and capital markets activity. We're standing right now at remarkably low leverage level of net debt to EBITDA at 4.6 times versus the target range of five to six times and that's intentional. We very much drove that leverage number down over the last few years to give us more scope and more capacity as we might have to put it through a downturn and so we find ourselves in the spot we had hoped we would be, which provides us an awful lot of flexibility to respond the opportunities that may present themselves here in the coming months, as well as capacity to take on Dennis levy the full true incremental development spent. But as I pointed out in my opening remarks regarding abundant liquidity here relative to our open commitments here in the near term and from a capital plant standpoint, although we went through valiance. When we provide our guidance, our initial expectation was to raise external capital of $1.4 billion. We've already raised $900 million of that so through the year and raise two-thirds of what we initially hoped to raise. We may not need to raise as much as all that but I think the bottom line answer to your question is why we haven't upgraded our guidance. I think our capital needs going forward are pretty modest and so you can probably looking at the balance sheet in terms of absolute debt levels where it is. It's probably not going to change a whole lot from here based on what we know today.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That's helpful. I guess I was getting it. It seems like it could be lower to the extent you get some leaps up and you don't have the incremental spend but we'll wait and see what you have to say in 2Q. Thank you.
Operator:
Next question from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, this is Sumit [ph] in for Nick. Thank you for taking the question. Just following up on the development discussion. You mentioned as a footnote that you've lowered the yields on your development. I'm just wondering if you could give a little more color as to what kind of introduction you're looking at for near term or development or developments in research versus a stock that's going out in 2021, 2022?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sorry, can you repeat the question? This is Matt. The question was about the yield shown on the development?
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes. You footnoted yield as slightly reduced saying that you brought down the yield or you brought down assumptions for development nearing completion [indiscernible]. So just trying to get a sense of what's the split in the yield reduction particularly for developments that are more near term in 2020?
Matt Birenbaum:
As a general rule, our practice has been that when a deal gets more than 20% leased then we kind of remark the rents to market to reflect the experience that we're actually having. Until that time, we tend to carry the rents at what we initially underwrote. So we've talked for years about the fact that we don't trend rents and that's what we mean by that. In this particular release, we only have the three deals that are completed and in that case, those rents reflect the actual rent roll in place. Those are all more than 90% leased but is on the schedule. Then there's three other communities where we have enough leasing done that we've reflected the most current rents there on the chart there on Attachment 8. The other 16 assets, we haven't done enough leasing yet so those are still the original pro forma rents. That's consistent with what our practice has always been. I guess we did add a note just to make clear that we have not endeavored to update those because of any changes in the environment related to the pandemic. We're still carrying in some grants that were in the initial pro forma. When we get leasing activity, we will adjust them accordingly. So it's really not any change from our current practice. I think it was just an additional disclosure to make sure I understood that. It's a more volatile environment than it's been. Sean, do you want to talk to how they're currently leased?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, just to add one thing on that as Matt indicated. Just for the first quarter, there were six assets in lease. If you look across the rents for those six assets, four of them were producing rents at that time average for the quarter that were above the original proforma. One was equivalent to our original proforma and one deal in northern Seattle was modestly below our original proforma. But you blend all that together rents at that point in time were roughly 3% above proforma were at $80 or so but there were some cost changes on those deals. So the net reduction in yield really was only about 10 basis points to a weighted average of 5.9 so really immaterial in the context of the whole basket.
Unidentified Analyst:
Thank you so much.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Guinee with Stifel.
John Guinee:
Great, John Guinee here. Two quick questions. One is, has this situation given you any thoughts on speeding up or slowing down into other markets such as South Florida and Denver? Then second, if there is a slowdown in development stats in 2020, how would that affect G&A and interest costs in 2021 as you need to -- you can no longer capitalized people and development interest expense?
Tim Naughton:
John, this Tim Naughton. Maybe take the first and Kevin if you want to take the second piece of it or not. With respect to our market footprint, as we talked about in the past, we had to potentially diversify a bit of our exposure to the larger cost markets into other knowledge economy type markets part of what drove entry into Denver and to Southeast Florida for sure. There have been other markets that have been on screen as well. We've been pretty active in terms of our investment in both those markets, both in terms of acquisitions and in the development and also funding third party developers. We've tried to really activate all the levers, if you will, with respect to those markets. So we really haven't been held back by desire to get in those markets. It's a function as much of opportunity as anything. We'd expect that to continue. That will make you tend to trim from some markets and recycle some capital or they tend to make sense to the balance sheet, invest capital in those markets so we can do that as well. But right now, it's more to debt and asset recycling. So I don't think anything's changed there. We'll continue to evaluate other markets that we think could make sense for us in the long term that we think are over indexed to the innovation economy and therefore we think we'll outperform over a long period of time from a demand standpoint. I think your second question had to do with G&A around development. I can maybe start that and Kevin if you want to come in. We're always going to try to right-size the development organization to what we need and the opportunities for the next two, three years. To the extent we delay deals this year, it means we're probably going to have more stacking up in 2021 or 2022. So part of it is to make sure that you're properly positioned not just for what you have to do for the next six months but really for the platform over the next three or four years. To the extent, this becomes a very protracted recession but that changes the calculus obviously. That's not how we're viewing the environment today. We are viewing this as kind of a slow build up from a sharp downturn. If we do see a meaningful contraction and construction costs to the balance of 2020 then you start to see some recovery in 2021. You start to see 2022, 2023 could be a really good time to be delivering the product which would argue for heightened starts in 2020. We want to make sure we've got the right type development and construction organization really over the next three or four years, not just over the next six months and not much has changed in terms of our view that it needs to change material. In part because we'd already brought it down from as Matt had mentioned around $1.4 billion to roughly $800 million sort of late cycle. It's already sized for late-cycle downturn type dynamics. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
You'll need to cover things and as a result of some of those that decline and start bawling. We did have some recent staff reductions in our cap odds groups last year and so when we put our budget together for this year, we did expect capitalized overhead for 2020 to be a bit below what it was in 2019. If you look at what happened the first quarter catalog overhead did sequentially increase a little bit in the first quarter due to a few one-time items such as increased benefits and payroll costs but for full year 2020 we would expect that that catalog overhead runway would decline in the back half of the year somewhat based on what we know today.
John Guinee:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Alex Goldfarb with Piper Sandler.
Alex Goldfarb:
Good afternoon. Just two questions from me. One, in the beliefs about the impact of locked fees $1.4 million per month, can you just talk about your expectations? I'm assuming the eviction moratorium market, obviously, they're no late fees. Then you based on wherever you don't have amenities open, you aren't charging amenities so how should we think about this $1.4 million a month? Is that something you should be thinking about for the next few months or is your view that within whatever maybe by mid-summer, a bunch of communities will fully be open where this number won't be as big as it is right now?
Sean Breslin:
Alex, this is Sean. Just to use some perspective of about 80% of that $1.4 million was in way of commentary amenity fees because our amenities are closed. So our expectation is you're going to see a slow build of that line item over the next few months. As the states begin to reopen, we resize our occupancy limits as I was describing earlier in response to a question and then it will slowly rebuild. We don't expect it to snap back I guess I would say, just because the pace of opening is going to be different by jurisdiction based on the local market environment, but that's the majority of it that should fully rebuild. The rest of it was small stuff related to some late fees and credit card convenience fees and things of that sort.
Alex Goldfarb:
Okay. Then on your line of credit, you guys had drawn the $750 million and then you quickly paid -- you just paid back the $535 million. It sounds like you have about $150 million or so rough numbers on condo sales. It's pretty quick that you guys pulled down and then paid it back so what shifted in your thinking? Was it more that hey, we weren't sure if banks were going to fund or we weren't sure if the Fed was going to be there or was it just once you guys delayed a bunch of projects, suddenly you realize that you didn't need all that money at once?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey, Alex, this is Kevin. We drew a portion of our line of credit, basically so that $750 million out of $1.75 billion in mid-March. We really did it on a precautionary basis not because of anything in our business, not because of our development activities, not because we had any particular use. We didn't have commercial paper. There was really nothing related to AvalonBay that caused us to draw that $750 million. Instead, it was really just a reaction to the initial stage of the pandemic and its impact on the capital markets and before the Fed had fully stepped in to stabilize the markets. So it was really done on a precautionary basis to ensure that we had greater control over the capital. That would give us incremental abundant time and room to maneuver through what we thought would be a choppy set of months ahead of us.
Tim Naughton:
Maybe just to straighten that out. Once the Fed came in, obviously, the bond markets became very constructive and we had thought as split [indiscernible] the bond market if we needed to, so that was the reason that ultimately we just paid back.
Alex Goldfarb:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Anderson with SMBC.
Rich Anderson:
Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. First question, this whole thing started to take effect at the beginning of what would be considered the heavy leasing season for multifamily. My first guess was perhaps that was a good thing but then I thought about it, maybe it was a bad thing because there was more activity and tenants maybe had an arrow in their quiver to negotiate. So what do you think? Not that we could have changed it but do you think the industry or yourself was negatively impacted by the timing or how do you think that played out from a cadence standpoint?
Tim Naughton:
Rich, you know, it's hard to now, I mean, you know what that would say when you're in the complacencies [ph], it only gets most of our rent growth for the year -- you have both the benefit of a better market pricing and more leasing velocity so your rent roll is increasing. You kind of earn it all kind of in that March to July timeframe and obviously that's a challenge right now. We have a lot of things in our control, we haven't gotten any of them.
Rich Anderson:
Yes, I mean, come on, can you guys do anything right? The second question is perhaps a more realistic and longer term. So you guys are, are thought of as sort of visionaries and I don't know if you're different, you know, product types and price points came out of the Great Recession, but let's pretend for the sake of this question that it did. Do you feel like that there's an evolution to multifamily as a consequence of all this, maybe more comparable with the work from home environment, maybe more of a build out of internal office space or technology enhancements or laser printers or whatever might people be needing right now that they don't have because they're working from home? Is that something that you think or maybe there's another alternative about how a multifamily will evolve out of this? Do you do you have any idea it's or have you thought about it at all about what the change -- the basic fundamentals of the industry might look like five years from now?
Tim Naughton:
In terms of the math there, I think that's going to continue to be driven by the nature of the households. And there's been such great growth in single person households. That's literally what drives demand for our business. It's -- most of our households are singles and professional couples, very, very few children. You know it -- but the terms of kind of the product and the service, you know, I do think you probably see some of this either work from home type. There's already a trend that's already -- I think that Sean alluded to in some of his remarks. I think there's a good basis for expecting that. That might accelerate a bit. We had already started putting co-working, you know, lounges and spaces with meeting rooms in all of our -- all of our communities, and they are making it feel perfect now. Just a little bit -- bit more space, but they're pretty good size to begin with. And if you think about it, from a resident standpoint, they might prefer that environment to Starbucks, which is a much more controlled environment. They're going to sort of work from, they're going to work from some place other than other than -- other than the office. I think -- I think there's been a movement towards a much bigger, grander fitness centers, I think you're going to continue to see that. People are going to have more faith and comfort in working out in a community with their peers and, you know, maybe a large, you know, large club with a bunch of high schoolers who are cleaning up equipment, and things like that. And then, within the unit, you know, another trend that had already started, I think it might accelerate, it's just more flexible, open unit spaces, lifting where the nature of the space can change during the course of the day based on kind of where you are in your day, where kitchen, dining spaces convert to office spaces. My office space is an apartment community right across the street. And I noticed a number of people that sort of set up their desks right up against the window. I don't think that's where it was, to be honest, to spend good part of their -- good part of their day there now. So I think people start to think about that in terms of -- in terms of unit design, that, you know, folks may be using the space more during the day than they have -- than they have historically. And then, certainly just the need for, you know, broadband and, high speed and reliability, there, anything that we can do to kind of support that. And I guess lastly, I just mentioned kind of, kind of the Smart Home initiative, which you know, a lot of folks are pursuing now, but I think one of the most intriguing aspects of that is the remote entry, being able to allow goods and services to sort of flow freely throughout, throughout community rather than having to be handled by somebody in the front desk or in a central office that people can get -- can get access right up to the unit and potentially right end of the unit to the extent that the, you know, resident has to step away. So, I think you'll see, you know, all those things that were trends anyway, you know, perhaps just accelerated result of this.
Rich Anderson:
Really good color. Thanks, Tim. Appreciate it.
Tim Naughton:
Sure.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will take our next question from Hardik Goel with Zelman.
Hardik Goel:
Hey, sorry, guys. Can you hear me?
Tim Naughton:
Yes, go ahead.
Hardik Goel:
Thank you. I was just wondering if I look into it development pipeline, I know Matt talked about how [indiscernible] update them when there's 100% -- but if you look at the development pipeline that's going to deliver 2021, late 2021 or mid-2021 and beyond. How do you feel about the underwritten yield on those? I know there's a lot of uncertainty but what kind of buffer is there? Where you would still underwrite it today?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hey, Hardik, it's Matt. You know, the deals that are delivering in 2021 -- first deliveries in 2021 are deals that generally were started in the last year if call it, you know, because otherwise they'd be delivering sooner than that. So on those deals, you know, I guess we'll just we'll see what happens right. I think it's fundamentally it's going to depend on what happens in market rents. We'll have them analyzed, you know, they -- some of those deals were higher yielding deals in first place just because of the geography of where they were. So, you know that, in theory, I guess gives you a little more room. But I don't think, and there's a few that are early enough that we might actually realize a little bit of construction costs -- and as I mentioned, we are, in some cases shifting from trying to get as quickly as possible to slow it down a little bit to take advantage of, hopefully, what could be a better market to buy construction services in a few quarters. But, yes, I mean, you know, the risk there is the same as the risk in the stabilized portfolio. You know, it's just the risk of what happens to you know, market rents between now and then.
Hardik Goel:
I guess I'll just add to that. I think we're going to first recognize those deals are capitalized and in a different capital environment. So you got to figure, you know, with both cost of capital as well as -- as well as the underlying fundamentals, but as you saw Sean's remarks, rents in April were pretty flat on a year-over-year basis, I think there's a basis for believing that they should continue to come down. We've lost 20% of our workforce, and even if three quarters of that comes back as states start to open up, we're still looking at 8% unemployment, and you know, likely see, you know, flat there may be slightly negative household growth, while we're still delivering some new supplies. So that's going to take its toll in the near term on. And as I mentioned before, I think, you know, it's ultimately it's, you know, we could see a pretty -- pretty strong, you know, late 2021 and 2022 delivery. People who start doing what we're doing, which is blank start, and you start to have, you know, a dearth of deliveries at a time and maybe economies starting to really regain its footing.
Kevin O'Shea:
No, just kind of one other thing Hardik. As you think about sort of development, how it flows through our earnings from a business model standpoint and compare it perhaps to the last downturn. As you know, we've emphasized [indiscernible] funded we are with respect to long term capital being sourced to fund the development underway. And really at Q1, we were about over 80% match funded with long term capital against the development that's underway. So that's an important point. Tim touched on in his antics but I really do think that's -- as you think about AvalonBay and how we might perform here in the coming years, it's an important distinction to draw in terms of how we are positioned from a balance sheet and funding point of view and a built in accretion point of view with respect to development, relative to say the last downturn we had a lot more -- much more in the way of open and unfunded development commitments. At time when 12 years ago developments were coming in at 5%or 6% yield and funding with that cost around 6%. Today is very different. We'll see whether the yields really shape out to be. But we know you know, debt cost for us on a 10-year basis today are probably somewhere in the 2% range. So, and we don't really need much of that at all. And we're already over 80% match-funded and the development underway. So we really are in terrific shape from that standpoint, that sort of benefit from, you know, painting profit growth on the 80% or so that we've already paid for this underway. And to this extent, we have to source incremental capital and use debt to do so; that's likely to be an additional source of accretion.
Hardik Goel:
That's just from my standpoint, guys. I have no problem with the balance sheet, I'd never have. I find it confusing when people are, you know, kind of begging you for that. And it's resulted in you guys holding $750 million on your balance sheet. It's kind of crazy to me. There's no issues with the balance sheet at all. You guys have been doing this for two decades and people still get nervous about this, but I was thinking more about the IRRs. And Matt and Tim, all you guys have talked about you know the 9% to 12% range through the cycle. To get 9% on assets started during the last downturn, maybe 12% in your best assets. What I'm trying to understand is on an IRR basis, obviously these things will lease up more slowly if they're coming on in a stressed environment. What is the IRR on the developments that are, you know, kind of 2021 and beyond? Is that a 9% number, 10% number, what does that number look like?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, we have shared with you in the past, at least what, you know, last couple cycles where we had, yes, when we started deals kind of late in the cycle and delivered into a downturn. Those were -- at one point you can't run out 10-15 yards, they are what was in fields that you start at the beginning cycle or in the downturn at least up at the early stages like -- I think we saw ranges from -- it narrows over time, as you turn out the time horizon from 10 years. But over 10 years, right, but I think we were so clear on our cost of capital [indiscernible]; I think on the low end, it was around 8.5%. On the high end it was 13.5% range. So, you know, I would say, you know, it's going to be, you know, something feels better, that weren't -- that were sort of time -- the worst that started with construction costs peaky and delivering in the depressed environment. I think there could still be high single digit kind of hang around; and have deals that we start in 2021 and 2022, it could be much better than that.
Hardik Goel:
Got it. Thank you. Some great color.
Kevin O'Shea:
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho
Haendel St. Juste:
Hi guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Just a quick couple of for me here. Just going back to April [indiscernible]. I guess, collections show the market rate collections, I've seen some of this is income and claims related but I get more surprised it's even more meaningful lag in the corporate apartments business or can you just to help us to identify or help us understand what are the key reasons [indiscernible] rent collection? And what's supposed to lead that?
Tim Naughton:
Okay, you were a little muffled on some of it, but I heard the collection rate in the quadrant. And yes, it is more. I mean, the way I think about it is these are the kind of corporate profit home providers. It's not a corporation per se that are the end users here, but sort of intermediary that are, you know, essentially, that has a sales team that have reached agreements with various corporations or have a booking site essentially, that's the marketplace. And then, they are leasing units from us and many other -- of our peers and others. And those there, you know, think of it I guess I'll call it sort of like an extended stay hotel almost where the bookings basically dried up pretty quickly. And somehow some longer term states from people who were there on consulting assignments for three or four months, they'll bleed out a little bit longer. And there are others who really were running more short term, 30 days. And their demand evaporated more quickly. So, yes, we're working through the process with them just as we work with other residents in terms of referrals and plans and things like that. But you know, that's why the collection rate was quite a bit lower than what we'd see from our market rate apartments, which is generally higher quality residents, good household incomes, as indicated in my prepared remarks about the slide to be addressed.
Haendel St. Juste:
That's helpful. Thank you. So just wanted to be clear, but ultimately, who is on the hook to the right, is it the individual or the corporate sponsor?
Tim Naughton:
The intermediary is technically our credit. That's who we're dealing with. But their ability to pay certainly is based on what occupancy rates they have across their portfolio and to the extent they're 75% occupied with good corporate clients. That's what they can pretty much pay. Not many of these companies have, but none of them really have a really strong balance sheet to be able to handle, you know, three or four months without payments or 25% to 50% occupancy. So the nature of the pandemic and how long it lasts and the impact on travel [indiscernible] the next few months.
Haendel St. Juste:
So, can you also -- what percentage of the tours you've been conducting this year in April or early May have been virtual? And how the conversion rate on those virtual tours compares to more traditional tours historically, and are you finding that -- you did talk a bit more incentives to get the virtual tours to sign officially?
Tim Naughton:
Yes, good question. You know, I don't have that right in front of me in terms of the composition of it, but I mean, I would say that virtual tours, you know, for our business, you know, are not nearly as effective as self-guided tours or escorted tours. But given the nature of the pandemic, it was actually nice to see a rebound activity in April, people are getting more comfortable with commercial to work. As you know, online through our website, or in some cases, we had community consultants that would basically do FaceTime through individual units. And then some of that was really at the discretion of the customer where they didn't want to come through with someone. They were fine doing it virtually. So, I think it's evolving but certainly reflects the nature of the business and where it's going in the future in our view, and the technology investments that we're making, and we're already making that we may accelerate as it relates to technology and support. A lot of the sort of no contact type activity between our staff and our customers and our prospective customers. And that includes various things on the tour side and move in. We see the packages and even on the maintenance side, where we're doing diagnostic call via FaceTime and other via -- other tools to try and diagnose issues for customers being able to sort of self-serve and self-help, in many cases, before actually someone to go to a unit. So I think this will just accelerate some of the things that we've already counter-putting as far as overall platform that will lead to more efficiencies in the future.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it. Thank you for that.
Operator:
There is showing no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back to Mr. Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Tim Naughton:
Thank you, Kathy. In fact, all of you being with us today. I know that you've got a lot -- a lot of calls to cover. And normally I'd say I look forward to seeing -- it may read, but I don't think that's going to happen. But hopefully we'll talk to somebody during that -- during that week and maybe even see on a Zoom call. So take care and stay safe. Thank you.
Operator:
That concludes today's presentation. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Today's conference is being recorded.
Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Nadia, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call.
Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thank you, Jason, and welcome to our fourth quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin and I will provide some comments on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing a summary of Q4 and the full year results and a discussion of our outlook for 2020.
Starting on Slide 4. Highlights for the quarter and the year include core FFO growth of 5.2% in Q4 and 3.8% for the full year. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.5% for the quarter and 2.8% when you include redevelopment. Full year same-store revenue growth came in at 2.9% or 3.1% including redevelopment. We completed $335 million of new development in Q4 and $665 million for the year at a 6.5% yield and started just under $800 million last year. And lastly, we raised $1.3 billion in external capital for the year in a mix of asset sales, new debt net of redemptions and common equity at an average initial cost of 4.3%. The next few slides will provide a little more detail on 2019 performance and provide context for our 2020 outlook. Turning first to Slide 5. During the year, we saw the East Coast surpass the West Coast in rent growth for the first time in 8 years. In Q4, the East outpaced the West by over 100 basis points led by Boston and the D.C. Metro area, while we experienced some softening conditions in California. Turning now to Slide 6. Development continued to be a big contributor to NAV growth in 2019. Development completions of $665 million created approximately $300 million in incremental value and, at 30% margins, remain very healthy 10 years into the expansion. Moving now to Slides 7 and 8. We made good progress in Southeast Florida and Denver over the last year, our expansion markets. To date, we've committed roughly $600 million to each market through a combination of acquisitions, development and partnering with local developers. These portfolios are comprised of new assets and, as you can see from the maps on Slides 7 and 8, are spread across a broad geography within the markets. Turning now to Slide 9. We believe to be a great company, we need to take a multi-stakeholder approach to our business. We can only deliver strong financial results over a sustained period of time by having engaged associates, satisfied customers and the support of local communities by taking an active leadership role in addressing important environmental and social challenges. And while we always strive to be better, we've been recognized for doing a good job in many of these areas over the past year. And starting with our associates as engagement scores were in the top decile, and we were named in the Glassdoor's list of Top 100 Best Places to Work for the second consecutive year in 2019; with our customers as we ranked #1 nationally among apartment REITs by Online Reputation for the fourth consecutive year; and then lastly, with our communities where our efforts on the ESG front have been recognized by several organizations, including GRESB, who recognized AVB as the U.S. and global leader in the residential sector; by the Carbon Disclosure Project, or CDP, international organization that grades companies on their carbon emissions disclosure practices across all industries and who recently awarded AVB a grade of A-, 1 of 4 REITs and the only apartment company to receive such a grade; by the Science-Based Targets Initiative, who reviewed and approved AVB's submittal for targeted reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. We are 1 of 11 real estate companies globally and 1 of 5 REITs that have completed this process; and lastly, by CR Magazine, who ranked AVB in the top 100 corporate citizens globally for the second consecutive year out of a universe of over 1,000 companies. Turning now to Slide 10. Now that the calendar has turned to 2020, we thought it made sense to look back on our performance over the last decade. In short, it's been a great decade and cycle for the apartment sector and for AvalonBay. Buoyed by strong demand fundamentals and attractive capital market conditions, we have seen healthy growth in earnings and NAV since 2010. For AVB, core FFO growth has averaged 10% on a compounded annual basis since 2010 or about 200 basis points above the sector. The absolute level of growth has been fueled by both strong internal growth, as same-store revenue growth has averaged over 4%; and as can be seen on Slide 11, by strong external growth, mainly from contributions to new development as we consistently delivered new development at initial yields well above the marginal cost of capital and roughly 200 basis points above prevailing cap rates. As you can see on the right-hand side of the slide, development deliveries since 2010 of just over $8 billion have generated more than $3 billion in initial value creation or roughly $26 per share. Turning now to our outlook for 2020 on Slide 12. We're projecting core FFO growth of just over 5% this year mainly from a combination of same-store NOI growth of 3% and from stabilized new development, which is expected to generate more than $60 million in NOI in 2020. Turning to Slide 13 and double-clicking on this a bit. The stabilized portfolio is expected to contribute roughly 3.5% of total core FFO growth in 2020. External growth or NOI from new investment net of capital costs is expected to contribute 2.7%. And overhead growth and loss of JV and fund income will actually provide a drag of about 110 basis points to growth, with about 1/3 of that 110 basis points coming from a loss of JV and fund fee income, about 1/3 from normal overhead growth in our base business and the remaining 1/3 coming from expensed overhead that represents investment in innovation or other overhead that is projected to generate future ROI, some of which we will benefit from in 2020. At 5.1%, the level of core FFO growth is expected to be 130 bps higher than 2019. The biggest driver for this is stronger external growth of roughly 200 basis points on a net basis driven by higher levels of deliveries in late 2019 and 2020 as well as a lower cost of capital raised last year. This is offset in part by the headwind from the loss of JV and fund income as we wind these vehicles down. Turning to Slide 14. This slide provides a summary of the key economic factors driving much of our outlook. I won't go through everything here but simply say while the GDP and job growth is expected to moderate from 2019, the strength of the consumer should provide a tailwind with tight labor markets, rising wages, healthy balance sheets, bolstering confidence, healthy consumption and household formation. The business sector is expected to provide more crosswinds in 2020 versus 2019 as sluggish business investment should be offset in part by less concern surrounding a potential trade war. And lastly, the government sector should bolster the economy in 2020 as the lack of fiscal constraint and an accommodative Fed should provide added support to economic growth. So overall, it's shaping up as a good macro backdrop to support the economy and the housing sector for the year ahead. I'll now turn it over to Sean who will provide more color on our outlook for the portfolio.
Sean Breslin:
Okay. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 15. This chart represents the actual 2019 and projected 2020 components of total personal income growth both for the U.S. and for our markets. As Tim noted, the consensus forecast is for decelerating job growth throughout 2020 in part due to continued structural factors constraining growth in the labor force. Consumers, however, are feeling reasonably confident given the low 3% wage growth they experienced in 2019 and the outlook for even stronger wage growth in 2020, which supports healthy demand for our business.
Turning to Slide 16. New supply for our market footprint is projected to be consistent with what we experienced during 2019 with increases in urban Boston, Northern New Jersey, Los Angeles and across the Northern California markets being offset by reductions in the Mid-Atlantic, Pacific Northwest and in New York City. Turning to Slide 17. We expect same-store revenue growth of 2.7% for 2020. On a quarterly basis, revenue growth is projected to be strongest in the first quarter of the year due to a number of unique factors but should be relatively stable throughout the balance of the year. On the East Coast, we expect a material improvement in performance in the Boston and Mid-Atlantic regions, both supported by a decline in the pace of new deliveries in our submarkets. Results in Metro New York/New Jersey, however, will continue to be weighed down by the impact of the New York rent regulations adopted in mid-2019. Shifting to the West Coast. We expect continued healthy performance in the Pacific Northwest. Job growth exceeded 3% in 2019, and consensus expectations reflected job growth rate that's roughly 1.5x the national average in 2020. Relatively strong demand, combined with a modest reduction in the pace of new deliveries, should continue to produce greater than 3% revenue growth in the region. Turning to California. We expect decelerating performance in both regions. In Northern California, job growth is projected to decelerate from roughly 2.6% in 2019 to 1% in 2020. In addition, new supply is projected to increase by roughly 800 units in San Francisco and between 1,000 and 1,200 units in each of San Jose and the East Bay, weighing on performance throughout the year. In Southern California, job growth is projected to fall from 1.6% in 2019 to about 80 basis points in 2020. On the supply side, while new deliveries are expected to be relatively flat year-over-year in Orange County and San Diego, deliveries in L.A. are projected to increase by roughly 1,500 units as compared to 2019. And from a broader perspective, we continue to expect a headwind from New York rent regulations that were adopted during mid-2019 and implementation of Assembly Bill 1482 in California. The impact of these 2 rent regulations on our full year 2020 rental revenue growth rate is estimated to be between 15 and 20 basis points. Turning to Slide 18. Our outlook reflects sub-2% same-store operating expense growth in 2020, with increases in various controllable and noncontrollable expense categories partially offset by a reduction in payroll costs. The reduction in payroll expense is driven by our innovation efforts, particularly those related to reimagining the leasing experience for our customers and associates. As I mentioned last quarter, elements of redesigned experience includes the use of an AI-powered, automated agent for lead management purposes and a more dynamic demand-driven staffing model. Additional elements that are under way and projected to yield a benefit in 2020 include more self-guided tours and an express move-in process. Through year-end 2019, we have reduced our on-site sales and management staff by approximately 7.5% relative to our baseline staffing in 2018 and expect to stabilize at a roughly 10% to 12% reduction later this year. Of our total increase in same-store operating expenses, roughly 60% is related to growth in property taxes and insurance. Given the timing of tax appeals and supplemental assessments in various markets, along with the timing of certain items in various expense categories, we expect operating expense growth to be front-weighted in 2020, as noted in the text box on Slide 18. And with that summary of our markets and outlook for the portfolio, I'll turn it over to Kevin to talk about our development activity and the balance sheet.
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 19. Since the middle of the last decade when new development starts averaged $1.4 billion per year, we've reduced starts to about $800 million per year. This shift was driven by both a reduced opportunity set for attractive development and by a desire to limit development activity to an amount we could fund on a leverage-neutral basis without needing to access the equity market. For 2020, we expect to start about $900 million in new development on projects that we expect will not only improve the quality of our portfolio but also generate compelling value creation in line with recent completions.
Turning to Slide 20. As Sean has just outlined, we continue to innovate across our operating platform, investing in initiatives that will allow us to better serve our customer while generating higher returns for our shareholders. For 2020, our investment in these initiatives is expected to account for roughly half the increase in expense overhead costs adjusted for noncore items. Turning to Slide 21. We show our $4.2 billion pipeline of future development opportunities, which are controlled at a very modest cost and offer a lot of flexibility as it relates to the timing of the start of construction. About half of our development rights are conventional conditional agreements or options to purchase land with private third-party land sellers. The remaining half is split between asset densification opportunities where we are pursuing additional density at existing stabilized assets and public-private partnerships, which are generally long-term development efforts that span a number of years. These types of projects allow more flexibility to align the start of construction with favorable market conditions. In addition, it's worth noting that in creating this pipeline, we've been careful to limit our financial exposure so that we enjoy an attractive set of development opportunities at a modest upfront cost. At the end of the fourth quarter, land held for development was 0, an all-time low, and pursuit costs represented an additional $70 million. This allows us to control over $4 billion of future development across our markets for an upfront investment of less than 2% of projected total capital costs. Turning to Slide 22. As we've discussed before, another way in which we mitigate risk from development is by substantially match-funding development under way with long-term capital. This allows us to lock in development profit and reduce development exposure to future changes in capital costs. As you can see on this slide, we were approximately 85% match-funded against development under way at the end of the fourth quarter of 2019. On Slide 23, we show several of our key credit metrics and compare these to the multifamily REIT sector average. As you can see, our credit metrics remain strong in both absolute and relative terms, reflecting our superior financial flexibility. Specifically, at year-end, net debt to core EBITDA was low at 4.6x, unencumbered NOI was high at 93%, and the weighted average years to maturity of our debt -- total debt outstanding remained high at about 9 years. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
All right. Great. Thanks, Kevin. So in summary, just on Slide 24, 2019 played out more or less as expected, a good year for the apartment sector. We delivered 3%-plus NOI growth, we completed $665 million of accretive development, and we made good progress in growing our presence in our expansion markets.
In 2020, we expect the economy and apartment markets to remain healthy. For AVB, we're expecting same-store NOI growth of 3%. External growth will be stronger than what we experienced in 2019 due to higher levels of deliveries and lower capital costs. And lastly, we plan to continue to operate the business, as Kevin mentioned, in a risk-measured way with respect to capital formation and deployment, recognizing that we are 10 years into the current expansion. And with that, Nadia, we'll open up the call for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll first go with Nick Joseph from Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Sean, you talked about the innovation efforts. What do you estimate the total opportunity to be in terms of either NOI or margin? And then how much will you realize in 2020 versus future years?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Nick, good question. What I'd probably point you back to and happy to talk about it further is the comments we provided last quarter, we went through several slides, and we talked about roughly a 50 basis point improvement in margins for each of 2 primary activities
In terms of what we are going to see in 2020, I would describe it this way. We started this back in late 2018. As we move through 2020, sort of our run rate by the end of 2020 which is associated with the leasing side of this, which is really what's paying off, in 2020, will be somewhere in the range of $7 million to $8 million. And then we'll be bleeding in the maintenance activities later this year. So you really won't see as much of that benefit until subsequent years. And there are additional components of the leasing side that will also bleed in, in subsequent years. So you'll see more as it moves into '21, '22. But as it relates to '20, sort of the aggregate impact that's flowing through represents 2 years of activity and roughly $7 million to $8 million benefit.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's helpful. And then just on same-store revenue growth, in 2019, you had 20 basis points benefit from redevelopment. And then I know a lot of your peers include that in their same-store guidance. So for 2020, what do you expect that benefit to be from redevelopment activity?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. On rental revenue, we expect it to be about 15 basis points, and on NOI, about 20.
Operator:
We'll next go with Rich Hightower from Evercore.
Richard Hightower:
I'm just looking at the market-by-market chart for same-store revenue. And just as you look at New York, what would it take to get to the high end of the range this year, that sort of 3% number given what we -- what you're baking in with respect to the rent regs? And maybe as an add-on to that, you can maybe talk about what the new broker fee rules mean, if anything, for your portfolio or just the landscape in New York.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, it's Sean. I mean the fundamental issue is just better overall rent change as we move through the year. If you look at what we're anticipating in the sort of Metro New York/New Jersey region in 2020 versus 2019 is like-term lease rent change coming down around 40, 50 basis points. So depending on what happens with various market conditions and particularly the suburban markets for us is what's going to move the needle. So depending on how things manifest themselves with job growth, if things are stronger, we might see a benefit there. But we're trying to reflect what the macro assumptions are for the economic environment there.
The constraints imposed by the loss of fees, that will continue to bleed through. Those are -- the fees are known. So really, it's on the demand side and pushing more rental rate through the suburban portfolio for the most part that would push those numbers up.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Any insights on the new broker fee rules?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. And then on the broker fees, that's -- sorry, that's really not material for us. Our portfolio there, we really haven't paid brokers in quite some time. We have a handful of the JV assets that have paid a few, but we have paid those fees as opposed to pushing them back on to the residents. So from what you see from a total reporting standpoint, it's immaterial. It's basically no difference for us.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Yes, that's what I thought. Just wanted to confirm that. And then maybe with respect to capital sources guidance for the year and maybe a question for Kevin. Just I guess outside of condo sales, which are -- which you do disclose, can you just break down that bucket, the $1.4 billion between asset sales and sort of other capital markets, whether other equity or debt? Just help us understand kind of where the most favorable cost of capital is from that perspective right now or how you guys think about it.
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure, Rich. This is Kevin. So just a few things. As you saw from the release, we anticipate sourcing external capital of about $1.4 billion in 2020. And I guess the first thing to point out is we expect to do so in a roughly leverage-neutral basis relative to net debt to EBITDA where we are at 4.6 turns at the end of 2019, so roughly flat to that in terms of how we bring in the mix of capital.
As you know, there's 3 markets we intend to look at:
unsecured debt markets, the asset sale market and the equity markets. Here, we do have condo sales happening that are in the mix.
Our capital plan for $1.4 billion, we don't typically break it down in detail. But when you model it out, just bear in mind we tend to be leverage-neutral, and we do not have equity in the plan. It's a combination of debt, mostly unsecured debt, just wholly owned dispositions and condo sales, which you can see from our earnings release, we expect about $240 million in condo sales in this year.
Operator:
We'll next go with Richard Hill from Morgan Stanley.
Lauren Weston:
This is Lauren Weston on for Richard Hill. Appreciate your comments on expense guidance. If you could just help us understand, this is the lowest guidance we've seen in recent history. So I just want to get a sense if this is the new run rate or really particular to 2020. Obviously, the focus is on payrolls coming down sequentially. But can you just give us more color on sort of what we should expect going forward beyond 2020?
Sean Breslin:
This is Sean. Providing expense guidance well beyond 2020 is speculative at best. But what I would say is that the big categories to really think about, without giving you sort of precise answers in terms of what to think about for 2021 and beyond, is property taxes are more than 1/3 of our expense structure. And if you look at that, I think values are growing at a pace that's a little bit above inflation, but you don't have the same kind of acceleration based on the significant run-up in values that we've seen in this cycle. So you should start to see that level off for us. And then in addition, we don't have really a large portfolio of 421-a assets or other pilot assets that are bleeding in at a very high rate. So that will help contain the overall expense growth in property taxes.
The other big piece is payroll. You kind of know what's happening with wage growth in payroll, which is sort of in the low to mid-3% range. But our job is to try to innovate as best we can to contain that. Minus 1.5% is not a sustainable run rate as you put things through, but we would expect to continue at something below inflationary levels for wage growth based on the innovation that we expect over the next few years. And then the other one's really kind of -- the other -- like R&M and some of those things really sort of grow at inflationary levels for the most part. So those are kind of the big pieces and the way I'd think about each one.
Lauren Weston:
Okay. That's helpful. And then a follow-up if I can. Just in the Pacific Northwest, a little bit of a spike there. I saw a footnote in the supplement, but any other color you can add on the appeal process there and the success there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. That change in expenses in Pacific Northwest was driven by successful appeals actually in the fourth quarter and the prior period. As you may know, early last year, I think all of us benefited from a reduction in rates throughout the various counties within which we operate across Greater Seattle, Pacific Northwest region. But we also had the benefit of appeals that were realized in the fourth quarter of 2018, which put upward pressure on the growth rate in Q4 of '19.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll next go with Alua Askarbek from Bank of America.
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
So just a little bit about Seattle further. It appears that Seattle's continued to weaken. Can we get any extra color there in terms of the supply impact and when you expect the bulk of it to pass with supply coming down next year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. As it relates to Seattle, some commentary just on our performance there in the fourth quarter. There's a bit of sort of unusual onetime things coming through that depressed our growth rate in the quarter down to 2.2%. Our actual base rental revenue growth rate, we kind of just think about the residential component, was 3.1%. But as a result of a number of sort of onetime things in the other rental revenue category, we lost about 90 basis points. And that relates to payments we received for revenue share in prior years -- the prior year, excuse me, as well as a onetime thing in terms of cancellation fees that didn't come through in December and came through in January.
I would say that our overall performance in the Pacific Northwest is quite healthy. It's probably the strongest in the portfolio right now in terms of rent change. January rent change across Seattle was almost 5%, and revenue growth in January is popping back up and should be in about the mid-3 -- mid-3.5% range or so. So I wouldn't extrapolate from the fourth quarter performance into 2020. We still expect it to be a very healthy market this year.
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
Got it. And then just a little bit on the supply. What are you thinking about it for the rest of the year? And when do you think most of the supply will peak or pass?
Sean Breslin:
In terms of Seattle specifically?
Alua Noyan Askarbek:
Yes.
Sean Breslin:
Seattle, specifically, we're expecting it to come down in 2020. The pace of deliveries on a quarter-by-quarter basis is pretty evenly spread. It's 1,800 to 2,000 units a quarter or so. There's a little bit more in Q1. But for the most part, it's not materially different in terms of the pace of deliveries throughout the year.
Operator:
We'll next go with John Kim from BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Can you comment on what you're seeing as far as development yields in Southeast Florida and Denver versus your legacy markets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, John. This is Matt. I can comment on that a little bit. It's -- the first thing I'd say, it's a little bit of an apple and an orange because we have not obviously been in those markets for the same length of time and the same kind of depth of experience. So we do expect going in that for us, anyway, the yields will be a little bit lower at first and that hopefully over time, as we establish our position there, we'll be able to post even stronger returns.
So in Florida, we are -- we're really partnering with other developers there. So the yield to us is thinner because we are not taking the construction risk or the entitlement risk. We're really just taking the lease-up risk on those deals. So we're looking at kind of low 5 yields for us on those types of deals where there's a sponsor who's taking a significant amount of the value spread, if you will. In Denver, we just started the deal last quarter in RiNo. That is our first ground-up development in Denver and that is not with a partner. And that was a buy-right deal in the City of Denver, so a pretty predictable process in terms of getting our permits. And that's kind of a high 5 yield. And I think that's probably what we're seeing right now there just given it is a market that's seen a lot of hard cost pressure. So I would imagine over time that both of those markets would be in the high 5s, that -- maybe even low 6s in certain cases, but probably more likely kind of mid- to high 5s.
John Kim:
And when do you think you'd get into enough critical mass to bring management in-house in those markets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Denver, we actually have brought management in-house. We brought management in-house late last year. And we do think that over time, that will be an advantage for us. And Florida, we're kind of looking at that now. So I think that's in the plan for later this year.
John Kim:
Okay. And then -- and just to follow up on the New York announcement banning broker fees, I realize maybe not a direct impact to you, but I'm wondering if you -- what you think about how this impacts the market and if you subscribe to the view that this will lead to higher rents in New York.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. This is Sean, John. Hard to say. It's really just kind of the cost has been there. I think it's -- the question is, how does it affect sort of landlord behavior, and whether they continue to engage brokers in the same way or not. There are a lot of people that do, and there are a lot of people that don't. So I think it's kind of behavioral at this point in terms of how it's going to impact things.
I mean the demand is the fundamental demand to find a unit to occupy. The question is who's paying the transaction costs or if there is one. So it's hard -- too hard to tell in terms of where that's going to come out.
John Kim:
What about market share? Is there a chance that you -- you're in a better position than some of your peers?
Sean Breslin:
I don't know about that. I think certainly, the -- us and our other REIT peers in terms of the sophisticated systems we have around digital marketing and penetration efforts there and other sources of demand are probably more well positioned in the short run. In long run, the market will correct to reflect the dynamics of the regulatory environment. So in the long run, it may be at par, but I'd say those with more scale, they can push through more digital marketing efforts. On average, the margin price should benefit some, yes.
Operator:
We'll next go with John Guinee from Stifel.
John Guinee:
Great. Very nice guidance, guys. I was looking at the recent CBRE stats, and I think those guys are pretty good. And over the last 4 years, you've seen completions average about 67,000 a quarter. And over the last 2 years, you've seen starts about 100,000 or more a quarter. It just seems with those kind of basic numbers, it's only a matter of time before deliveries bounced up over 100 a quarter. Does that make sense to you guys and if you guys factored that into your medium-term thinking?
Timothy Naughton:
It's Tim here. In terms of our markets, starts have actually been pretty flat. Nationally, that's -- I mean our numbers are, I think, closer to -- have been running more in the mid-3s and are starting to inch up to 400, if not just a little bit more than that. So I -- your numbers don't sync up quite the same as at least the numbers we use to track national starts. But in our markets, I think it's been running in the -- so it's 80,000 or something like that. And it's been pretty flat over the last few years -- last 3 years.
Operator:
We'll next go with Nick Yulico from Scotiabank.
Nicholas Yulico:
In terms of the development starts, so just hoping to get a feeling for the yield you expect on the new starts this year and also maybe a preview on the type of product and markets that you're focused on.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Nick. It's Matt. Our starts basket for this year, obviously, it can change a little bit based on kind of how the year shakes out. But it's probably a low to mid-6s yield, kind of somewhere in that 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 range. And that's really driven a lot by the mix of business. There's 1 or 2 deals in Long Island that we will hope to start this year, 1 or 2 deals in Northern New Jersey. Both of those are markets that tend to be higher yield -- higher development yield markets. We do have a big deal in L.A. in downtown, the Arts District we're looking to start; and then probably one deal each in Denver and Florida. So it's a nice mix, but on average, more in some of those higher-yield markets.
Nicholas Yulico:
Okay. That's helpful. And then I just had a question about the condo sales, the gross proceeds this year of $230 million to $250 million. Can you give us a feel for what percentage of the project that is? Is it 40% to 50%? Just trying to feel -- get a feel for how much proceeds are still left to come back as capital after this year.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. Again, I can speak to that. So just where we stand as of right now today, we have 3 units that have actually closed, that closed in January, that represented about $10 million in gross proceeds. We have 51 additional executed contracts with deposits up that represent about another $150 million. And of those 51, actually, we expect 43 to close before the end of Q1 in February and March. So most of those proceeds should come in, in the next couple of months. And then we actually have 7 additional offers, which we've accepted, but they're not yet in contract. So a good amount of that is spoken for.
But in terms of what's actually in contract or closed, it would be those 54 at $160 million. Now that is not a pro rata share of the building based on which units happen to be selling and settling first. So you can't just take that as a percentage of the unit count. What's left to sell is probably a little more than that pro rata because there's some high-value units at the top of the building that are not in that number. But it gives you a good sense of where we are.
Nicholas Yulico:
Okay. Yes. I guess I was just wondering, I think in the past, you guys have said somewhere around $3 million a unit. So that would get to right around, say, $500 million of total gross proceeds from the condos, which means you get half of that this year and half of that in 2021. Is that the right way to think about it?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean we'll see where the market -- we'll see where the market goes from here. Sales pace could be better -- or faster or slower. But like I said, we know that we have a fair amount of that already kind of spoken for.
Operator:
We'll next go with Drew Babin from Baird.
Alexander Kubicek:
This is Alex on for Drew. We were hoping if you guys could provide color on January's leasing terms in Northern California, and maybe if you guys could just speak to kind of the dynamics you're seeing. I know you referenced kind of a pretty significant deceleration in employment growth. And it looked like there was another significant deceleration in the like-term effective rent in the second half of '19. So just any color on that market and kind of what you saw in January would be helpful.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, this is Sean. A couple of things I'd say. One is Northern California overall, we expect more supply to come in this year. As I noted in my prepared remarks, overall, it's about a 25% increase across the 3 markets in terms of deliveries, and there's definitely some of that coming into play in the first quarter.
So one of the things that we did, just given what we're seeing in San Francisco and how we're thinking about a couple of other markets is we did try to build occupancy a little bit more than we might otherwise have done in the fourth quarter, particularly late in the fourth quarter. And you see that reflected in the rent change that we reported on last night. So Northern California was weak. It -- that carried over into January where blended rent change is about 60 basis points or so. It is the lowest of the regions in terms of rent change for January. And when you look at it in terms of kind of where rents are today, asking rents relative to last year, they're up about 1.5%, which is one of the lowest of the regions at this point in time. So it's a little choppy right now with some new deliveries coming in and our expectations for continued deceleration in employment growth. We'll see how it plays out throughout the balance of the year in terms of overall performance. But we are expecting about an 80 basis point reduction in like-term rent change across the region relative to what we actually produced in 2019.
Alexander Kubicek:
That's really helpful. And then one more question for me. Can you speak to the Alderwood Mall development? Is there a retailer kind of mixed-use component? Is your partner related to the mall at all? Just kind of curious what went into the underwriting there and if there's more opportunity kind of paired with a retail component or kind of next door.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. Absolutely. Well, so that deal is a joint venture with Brookfield retail partners, the former GGP, who own the mall. It's actually the site of the former Sears box, and it is part of the densification play at that mall. There will be retail on the ground floor of the building that we will not own, that Brookfield will own. So we don't necessarily have any exposure to the retail. But we do think that this is a growing line of business for us. We're pretty excited about it and a model that we hope to replicate in a number of other locations. This would be the first -- it's planned to be a long-term joint venture where we will own the asset together going forward, and we will earn some fees associated with that.
We did -- we actually did also start -- one of our other starts this quarter was Woburn in suburban Boston. That's one of the lifestyle center, not a regional mall, deals, which is a partnership with EDENS. It's actually the second deal we've done with EDENS. The first was Mosaic here in Northern Virginia, which is 8 or 9 years old now, 7 years old. And we actually have a third deal, hopefully, to be coming in the next couple of years as well in Central New Jersey. So we do see this as a trend that's growing. It's, frankly, been a little more difficult to get at it than maybe we had originally thought, particularly on the mall sites where all of these sites are encumbered with cross easements, and there's a lot of parties at the table, including sometimes multiple anchors at the mall that have some say in this. So -- but we are making good progress. We have other deals in the pipeline that hopefully will be similar. And we do think it's something that plays to our strengths as a competitive advantage for us because these are typically not broadly marketed land sites. It's important to the seller, who's our partner, the quality of the execution and the certainty of the execution, the balance sheet, all the other things we bring to the table matter just as much as just the raw land value.
Operator:
We'll next go with Richard Skidmore from Goldman Sachs.
Richard Skidmore:
Just a question on future development. Slide 19, as you look at that slide over the next 2 to 3 years, do you stay in that kind of range? Do you -- and what might change your view to either go up or down?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Tim here. Of the $4 billion, we think that could support about $1 billion a year roughly in starts, so plus or minus a couple hundred million. As Kevin mentioned in his remarks, we have been more in the $800 million range, recently expect to start around $900 million this year. The reality is you can't bring that up too quickly just because of the gestation period on these deals. It's often 2 or 3 years. So it would take -- for us to really materially increase starts 3 years from now, we'd have to be starting today in effect. And the reality is just the -- other than maybe the mixed-use opportunity that Matt mentioned, the opportunity set isn't as compelling 10 years into the cycle as it was 5 or 6 years ago.
Richard Skidmore:
And then just a follow-up in terms of the future development rights, it looks like about 50% of the future development rights are in the Metro New York/New Jersey area. How -- maybe talk a little bit about how you're thinking about New York/New Jersey, given the regulations and other things. And is that how we should think about the focus as you go forward, that you'll be focused a bit more on New York/New Jersey?
Matthew Birenbaum:
No, not necessarily. Richard, this is Matt. If you look at where our starts have actually been in the last couple of years, I think that is probably more representative of what's likely to be the start mix over the next couple of years where Metro New York has been -- I don't think we started anything in Metro New York last year. It was 20% of our starts in '18 and it's as much as 40% of our starts this year. But if you average that over 3 years, then it's maybe 20%, 25% of our start volume. It is a disproportionate share of our development rights pipeline. Some of that is because some of those deals are long-gestating entitlement plays, where not all of them may make it through, and we don't necessarily have to invest a whole lot to see if they're going to make it through in some markets in New Jersey or Long Island, for example.
And then there's a couple of very large deals there that may or may not come to fruition in this particular cycle that we've talked about on some prior calls. So there's a couple of very large high-rise deals in there that you did really do kind of move that needle, in a rough sense, they're past that $2 billion, if you will, with New York.
Operator:
We'll next go with Derek Johnston from Deutsche Bank.
Derek Johnston:
To begin, we see the Boston Metro area has experienced some solid rental and revenue growth this year. And supply is expected to actually taper in 2020, yet some metrics are pointing towards decelerating rent growth as well. I wanted to see how your team views AVB's submarket exposure there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Derek, we didn't hear the first part of the question. Would you mind restating the question clearly, please?
Timothy Naughton:
You're coming through very faintly.
Derek Johnston:
Oh, sorry. I'm looking at the Boston Metro area. We see there is some solid rental and revenue growth and supply's supposed to taper in 2020, and some of the metrics are actually pointing towards decelerating rent growth. I was kind of seeing what your team views AVB's submarket exposure there?
--
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, got it. Yes. So as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we are expecting deliveries to increase in urban Boston. If you look at sort of Back Bay downtown and sort of adjoining submarkets, I think it's an additional 1,200, 1,300 units coming into that submarket. But if you look at the suburban submarkets overall, supply is relatively stable. So our portfolio, which is primarily suburban, we think will continue to benefit. And that's why we see some acceleration of rental revenue growth in 2020 as compared to what we produced in 2019.
Derek Johnston:
Awesome. And then looking over at expense forecast for the noncontrollable items, the full year setup really looks quite similar to 2019. But are there any notable upcoming tax items that we should look for this year?
Sean Breslin:
Notable, I don't think there's anything notable per se. In terms of the noncontrollable components, that represents about 60% of our projected OpEx increase in 2020. And taxes, we're expecting sub-3% growth. There may be some benefits there because there were substantial increases in assessments and rates in New England in the fourth quarter that were not anticipated that, obviously, we had to book. So we expect some appeals to work their way through the system and benefit us potentially in 2020 or 2021.
So taxes, as I mentioned a little bit earlier in response to a question, we think are -- should be relatively stable in terms of the growth rate. And the noise you're going to see from quarter-to-quarter, year in, year out, is going to be more around the timing of supplemental assessments or appeals or things of that sort. And so it's just too early to tell where that's going to come out for this year.
Operator:
We'll next go with John Pawlowski from Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Sean, I was hoping you could elaborate more on your comments around the choppiness in San Francisco as January unfolded, and I know there's a lot of supply. Are you seeing anything on the ground that suggests demand is easing? Just any comments on concession trends as fourth quarter passed, and we're in the 2020 now, how that's faring one way or the other?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John, I'd say it's probably a little too early to tell. I think ourselves and maybe a couple of others sort of anticipated what was coming online and took a slightly more defensive posture sort of late November, December, in particular, and that bled into some move-ins in January that impacted January rent change.
There are concessions in the market. Whether you want to call it just a reduction in rent or a concession, there's some softness there. Not to target ourselves, if there's a big shift in demand, we're not necessarily seeing that. When we pull the marketing levers, we get more demand. The question is just how much we pull them. So I think it's a little too early to tell if it's purely just supply versus demand, but my sense is it's more supply. Probably have a better sense by the time we get to the next quarter call.
John Pawlowski:
Okay, understood. And then I want to -- Matt or Tim, I wanted to head back to the suburban New York and New Jersey comments and the market fundamentals right now are decelerating from already pretty restrained levels as the development pipeline just naturally increases your exposure to Jersey and suburban New York. Are you seeing anything on the ground today that gets you a bit more enthused about the demand backdrop for the next 3 to 5 years in these markets? Are you going to let that exposure drift higher as the developments earn in? Or will there be some disposition activity to pare that development exposure?
Matthew Birenbaum:
It's Matt. Yes. I don't know that our view on the kind of fundamentals about those markets has changed. In particular, what we have done and what we will continue to do is try and make sure that our portfolio is balanced. And so that does sometimes lead to disposition activity. There's certainly been -- if you look back over the last 5, 6 years, a lot more of our disposition activity has been concentrated in the New York Metro area. And until we get the JV in late '18, all of that was in the suburbs. We haven't installed anything in the city. So a lot of that -- we just sold an asset in Connecticut that closed in January. We have an asset that we would probably sell here in Central Jersey that may close in the second quarter or late in the first quarter.
So that's the way we're thinking about it. Those investments that we've been making have been among the best investments in our entire portfolio. When you look at the total IRR on those investments, they tend to start out at a very high development yield. And then some of -- usually, they actually grow pretty well for the first couple of years as they kind of find their footing in the submarket. It's not the most dynamic market among our footprint. So obviously, it doesn't necessarily have the same long-term growth profile. And so that's how we try and balance that out, is through dispositions, particularly some of the older assets there.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, John. And just maybe to add to that, I agree with everything Matt said. With respect to the $2.2 billion of development rights in New York/New Jersey, I think Matt mentioned earlier, actually a little over half of it is just 2 deals, one of which is on -- is a densification play on our site, and the other is a public-private deal that is not likely to happen anytime soon just given it's sort of caught up in politics at the moment.
So it's really about -- it's closer to $1 billion in that -- in the Metro New York/New Jersey when you kind of correct those 2, which is about 1/3 of kind of what remains, which isn't kind of too far off our total allocation to the Metro area. And as Matt mentioned, as you've seen, the disposition focus has really been in the Northeast as we recycle that back into development as well as the acquisitions in other markets, particularly the expansion markets.
Operator:
We'll next go with Wes Golladay from the Royal Bank of Canada.
Steven Charles Brunner:
This is Steve for Wes. Just a quick question about cost of capital and insights of development for the next couple of years. If we stay in a low-yield environment, you're looking at pretty low cost of capital going forward. Are you going to sort of look at your hurdle rates for your next years or years following the development pipeline and start taking, I guess, what would be lower compared to your historical hurdle rate?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. It's -- we have -- this is Matt. We actually do have a target return matrix that does vary with our cost of capital. So there is kind of an automatic systematic adjustment in our system. As our cost of capital goes up, our target returns go up and vice versa. And so actually, if you look at it today, our target returns on new investment are probably as low as they have been in certainly this entire cycle. And that is a reflection of kind of what our cost of capital is today.
Now having said that, it's not a simple, "Gosh, now we'll take 50 basis points lower on the development yield or an acquisition." We're also looking at total basis. We're also looking at kind of what the risks associated with that are. So it's not a simple formula, but it does definitely bear on our thinking a bit. And we've seen that some when you look at some of the more recent starts.
Operator:
We'll next go with Rich Anderson from SMBC.
Richard Anderson:
So when I was looking back at this time last year in your guidance, one item stuck out at me. And that was your supply -- or you -- I'd say your deliveries estimated for 2019 were 2.3% of stock and ended the year at 1.8%, and that's your estimate for this coming year. So it doesn't appear like the decline from 2.3% at this time last year to the actual that you're seeing today at 1.8% was a function of slippage. So can you explain what the decline came from, if there is anything meaningful there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Rich. This is Sean. What I'd say is we basically adjusted 2020 numbers to reflect our history in terms of the margin of error on delivery schedules. So if you look at it sort of on a gross basis based on what people would say, if this is what we plan to deliver and when we plan to deliver it, we basically haircut it to reflect sort of a probability-weighted estimate given our history. So that's really what's factored into what you're seeing there in terms of the 1.8% to 1.8%. It would have been probably closer to 2%.
Richard Anderson:
Yes. Yes, right. And what happened to the 2.3% to 1.8% over the course of the year? Or do those projects just go -- turn off? Or what happened?
Sean Breslin:
No, they bleed into the subsequent period. So they'll be bleeding into 2020, but that would have been reflected in the total anticipated deliveries in 2020 that there are other deliveries behind those deals that have now been pushed into a subsequent period.
Timothy Naughton:
This is Tim. I think this cycle has been more of a shortage of skilled labor than we've seen in past cycles, and we just haven't experienced this in the past, these kind of delays. I'm not talking about Avalon. I'm talking about the market in general. And it's very common to hear projects being delayed, and once they start construction by -- 6 to 12 months by the time they finish it. And it's just a -- it really is a labor issue. So I think it's an issue for the country, but it's certainly an issue for our industry.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. It's still -- I would think then the 1.8% would be a higher number that might trend down over the course of the year because of that slippage, but I understand.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Yes, maybe the shortages are a little less acute today than they were a year ago as well.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. Fair enough. On the -- still on development for you guys, over $60 million or so assumed development NOI in 2020. That's a fairly equivalent number to what you produced in 2017 and 2018. You had a little bit of a hiccup downward in 2019. Is this range, $60 million-ish, sort of like what we should expect on a go-forward basis for you with the 2019 maybe just being an aberration? And the reason why I ask is because what you guys have historically done as a company is produced a certain level of same-store growth but also a number at the FFO line that's much larger than that. And part of that is a function of capital allocation but also amount of development that comes online. So I'm just trying to get a sense of the cadence going forward because I hate it when I see same-store growth being at or greater than FFO growth.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Rich, Tim here. As Kevin mentioned in his remarks, we've been talking about $800 million to $900 million a year recently at an average -- and we've been stabilizing in the low 6% range. So I think it's just math. That probably gets you closer to $50 million, low 50s going forward rather than $60 million, $65 million, which is where we were kind of towards mid-cycle when we were starting north of $1 billion a year.
Richard Anderson:
Okay. Last question for me. This time again last year, you predicted your same-store number, and you nailed it pretty much on the nose in terms of the actual result. FFO, the prediction, the guidance actually was lighter than what you actually produced by about 80 or 100 basis points. So when you think about the potential to do better over the course of this year, do you think it comes from development? Or does it -- or can it still come from internal sources?
Kevin O'Shea:
So Rich, this is Kevin. In terms of our guidance this time last year for core FFO, we were at $9.30, and so we ended up at $9.34. So we beat by $0.04. We didn't come in 80 basis points below. So unless there's something else you want to -- I mean, a clarification, but that's -- those are the facts on the core FFO.
Operator:
We'll next go with Austin Wurschmidt from KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Tim, in your presentation, you highlighted the above-average compound annual growth in FFO that you've generated versus peers this cycle. But as you shrink the size of the development pipeline and to the extent that maybe same-store, depending on definition, lagging peers at face today, how do you generate above-average FFO growth versus the sector in the coming years?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, and a good question. First of all, the level of alpha was higher for the first 5 years of that decade than the last 5. And that, I think, speaks directly to the point where we have -- we've had a little bit less external growth in the last couple of years, last 2 or 3 years than we did in the prior years.
On the issue of same-store, I just would really caution you on that one. There's a -- CapEx is really distorting numbers for the industry right now. So you really have to look closely, particularly at that revenue-enhancing or NOI-enhancing CapEx that everyone is spending in a particular year. I think when you sort of cut through it, you're going to find that there's not a big outlier there. Particularly, we're not a big outlier. I can tell you that. So I think -- and then when you look at sort of the market overlap of the 7 large incumbents here, there's a lot of overlap. We're all kind of -- have similar exposure. There's not a lot of alpha from what I can tell from a week ago. So the alphas generally come from external investment activities, and virtually all -- that full 200 basis points has come from raising and deploying that capital in what we believe is the most accretive way, which has largely been through development, to a lesser extent, redevelopment.
Austin Wurschmidt:
I appreciate that. I mean I know you're below your target leverage today, but would you be willing to operate at higher leverage given the reduced funding risk associated with development and a shrinking pipeline?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, this is Kevin here. I mean we are -- our general range for leverage is kind of 5 to 6 turns on a net debt-to-EBITDA basis. We're, as I mentioned before and as you're alluding to, 4.6x at the end of the fourth quarter. I think our view is probably 10 years into a cycle being towards the low end of the 5 to 6 range is probably about where we should be on the targeting if we were to move it up. So I think given where we are at 4.6x, while our capital plan contemplates kind of being more or less leverage-neutral throughout the year, for the right opportunities, I think we have the financial flexibility to also increase leverage a little bit. But I think probably the upper bound of that would be in the low 5 turns range.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And then just last one for me and kind of touching a little bit on what you just mentioned, Tim. But what drove your decision to change the definition of stabilized operations for 2020? And could you quantify the impact that it's having on the 2020 same-store revenue guidance? And are you contemplating any additional changes related to redevelopment or revenue-enhancing CapEx in the future?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. This is Kevin. I'll start here, and Sean may want to chime in. Yes, what we really did there was just adjusted the same-store occupancy threshold down to 90% from 95%. And in doing so, our occupancy threshold is now consistent with the threshold used by 5 of our 6 peers. So part of the rationale was just to conform our practice to the prevailing practice within the apartment REIT sector. And the other benefit really is that by virtue of doing that, it brings more assets from other stabilizing redevelopment into our same-store pool and reduces the size of those other buckets where we don't give guidance to. And so as a result, more of our overall stabilized and -- assets are going to be bought (sic) [ brought ] within kind of the ambit of our same-store guidance. So it should make us a lot easier to model going forward.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Austin, in terms of the impact on 2020 guidance, I think I mentioned this previously, but collapsing the buckets together represents about a 15 basis point lift in our revenue growth for 2020.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And then anything on the -- any additional changes you're planning on revenue enhancing or redevelopment?
Sean Breslin:
I mean we have -- I think you're going to see our revenue-enhancing CapEx drift up a little bit but still be sort of well below what you see across the peers. I mean to give you some perspective, last 3-year average for us, we have invested about $350 a home. If you look at '17 through '19 kind of on average as compared to our peers, I think that number is closer to about 1,000. So more than 2.5x us. And so if you put a 10% to 12% return on that kind of back into it, you can see what kind of lift it gives you.
So we're trying to make sure that we're -- as Tim pointed out, we're making good capital allocation decisions, first to development then to redevelopment, where we think it's accretive and not just accretive to same-store, really value accretive. So that's how we think about it. We're looking for those opportunities in the market to do that in existing assets where we think it makes sense.
Operator:
We'll next go with Hardik Goel from Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel:
I know a lot of the questions have been about guidance in the quarter, but I just wanted to take a step back and get your thoughts on something. As I look at the data we've collected from you guys over the last decade or so, and we have a lot of data now, and there's a down cycle, included in that, D.C. seems to underperform all the other markets quite significantly. And I know, Tim, you've talked in the past about how, in the long term, D.C. and Northern California might have similar growth rates, and it's a function of volatility in the downturn. But it seems like over the last 10 years seems to be a good long-term period. And I just wonder if the apartment REITs in general are missing the traits (sic) [ trade ] here with the overallocation of D.C. because of the lack of supply constraints in the market.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. We've seen this in other markets, too, by the way, that have had sort of the bad decade, if you will. Certainly, it was true of Boston in the 2000s. Boston was great in the '90s. It was good in the last decade but not so good in the 2000s. It's one of the reasons why we try to be in multiple markets. You can't always predict what's going to have the best decade. Seattle certainly outperformed what we had expected it to do this past decade. We didn't expect it to be able to absorb a particular level of supply. It is probably less supply constrained than D.C. and yet had a great run.
We don't think there's really been a secular change with respect to D.C. We think, in some ways, the Amazon's HQ search was kind of informative. When you think of ultimately where they landed, it is a great knowledge center that happens to be on the East Coast. You're seeing more and more tech companies sort of diversify their employment base to include D.C. and New York. And so we want to be overallocated and overindexed to college (sic) [ knowledge ] economy. And those are largely the markets where we're in and some of the expansion markets, a couple of expansion markets we've gone into, and perhaps a couple of other markets down the road that we've kind of talked about. So we really sort of focus first on the demand side recognizing. Supply, more or less, it catches up a little more quickly in places like Seattle and D.C. than it does in New York and California, but it tends to catch up ultimately a bit with demand. And it's really kind of that income and job growth that ultimately is sort of a big driver of ultimate performance. So we're good with D.C. And if anything, we're probably more bullish on it today than we were, say, 3 or 4 years ago in terms of investing the marginal dollar.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll next go with Daniel Santos from Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb:
It's actually Alex Goldfarb on for Dan. So 2 questions. First, Tim, can you just talk about same-store and how the developments contribute to that? So meaning like you guys are 3% this year, which is sort of industry standard, and would think that new development, once it's part of the same-store pool, would have faster growth or maybe it doesn't as it ages until it develops a price point below the stuff that's delivered after so it can once again have pricing power. So maybe you can just talk about how the development interplays with same-store NOI growth.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Alex, this is Sean. If I could take a stab at that one, and then Tim and Matt may want to jump in as well. But I mean one thing to keep in mind here is given the size and scale of the portfolio today, a development can move the needle, but it's not moving it materially, I would say, in the average year based on the number of deliveries that actually occur in a community. A development stabilizes, then it sits in our other stabilized bucket for a year, and then it comes into same-store. So we typically see a modest benefit from those communities when they come into same-store. And they do actually tend to perform well the first 2 or 3 years after they stabilize because the pricing, whether it's rents or net effective rents after concessions, reflect this trend to lease up the entire community typically within 12 months as opposed to the turnover, which is closer to half the communities.
So these communities tend to do well and they typically give us a very modest lift. But given the size of the portfolio today as it moves into same-store, it's not hugely material unless we happen to have 1 year where there's a very, very large slug of deliveries. Therefore, when it comes into same-store, it's abnormally large.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then the second question is, you guys talked -- you've been talking for some time about reducing development. You have some severance that's in your numbers this year. I think you had severance last year. Can you just give a sense of 2 things
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Alex, it's Tim. I can start. And we have cut back in terms of the capitalized overhead for sure as we've reduced our development volume. We're running, I think, just a little under 3% in terms of development overhead relative to annualized development overhead relative to starts. That includes people's long-term compensation. You sort of compare that to the private world. The private world, they tend to get 3% development fees, if you will, and that doesn't include sort of their promotes and their long-term comp.
So it's still a pretty efficient model, but we are very focused. Honestly, the business units are very focused on this because the way they're incentivized is based upon production and profitability relative to basically FTEs or overhead expended. So it is something that sort of -- tends to sort of self-regulate, and it's not exactly linear, but it's -- directionally, it kind of works. In terms of whether any of it actually is vivid on the P&L, I think it's just in sort of severances and then in limited certain situations where you may be starting up in a region and you don't yet have new deals to capitalize somebody against. There may be some expenses for some period of time. But generally, on a stable region, you're not going to have development expenses sort of being flushed through the P&L.
Alexander Goldfarb:
But then, Tim, so where do you think that -- like do you still see yourself having a few more years of reducing development? And then in total, how much costs in total have you reduced over the past few years as you've done the severance and shrunk the capitalized overhead?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I might have to get to you off-line on the second piece. But I think as we've talked about in the last couple of years, and we really moved from about $1.3 billion, $1.4 billion to about $800 million to $900 million, we wanted to get to a level -- and I think Kevin mentioned this in his prepared remarks. We wanted to get to a level at which we felt we could fund it without having to be dependent on the equity markets, between asset sales, free cash flow and additional debt. So I would say, until there's some kind of economic contraction, you should expect we're going to be kind of -- at this rate, the development pipeline that we have in place should allow us to continue to start about $800 million to $900 million a year. And then on the second piece, we'll just get back to you off-line on that.
Operator:
We'll next go with Haendel St. Juste from Mizuho.
Haendel St. Juste:
My question has been answered. Thank you.
Operator:
This concludes today's question-and-answer session. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference back to Mr. Tim Naughton. Please go ahead.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thank you, Nadia, and thanks, everybody, for being on today, and we look forward to seeing you in the coming months. Take care.
Operator:
This concludes today's call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now go ahead and disconnect
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations.
Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Vicki, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.
As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q3 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Matt and I will provide brief commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards.
Our comments this morning will focus on providing a summary of Q3 and year-to-date results; an update on operations, including some areas of innovation and the operating platform; and then lastly, a review of the development portfolio. Starting now on Slide 4. Highlights for the quarter include core FFO growth of just over 2.5% for the quarter and 3.3% year-to-date. Same-store revenue growth in Q3 came in at 2.7% or 2.9%, including redevelopment, with most regions clustered in the 2.5% to 3% range. Year-to-date same-store revenue growth stands at 3.1%, or 3.2% including redevelopment. We completed a $90 million community in Seattle this quarter at an initial yield of just over 6%, $335 million so far this year at an average yield of 6.3%. We purchased 2 communities totaling $135 million in the quarter, including our third community so far in Southeast Florida, where we also have one development underway. We sold 4 communities in Q3 totaling $260 million, including the last few assets in Texas that were acquired as part of the Archstone transaction. Lastly, in late September, we entered into a forward contract of $200 million of equity, which will be settled over the next year and will help fund the remaining cost to complete the development currently under construction. And with that now, I'll turn it over to Sean to discuss operations.
Sean Breslin:
Okay. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 5. This chart represents the trailing 4-quarter average rent change for our same-store portfolio and shows the East and West converging to average roughly 3%. During Q3, however, rent change for our East Coast portfolio was 3.6%, 80 basis points greater than the 2.8% produced by our West Coast assets. The last time our East Coast portfolio outperformed the West from a rent change perspective was Q4 of 2010.
During Q3, the East Coast portfolio was led by a 4.6% rent change in New England, up 50 basis points year-over-year; and 3.8% in the mid-Atlantic, up a very healthy 140 basis points year-over-year. On the West Coast, our Pacific Northwest portfolio produced like-term rent change of 4.1%, which was essentially unchanged year-over-year. Northern and Southern California delivered rent change in the 2.5% to 3% range, each down more than 100 basis points year-over-year. Turning to Slide 6. I'd like to highlight a few of the components of revenue growth in the first half and the second half of this year. As indicated on the chart, we expect relatively stable rental rate growth, which is the primary driver of same-store revenue growth throughout the year. However, as I mentioned during our Q2 call, revenue growth in the first half of this year benefited from the burn-off of lease-up concessions from new entrants into the same-store pool, a reduction in bad debt and healthy revenue growth from our retail portfolio. In total, these components contributed an incremental 70 basis points to rental revenue growth during the first half of the year. We don't have much of a tailwind from those same components in the second half of the year, and the benefit we are realizing is being offset by the impact of rent caps in L.A. and the recently adopted rent regulations in New York. As a result, revenue growth in the second half of the year is more in line with actual rental rate growth. Turning to Slide 7. I'd like to share a little bit about what we're doing on the innovation front, which will enhance our operating margins and allow us to reach new customers. As indicated on the left side of Slide 7, we're leveraging various technologies, our scale and new organizational capabilities to create value through a number of initiatives, including those identified on the right side of the slide. Some of our margin-enhancement initiatives relate to leasing and maintenance service, which I'll address in more detail shortly, along with customized renewal offerings and centralized renewal administration. In addition, we're studying opportunities to use AI, digitalization and various other technologies to improve the productivity of our property management organization, including our call center operation. We're also using our scale and technology to reach new customers. In the residential space, a segmentation study indicated that roughly 10% of the renter market would prefer a furnished apartment home. We started offering furnished apartment homes in select locations about 18 months ago. Based on early results we expect to scale it to 5% or more of our portfolio over the next couple of years. In addition, we are pursuing a strategy to profitably serve the limited service segment of the rental market through the development of a new community featuring high-quality apartment homes and amenity-light design and limited community services. As compared to our typical development community, we expect to reduce capital cost per home via thoughtful design, choice of materials and the elimination of almost all the amenity space. On the operating side, we expect to reduce operating expenses by eliminating most of the on-site staff as most of the customer interactions would be facilitated by technology and the cost of maintaining what tends to be expensive amenity spaces. The net benefit to the customer is a rental rate approximately 10% to 20% below other new communities in the area. Our first pilot community is currently under construction, and we expect initial results in the next 12 to 18 months. Turning now to Slide 8 to provide more detail on a couple of initiatives. About 18 months ago, we mapped out all the customer journeys tied to leasing an apartment and created a new technology-enabled self-service model for most leasing activities. We started implementing the first phase of our redesigned customer journey earlier this year, which includes the use of an AI-powered automated leasing agent and the adoption of a more dynamic demand-driven staffing model. Our automated agent is now fully deployed across the entire portfolio. The screenshot on the right side of Slide 8 represents a clip of a recent text conversation our agent had with a prospective resident. The automated agent operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and we're seeing improved performance metrics as a result of our adoption of this technology, including about a 700 basis point improvement and leads to our conversion ratios. We implemented our new staffing model in 2 regions this year and expect to adopt it across the entire portfolio by the end of next year. We've seen a substantial improvement in productivity across the 2 pilot regions and expect similar results in our other regions. Other components of the new leasing model included more self-guided tours and self-service move-ins. Overall, we expect to realize about a 50 basis point improvement in our same-store operating margin as a result of our new approach to leasing, which is primarily driven by an increase in the productivity of our leasing teams. Turning now to Slide 9. We've also created a road map for our new maintenance service model. There are several phases to the plan, but it includes digitalized workflow and procurement, automated scheduling via a new optimization platform, the application of data science to predict demand and enhanced associate performance metrics. We're in the process of integrating the new maintenance platform with our other enterprise systems, which would allow us to implement the first phase in Q1 2020 and realize stabilization of roughly midyear 2021. We expect another roughly 50 basis point improvement in our same-store operating margin from our new maintenance service model, which is primarily driven by an increase in the productivity of our maintenance teams. And lastly, turning to Slide 10, I'd also like to provide an update on some of our environmental initiatives. Over the past few years, we have invested in a number of opportunities to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions across our portfolio, including LED lighting, which is already generating more than $3 million in annual utility savings; and on-site solar generation, which we have started to install more broadly after completing several pilots. We are on track to have almost a 6 megawatts of carbon-free, power-generating capacity installed by the end of next year, providing strong returns on a $20 million investment and with more opportunity to extend solar into additional assets in future years. With that, I'll turn it over to Matt to talk about development and Columbus Circle. Matt?
Matthew Birenbaum:
All right, great. Thanks, Sean. Our development activity continues to be a strong driver of both NAV and earnings growth even this far into the business cycle. As seen on Slide 11, we currently have $975 million of development that is currently in lease-up or has recently been completed across 10 communities, with a weighted average initial stabilized yield based on today's rents and expenses of 6.1%. We believe these assets would be worth roughly $1.3 billion in the private market, generating $325 million in value creation on completion, which translates directly into corresponding growth in NAV.
Slide 12 illustrates the future NOI growth we expect as we complete all of the development currently underway. On the left-hand side of the slide, you can see that at stabilization, we anticipate $60 million in NOI from the $975 million worth of assets shown on the previous slide that are currently in lease-up, plus another $103 million in NOI from the $1.8 billion in assets that are under construction but not yet in lease-up, for a total of $163 million in future NOI to come. And as shown on the right-hand side of the slide, this activity is almost completely match-funded between our recent forward equity deal, free cash flow and cash on hand. In addition, the projected sources of capital as shown does not include proceeds from pending asset sales or condominium unit sales, which we expect to realize in Q1 2020 and which exceeds $100 million remaining to fund. With initial yields well above our marginal short-term cost of capital, this development activity is projected to contribute meaningfully to earnings growth over the next 2 to 3 years. Speaking of condominium sales proceeds, Slide 13 provides an update on our mixed-use building at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, which has been renamed The Park Loggia. As we have discussed on prior calls, we began marketing individual apartments in the building as for-sale condominiums back in April. And based on the market response to our offering, we can now confirm that we are proceeding with the condominium execution for the residential component. The Park Loggia has been the top-selling property in Manhattan since the sales launch, and we currently have 40 signed contracts, which we expect will move to settlement in early 2020 once the individual tax lots have been recorded with the city. The retail component also continues to be well received by the market, with our anchor tenant, Target, opening for business any day now. Of the 67,000 square feet of total retail space available for lease, about 45,500 has been leased so far. And we are in advanced negotiations for another 10,300 square feet on the second floor, which would leave us with about 11,000 square feet left to lease, most of which is on the ground floor with Broadway frontage. Ultimately, we expect to generate roughly $10 million in total NOI from the retail component of this project once it reaches stabilization in 2021. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Tim for some concluding remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Okay. Thanks, Matt. So in summary, apartment markets remain quite healthy, with most markets in balance producing consistent revenue growth of 2.5% to 3%. For the first time, as Sean mentioned, since late 2010, the East Coast is performing either in line or slightly ahead of the West Coast. We're investing aggressively in our operating platform, leveraging scale, technology and capabilities to grow margins by driving efficiencies in leasing, maintenance and utility costs. We expect our investments in these areas to stabilize over the next several quarters.
And we continue to create significant value through our sector-leading development platform, an activity that's consistently delivered 30%-plus value creation margins over this 10-year expansion cycle and combined with our practice of match-funding should contribute meaningfully to earnings growth over the next couple of years. And with that, Vicki, we are ready to open the call for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll take our first question today from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
Sean, you highlighted the rent growth conversion. With what we're seeing today, what are your expectations for the East and West Coast from here? Do you think we'll see sustained rent outperformance from the East Coast over the next 12 months?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Nick, Sean here. Good question on that topic. I mean, there's a number of factors out there that kind of relate to the outlook for demand and supply as we move into 2020. On the supply side, if you want to think about it, where we're seeing some benefit on the East Coast going into next year for the most part was in New York City where supply is coming down, projected to be roughly in half in 2020 as compared to deliveries in 2019, 2018. So we expect a little bit of benefit there that may be muted, to some degree, obviously, by the rent regulation. The first half of next year, we're going to see some impact from that as it bleeds through. As you know, it started midyear, so we have the back half of '19 and the first half of '20. We'll see a little bit of dilution from that. But from a pure market fundamentals perspective, if you’re going to look at it that way. The New York City looks pretty good.
Boston, we are going to see more supply in the urban submarkets of Boston next year. And then as you come down to the Mid-Atlantic, for the most part, things will be roughly at par from a supply standpoint. And if you pivot to the West Coast with the same question, we're expecting more supply in Northern California across all 3 markets, San Francisco, the East Bay and San Jose, and a little bit more in L.A. So if you think about sort of the supply side of it, assuming the demand side was relatively stable, and there's a number of reasons why you'd expect it to potentially decelerate a little bit from a job growth perspective, et cetera, based on macroeconomic sort of factors, those are the markets where we're probably going to see some change, either to the upside or the downside, based on the deliveries. The one interesting component I'd point to is sometimes, it's not all just embedded in the jobs data that we see or the supply data that we see. So in the Mid-Atlantic, as an example, it's had a nice tailwind this year. Jobs and supply has been about what we expected, but federal procurement's up quite a bit and that tends to bring a lot of contractors to the region. So some of those factors have come into play. So net-net, you'd have to look at it sort of market by market. But there are good reasons to expect the East Coast to continue to perform well based on what we see. Whether it's at par or above the West Coast is yet to be seen. So I don't know if you want to add anything to that, Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, no, I think that's all right, Sean. Yes, I think -- Nick, I think one of the things that's sort of remarkable is just how tightly clustered all the markets are. While East is slightly outperforming the West, I think what's really striking to us is that it does seem like all the markets performing within 50 or 100 basis points, which I just can't remember a time in the cycle where that's occurred. It just seems like we're pretty close to equilibrium, almost across the board, which again is kind of remarkable when we think about how supply sort of moves up and down through the course of the cycle in any one market. So it's -- I don't know if there's a firm house view that East or West is going to outperform next year as much as -- the markets are basically in balance and approaching equilibrium from our view.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's very helpful. And then just on the Upper West Side condo sales, for the 40 signed contracts, what's the average sales price?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Nick, it's Matt. I don't want to give too much detail, but we do have 40 signed contracts. The average price of those particular units is about $2.750 million, and they're in different parts of the building.
Operator:
And we'll go to Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Hightower:
So just a question on some of the tech spending that it looks like you guys are ramping up on. I know you expressed this in terms of basis points of NOI growth impact. But could you maybe translate that into sort of an old-fashioned ROI? What incremental spend do you expect to roll out? And what's sort of the estimated ROI on all of that if we take all the categories together?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, this is Sean. I want to give you just a little bit on that in terms of where we are. A number of these things that we're doing, particularly -- I'll just focus on the leasing and maintenance side for the moment because they're pretty far along as compared to, say, the development communities, they'll have their own independent capital budgets that are differently looked on each one -- or each one kind of on a per-home basis. But in terms of sort of the backbone of it on the leasing and maintenance side, the expected investment to deliver the kind of margin enhancement we're talking about, which is roughly 100 basis points, is about $10 million. So for a $10 million investment, you can run the math pretty quickly, on a 100 basis improvement in operating margin, that's a pretty good ROI.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Yes, we can do that. And then maybe secondly, just in terms of -- I think there was an uptick in R&M expense last quarter in a couple of markets. And I know this is part of the larger conversation that we're having in terms of technology and efficiency spending. But maybe just, if you could, talk to labor expense growth, not only as a function of the tight job market in general, but also the function of new supply in your markets. How do those 2 factors sort of interplay with the labor expense growth in some of those categories?
Sean Breslin:
Sure, yes, happy to address that. And maybe a couple of broad comments to begin with. One is when you look at each quarter here, things can be pretty lumpy. So we tend to ask people to really consider focusing on sort of where we are from a year-to-date basis since there's a lot of different things that are happening. So when you look at the quarter, as an example, there's a lot of lumpiness in R&M spend. Q2 -- late Q2, Q3 is sort of the peak for when you're completing maintenance projects given the weather, particularly in some of the markets in the Northeast, as an example, and even here in the mid-Atlantic. And so there tends to be greater spend there. Obviously, there's seasonal patterns to turnover that relates to R&M. On the marketing side, as an example, we had a substantial call center credit Q3 of last year. So if you went and looked at Q3 numbers for OpEx over the last year, marketing was down about 21%. That's why there's a big increase this year. So you have to kind of look at it over a period of time.
But to address your specific questions around labor, to give you some sense, for us, as an example, on the payroll side, and we're starting to see some efficiency there, year-to-date, we're up 270 basis points on payroll. About 140 basis points of that just relates to benefits and workers' comp and things like that, that are very lumpy in terms of claims activity and things like that versus 130 basis points is really the sort of organic underlying growth related to the associates in the field. And if you consider that wage growth, pick a source, is running anywhere from, say 3%, up to (sic) [ up to 4% ], for our types of folks, if you look at the ADP data, maybe even more so. It's pretty constrained labor costs growth on a year-over-year basis. So we've been able to -- mainly through leveraging on the office side, some of the operating model work that we're doing, some of the innovation work that we're doing, taking some FTEs out of the system on the office side so far to help contain that, which is good because the merit pool for our associates is still in the 3% to 4% range on a year-over-year basis for our population. The one other thing that I would comment on is there is some pressure in certain markets as it relates to minimum wage, regulation, things of that sort, that's putting pressure on the maintenance labor side for outsourced services. So even though turnover was down, as an example, labor rates in some of the markets -- Northern California, as an example, Seattle, et cetera, labor rates are up. So labor component of some of those vendors is up more so than you might like. So we have to try to be as efficient as we can. That's one of the reasons we're investing in the maintenance initiative, is to make sure that we're being as efficient as we can, not only with our own labor, but with systems and procurement for the outsourced labor as well. So hopefully, that addresses a number of your topics there.
Operator:
We'll go to Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
A couple of things. Getting back to rent regulation, we've heard some mixed commentary with some of your peers. So I was wondering if maybe you could think about the impact on revenue breaking down California and New York City, or if it's too early to sort of think through that detail.
Sean Breslin:
Rich, this is Sean. And when you say breakdown, what are you looking for? Just kind of what the expected impact is this year or next year?
Richard Hill:
Well -- well, really next -- yes, so I thought the color in your pitch book post earnings was really helpful where there was an offset. So that was helpful to understand. But I'm trying to understand -- do you think California or New York is more onerous? We sort of look at New York City as being more onerous. And obviously, you've talked about decreasing your exposure in that market. I think the market was thinking California at that 5%-plus inflation wasn't that big of a deal. It sounds like it's having some headwinds. So I'm just trying to quantify that offset and how much of it's driven by California versus New York.
Sean Breslin:
Okay. So yes, let me give you just a brief summary on each one to give you some perspective. So what we talked about on the last quarter call as it relates to New York is that we expected the same-store impact in the second half of 2019 to be about $1 million. And about 80% of that is derived from loss of all fee income that we could generate for application fees and things of that sort, as you may recall. So it will reduce the growth rate in the New York/New Jersey region by about 25 basis points for the full year, and the growth for the full year in the same-store portfolio is really about 6 or 7 basis points. But since it's all concentrated in the second half, the impact is about 10 or 11 basis points.
So for New York, that's for the second half of this year, we would expect a similar impact roughly in the first half of next year until you get to the second half of 2020, where you have year-over-year comps that are a little more stable. Because you have an impact in the second half of '19, the impact will be in place the second half of 2020. So then projecting it beyond that, it's a little bit of a mathematical jigsaw puzzle in terms of different things that you expect, where you are in terms of legal rent today across your portfolio, et cetera. So I do think you're going to get different answers from each of the REIT owner/operators as it relates to their assets and the potential impact. So not surprised that you're hearing different things about that, but that's sort of how it looks in New York. And keep in mind for us, as it relates to the rent stabilization component of it as opposed to the fee component, which is statewide, the stabilization side impacts about 2,100 units. And for us, about 10 years from now, those 421-a programs burn off, and then we'd be free of that. So that's how to think about it for our portfolio in New York. In terms of AB 1482 in California, there's a couple of different ways to look at it. First is we went back and sort of back-tested our portfolio in 2018 and 2019 and said if 1482 has been adopted in either one of those years, what would the impacts have been? And if you back-test it that way, for us, it would have been about a 20 basis point impact for each of Northern and Southern California. That's about 40% of our portfolio, so call it 8 basis points roughly for the full year. And then probably the other relevant question is given the reset on January 1, 2020, how does it impact your embedded growth rate for 2020? And what we've done today is we've basically said, look, if it went into effect October 1, we had to reset leases back to Q1 of 2019, which is the regulation, it has about a 5 basis point drag on our embedded growth. So it's not -- that's on the same-store pool overall. So it's not terribly meaningful, but it's going to look certainly a little bit more meaningful in those markets. And then beyond that, it's really a function of the market environment, whether you're hitting the caps or not. But the piece that tends to come into play that people don't always think about is not just that CPI piece, but there are short-term lease extensions, month-to-month leases, various things like that, that have capped our ability to generate more premium revenue. And so I'm not sure if everybody is recognizing that at this point, but it tends to be a material impact. And we mentioned that this year, as an example, the impact to some of the rent caps in L.A., because of the fire, was about $1 million because we couldn't do those short-term leases very profitably. So you have to look at all those different components. That's a lot of detail, yes, maybe more than you need, but that's kind of how we're looking at it right now.
Richard Hill:
No. That's, I think, the transparency that I was certainly looking for. One quick follow-up question. And I apologize if you mentioned this on your prepared remarks, maybe I missed it. And I recognize you don't give quarterly guides. But it looks like the full year guide implies some pretty healthy growth in FFO year-over-year in 4Q '19. Is there anything specific driving that, that we should think about?
Kevin O'Shea:
Rich, this is Kevin O'Shea. We typically do see a ramp in core FFO as we progress through the year because of our developmental focus. Specifically, as it relates to the ramp from 3Q '19 to 4Q '19, the sequential growth in excess of core FFO is being primarily driven by seasonally lower operating expenses and by development NOI from lease-up communities. So those are the 2 main drivers of the impact.
Operator:
We'll go to Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeffrey Spector:
I have a follow-up question on supply. You mentioned New York City next year, I think, in your -- for your exposure down 50%. Can you put some numbers around some of the West Coast markets you discussed that you said -- you mentioned some -- I guess, qualitatively some comments around supply, but do you have any stats?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Sure, Jeff. This is Sean. Happy to do that. So on the West Coast market specifically, we are expecting basically flat deliveries in Seattle. But in terms of Northern California, I mentioned supply deliveries across all the market. It's about 1,000 units more in San Francisco, about 1,800 in East Bay, about 1,500 in San Jose. And then in L.A., it's about 2,800 units. A lot of it concentrated in and around downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, a little bit on the West side.
And in the other markets, happy to go through some of the submarkets with you offline, if that's helpful. But those are kind of really the big chunks.
Jeffrey Spector:
That's helpful. And we've seen slippage year -- each year for the last few years. Is there a chance that any of that slips into '21? Or is the supply more front-loaded first half of '20?
Sean Breslin:
No. It's pretty -- it's spread relatively evenly across the quarter. And so to your point, based on what we've seen historically, we would expect some of that to slip, absolutely. Our rule of thumb has been somewhere in the 10% to 15% range based on what we've seen sort of historical experience, so to give you some perspective. And I'd say more delays in kind of the urban high-rise products more so than the suburban woodframe.
Jeffrey Spector:
And then just one follow-up on demand. I know you talked about, obviously, unemployment is low, and so job growth has slowed. But wage growth for your renter has been strong. So how are you thinking about that in terms of pushing rents? I don't know if you can give any comments on maybe what you're putting out for renewals over the next 30 to 60 days out.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. This is Sean. Happy to jump on that, and Tim and others can chime in. But yes, historically, when we look at it, wage growth is most highly correlated with rent growth. Job growth is sort of the #2 variable in that equation. And so we are seeing people come in with healthy wage gains. What we tend to look at is for the people that move into our apartment communities January of 2019, what their income level is relative to those that will move in, in January of 2020 and how much is it moving, as an example, that's kind of how we measure it. We don't necessarily get income levels from every renewal. But people are seeing healthy wage growth. It's certainly in line with what we're seeing in the raw data, whether it's the BLS data or the ADP data. I kind of referenced kind of 3.5% earlier when we're talking about wage growth. But in the ADP data, professional services, financial services, et cetera, tech, those numbers on paper are being close to 6%, 7% wage growth. That may or may not include some of the stock option and some things of that sort. But we're seeing healthy wage growth. And certainly, that influences how we think about it. But yes, to the extent there's supply in the market, they have choices, so it really comes down to how we think the demand/supply environment looks.
Right now, in terms of renewal offers though, to answer the specific question, we're talking about stuff in the mid high to 5 -- high-5% range, mid- to high-5% range for November and December in terms of where renewal offers are going out. And renewals have been relatively flat all year, kind of in the mid- to high-4% range. And I would expect that to be the case as we continue to move through the fourth quarter as well.
Timothy Naughton:
Jeff, it's Tim. Just maybe one thing to add. I think you're right. In terms of our population, the income growth's been quite decent relative to maybe the 3%, 3.5% for the overall population.
I think one other thing to consider is what's happening on the for-sale side. Affordability has becoming -- become more challenging as -- up until the last quarter or 2, where the Case-Shiller have been outpacing rent growth. So I think that, that's helped rental demand, some of the margin. You're now seeing -- I think Case-Shiller had a print this morning right around 2%. You're now seeing sort of for-sale inflation, housing inflation, start to fall more in line with rent growth. So overall, I think our outlook is it's a pretty balanced housing market, not just across each of the geographic markets but between for sale and for rental. You're starting to see relatively flattish movement in homeownership rates, might be up one quarter, down the next quarter. So it's -- it really is remarkable just in terms of the overall housing market, just kind of how in equilibrium it is right now. And maybe that shouldn't be a surprise sort of 10 years into an expansion, but it's about as stable as I can remember seeing it.
Operator:
Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets is next.
Austin Wurschmidt:
You guys have spent some time talking about the convergence and like-term rent change across kind of the East Coast and West Coast, but this is really the first quarter this year that we've seen that like-term effective rent change be below where it was at this time last year. And I wouldn't think some of the headwinds you've talked about to same-store revenue growth related to other incomes and lower bad debt would necessarily show up in that figure. So I'm just curious what's driving that moderation and how should we think about that moving forward.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Austin, this is Tim. I think it's just demand overall. I mean, you've seen an economy sort of downshift from 3% growth to roughly currently 2% growth. Job growth's 1.5% range now, running about 2 million jobs, versus we were in the mid-2s before.
So household formation has been pretty good, but I think it's just overall economic activity being down a little bit. The supply, as Sean mentioned, has been relatively stable. Obviously, there's shifts from market to market. But overall across our market footprint has been relatively stable. I think just economic activity and job growth is down a little bit. That's probably what's impacting the margins for us.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And so it's safe to assume that's mostly on the new lease side, because you've talked about kind of that mid- to high-4% range for renewals being fairly stable, so just traffic overall is down a bit?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, no, this is Sean. I mean, I wouldn't think too much about traffic because traffic is something that we can either engineer up or down, depending on how much you spend and things like that. I think if you look at really what's happening with rent change where you're seeing lift, the lift is in the Mid-Atlantic. And as I mentioned, job growth has been about the same, but there's been a substantial increase in procurement from the government. That brings in a lot of contractors. That gives you a little bit better lift than we might have anticipated. But where we're down in Northern and Southern California is more just a function of demand because the supply is pretty much what we expected. And if you see where it is, it's pretty widespread, so you can't just point to one particular market or submarket and say that's kind of driving it. It's pretty broad, which generally is more macroeconomic-oriented.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. Appreciate the thoughts. And then just a second one for me is, Matt, you provided a good bit of detail on kind of the limited spend you've got within the development pipeline here. But I'm curious, what does that figure on the remaining spend look like once you commence the remaining starts you've targeted for 2019? And I think you've got north of $1 billion being completed in 2020. So can you -- if you factor all of that in, what's kind of that future spend look like?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I'll speak to that quickly. And then I don't know if Kevin wants to add anything. Obviously, we haven't provided any guidance in terms of what our starts might be next year. I think this year, we're expected to start $400 million or $500 million additional here in the fourth quarter. So some of which has been spent already, but most of which has not. So I guess if you project it out to year-end, you'd probably add that and then you'd take out spend that we would incur over this quarter on the stuff that's currently underway. So it might tick up a little bit. But as I mentioned, we also have not only condo sales, but pending disposition asset sales proceeds coming in the first quarter as well that aren't even in those numbers.
Kevin O'Shea:
I mean -- Austin, this is Kevin. One way to think about our business is we're kind of starting somewhere close to $1 billion a year in development, spending about $100 million, $150 million or so on redevelopment. We're spending about $100 million in the investment side of the house every month. So it certainly moves around a little bit. But if you're just trying to get a general sense of kind of what that flow of investment activity looks like for us, it's -- probably a ballpark number is somewhere in the $100 million a month in terms of investment spend.
Operator:
Next is Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.
Trent Trujillo:
This is Trent on with Nick. Matt, going back to The Park Loggia condos, you mentioned the average sales price so far is a little lower than the average targeted sales price for the building. So perhaps some higher-priced units still left to go and some softness in the higher-priced market. What kind of sales trajectory do you anticipate, whether on a monthly or quarterly basis?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, sure, Trent. So first of all, it's going great. Over the past 6 months, we've been running 27 visits a week, Corcoran Sunshine is marketing them for us. Their average across all the deals they're marketing in Manhattan is 7 visits a week. So we're getting a lot of traffic. It really helps that the product is there, and people can actually see it. And we're close to being able to have people buy and settle, so if they're not buying off of plans, they're not buying -- and particularly going into next year, they're not going to be buying and having to wait a significant amount of time.
So yes, I mean, I think when we launched, we said we figured the average price, across the whole building, was roughly $3 million a unit. The ones we've sold so far are $2.75 million. So you're right, I mean, that average is skewed a little bit by some super premium units at the very top of the building. And those will sell when they sell. So it's hard to predict or project when those might sell. And they will move the needle a little bit. So what we've sold so far on average, there's been a nice balance across the building, but a little bit more kind of at the bottom of the building than the top so far. We hope to be able to continue a reasonable pace. We think we've got a compelling value proposition to the market. Obviously, we'll have to see how it goes. Right now, where we stand is we are -- any day now, we expect the plan to be declared effective by the attorney general, which is a process that, frankly, we thought would take 2 or 3 weeks. It's probably more like 5 or 6. And then we have to go to getting the tax lots recorded by the city assessor's office, and that process is taking a little longer than we had originally anticipated. So the market response and everything has been as we expected, kind of even as of the beginning of the year. It's just taking us a little longer to get to the legal place where we can start settlements because of that 2-step process of the AG and then the city assessor's office. And there's -- I guess there's a backup at the city assessor's office, so that's taken just a little longer than we had thought projected going in. But again, we're well on track for settlements first quarter. And we continue to make sales at that pace of roughly 4 to 6 a month, and we've seen that -- we haven't seen any slowdown yet in our sales pace even here through October.
Trent Trujillo:
That's very good detail. Maybe just sticking with that a little bit on the retail space. It looks like you're making progress on that as well. Can you talk about the new tenants being added, or maybe how you're viewing the overall mix and what you're targeting on the remaining available space?
Matthew Birenbaum:
A little bit. Sure. I mean, we have Target, as I mentioned, I think should be opening any day now. Our tenant on the second floor -- our first tenant on the second floor, financial services. I think they're getting ready to open here before the end of the year as well. We have one additional ground floor space that's leased to a high-quality credit tenant that should start their build-out here probably in January. And we've got a couple of tenants we're talking to, actually in pretty far advanced negotiations, about the remaining space on the second floor. Different use groups. One is kind of a restaurant use group and the other is more of a fitness use group. So we have some interesting options there. And then we'll see about the remainder of the ground floor space. We continue to get interest from various folks. So it's kind of an interesting mix of different tenancies. We do think Target will attract further interest just because they're going to drive a lot of traffic. Obviously, that location gets a tremendous amount of street -- pedestrian traffic anyway. But so again, things are proceeding nicely. We are getting nice interest. And the NOI from that is going to take a couple of years to phase in as those final spaces get leased.
Trent Trujillo:
Okay. And maybe just one more, if I may. With the development rights increasing to over $4.2 billion, how are you, I guess, viewing that development pipeline if that pilot initiative you mentioned about, an amenity-light community, if that's successful, does that change how you're looking at where to develop or how to develop? But maybe some color on that would be helpful.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. This is Matt again. It's probably a little too early to say. We do have one community under construction that's kind of our pilot test case for it, and we're going to see what the market response is. We're going to validate kind of what those margins look like. So the way I would think about it is it's another tool in the toolkit. We haven't really underwritten any of the deals in the pipeline to that model. But I think it could improve, particularly on larger sites where we might have multiple phases. It gives us the opportunity to segment the market a little more and provide kind of different price points and different service offerings, which can help on the development economics. And if it's validated, it could open up other sites for us over time.
Operator:
We'll go to John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Your expected development yield on your development pipeline has been trending down below 6%. I'm wondering if this is a reflection of higher cost, the mix of the project or have you changed any of your rental assumptions at all.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. John, this is Matt. I mean it is a reflection of the basket that's under construction in any given point in time, some of which is product, geographic mix. So that will tend to move around a little bit over time. It is, in some respects, a reflection of we are 10 years into the cycle. And certainly, as we've said for a while, construction costs have been growing faster than rents, so it is getting harder to find deals and deals on balance might be a little tighter, although there's still very strong value creation in the stuff that we're completing as we talked about. And by the way, our cost of capital is down quite a bit over the last 2 or 3 quarters as well.
John Kim:
Got it. Okay. And then a follow-up on the limited service offering that you're testing out. How do you think this will impact returns? Do you foresee this being a lower-growth product with a higher exit cap rate offset by lower costs? Or do you think basically the IRRs would be pretty similar to your standard product?
Matthew Birenbaum:
It's really too early to tell, John. I mean, again, we view it as there's a customer segment out there that's probably being underserved today because 99% of the new product that's built is being heavily amenitized. And the concept is to provide the same apartment itself, high-end finishes and strong layouts, but just less of the other trappings, the bells and whistles that our research would suggest. There's lots of customers that want a nice apartment but don't necessarily value all those other things, which have a lot of first cost and a lot of hidden costs over time as well, which maybe are underappreciated by the market.
So it's hard to say how that might impact valuation or cap rates. I don't see any reason why rent growth would be significantly different than the rest of the market. And it does seem like asset valuation is primarily just driven by the cash flow it can generate. So not sure I would expect anything significantly different there, but time will tell.
John Kim:
Is there another developer or developers out there that you are emulating for that product? Or are you the leader?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. I mean, it does require some upfront investment in technology to enable it and some back-of-house service. So for example, one of the reasons we think we can do this profitably is because it really leverages our call center down in Virginia Beach. So we may not have an on-site presence for leasing. Some of that is tech-enabled, but some of that's also that they can call the CCC and interact with somebody that way. So I'm not familiar with others that are trying this yet.
Timothy Naughton:
John, I guess -- this is Tim. I guess, what I'd add to that, and still most of the production is coming from merchant builders. They tend to be a little more risk-averse. And if they've got a customer, an institutional buyer is accustomed to buying a highly amenitized building, they're less likely to sort of take that risk in terms of doing something different. But as Matt mentioned, we -- in our own customer research, we have plenty of customers that are paying more today in our existing assets than sort of they value because they're not necessarily using all the amenities or all the services that we're providing. And we've done enough research to know that they would like something less, but they want the -- they don't want to compromise, say, on the quality of their unit and the quality of the finishes. So it's really just even taking the existing customer base we have today and continue to segment it and provide them something we think that's a better match for what they value.
Matthew Birenbaum:
It is also one of the advantages we've talked about, about being such an active developers. We do have the ability to create the product that may be more in tune with what certain segments in the market will value as opposed to just being limited to buy what somebody else has built.
Operator:
We'll go to John Guinee with Stifel.
John Guinee:
Great. A quick question. If you look at your retail, I think you said maybe a $10 million stabilized NOI and you cap that at 5%. So you say that's worth $200 million. It looks like your basis in the multifamily now condos is about $426 million or $2.5 million a unit. Is it safe to say that you break even on this when it's all said and done, if you value the retail at $200 million?
Timothy Naughton:
No. John, this is Tim. I think our expectation, I think we've shared before is that we thought that was between $100 million and $150 million of incremental value a year. So no, we do expect to make money. If the retail were valued at $200 million -- Matt mentioned, the average unit that's sold today is about $2.75 million, but that's not where the average unit is priced today. So based upon current pricing, there is incremental profit over and above a breakeven scenario.
John Guinee:
Great. Okay. And then a follow-up. On your furnished units, are you going from 0% to 5% in a couple of years? And what's the big change of heart to decide that furnished units have merit?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John, this is Sean. I mean, a couple of things. One is, in terms of why it has merit, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we do a fair amount of consumer research. And we identified about 10% of the market actually that has some level of interest in a furnished apartment home either expressed interest or would consider it. And so -- and we've -- just anecdotally, we've had that -- people come in, looking for furnished apartments.
So -- but we have tested that in the last 18 months across a sample of communities in our portfolio. We are seeing some pretty steady demand, and therefore, we do think it's a profitable opportunity. So to be able to scale it, we'll have a team together here to do that. And getting to that 5% mark could take, yes, 2 or 3 years depending on the pace at which we decide to go. So as we scale it from where we are today, which is, call it, 300 to 400 units type of thing to something that will be more substantial, it probably won't grow in a linear fashion, it probably get to about 1,000, and then we would go much faster.
Timothy Naughton:
John, maybe just to add a couple of things. I think there's a couple of other things that work and, one, just changing consumer preference, particularly among those under 35 who just don't want to own as much stuff as or don't need to own as much stuff as perhaps as generations past. So I think that's a piece.
And I think another piece of it is, there just aren't that many companies that have the scale that we do that can actually make a business out of this. So if you're a fund that owns 5,000 or 10,000 units, you're probably not going to make a big investment into this business versus somebody that owns 80,000 or 100,000 units. So I think it's kind of a combination of those 2 things that's created what we think is an appealing business opportunity.
Operator:
We'll go to John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Sean, on Page 5, the like-term effective rent change, if you swapped out the East Coast versus West Coast and just showed urban versus suburban, what does the 2019 recent trajectory look like if you zoomed in on that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So if you're looking just for our portfolio, John, as compared to the market overall?
John Pawlowski:
Just AvalonBay suburban versus urban portfolios.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So suburban versus urban, were flat on a year-over-year basis at 2.7% when you look at it from that perspective. And that has changed, and that doesn't include all the assets because they're classified in different ways. There's infill suburban, there's suburban. So this is true definition of strictly urban versus strictly suburban and throwing out TOD and all those kinds of things. So it's not going to line up with the 3.2% for the full quarter. But if you look at the pure urban and pure suburban, the way we would define it, they're similar. Now in the past, obviously, that's been very different over the last 4 quarters, but it has converged as well. So as Tim indicated, whether you're looking at AB, you're looking at urban or suburban or you're looking across the different markets, sort of a similar pattern of conversion across all those variables.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. Tim, curious to get your thoughts on how you are thinking about the trajectory starts moving forward. Any way to tug-of-war between the improved cost of capital that Matt alluded to? And then perhaps some flashing yellow lights in the economy and just which 2 of those variables are weighing out in your mind right now?
Timothy Naughton:
Well, John, I mean, it's one of the reasons why we de-match (sic) [ match ] fund. So to the extent you're match funding, in some ways, it's not that different than your stabilized portfolio. You've got the risk -- right of the assets that you -- 80,000 apartments that you already own, but those are completely funded and financed. But the same is pretty much true everything that we start from a development standpoint.
So if anything, I think it -- as you get later in the cycle, it just puts us more in position of -- what we've talked about in the past, just be flexible, try to have as many option contracts as you can to give yourself flexibility potentially to either to drop a deal or to renegotiate a deal or to push it out. And we don't have any land inventory to speak of. So we could always, if we had to, sort of buy land and sit on it. But right now, when you're talking about 6% projected yields against where our incremental marginal cost of capital is, we think it's still -- we think it still makes sense and that asset values still well above replacement cost in most of our markets. So it's more -- it's been more of the opportunity set. We've been adding about $1 billion a year in new development rights, and we've been starting about $1 billion. And I probably would focus on that, probably as much as anything when that pipeline starts to maybe start to dry up because we're just not seeing value in the land markets.
Operator:
Hardik Goel with Zelman & Associates is next.
Hardik Goel:
I've just got 2 for you. Matt, you've been a veteran of multifamily development for a long time. And I just wanted to get your thoughts on how you see the regulatory environment today versus maybe 5, 10, maybe even 15 years ago across all markets, not just California. And maybe talk about which markets are the greatest barriers on a regulation standpoint versus which ones are the best.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. There's some interesting crosscurrents there, and you see it obviously in the other side of it, which is the rent control. And in many ways, it's the regulations that have created in many of our markets part of the environment that's provided for the supply constraints that, in turn, have driven rent growth to be well in excess of inflation over a sustained period of time.
The barriers to entry are still very, very high in California. The CEQA process, particularly if you're starting something from scratch, the amount of money you have to have in a project, by the time you get it through, if anything, the dollar investment has gone up, which, in turn, makes it very difficult for merchant builders to hang in there through that time period. The legal challenges that we see. So the barriers in California, I think, are as high as ever. They may be higher in L.A. now with JJJ passing a couple of years ago and some of the labor requirements that have been put on top of that. If you think about like around here in the mid-Atlantic, I'd say the barriers of this cycle wasn't lower than prior cycles. And some of that, frankly, is better land use planning as some of the local jurisdictions here have really focused on transit-oriented development. And frankly, from a public policy point of view, one of the benefits have been less rent growth in this cycle, hasn’t been great as a landlord, but maybe it improves the economic competitiveness of the region in the long term. So some crosscurrents there. And then in some of our very constrained markets in the Northeast, they're just different crosscurrents, both directions. In New Jersey, there's kind of a onetime, once every 20-year opportunity to get a little more supply in the suburbs, inland suburbs because of some affordable housing, litigation and regulation, which gives -- having some teeth, and we've been able to take advantage of that and get a bunch of sites in some submarkets that haven't seen much supply for generation. So you may see a little bit more there over the next 5 or 10 years. Conversely, in Boston, suburban Boston, where we've had success for a lot of years, is what they call Chapter 40B there, which is a similar provision that forces small towns and jurisdictions to take a certain amount of affordable housing, which we then integrate into our market rate communities. The 40B, a lot of the suburban Boston jurisdictions have met their obligation now. So if anything, we've seen -- we saw more supply there over the prior couple of cycles than we may see over the next cycle because of that. So it really does vary from region to region.
Timothy Naughton:
I guess, one thing to add, and maybe it's implied in Matt's comments, the regulatory barriers are just higher in the suburbs than the urban areas, maybe with the exception of L.A., as Matt mentioned, certainly true in the Northeast, certainly true in California. What has been remarkable this cycle is urban markets have generally been an economic barrier, a financial barrier, not a regulatory barrier. And that's certainly been the case. And one of the reasons why you've seen -- why we've seen elevated supply in our markets this cycle versus prior cycles because it's made financial sense. And oftentimes, it's been having some best use relative to condominium, relative to office, relative to hotel. I think this cycle, condos have only accounted for about 5% of multifamily supply. In prior cycles, it's been closer to 1/4 of new supply.
So I think there's been a few things that are a bit more unique about this cycle, but I think it still continues to be largely the suburban Northeast, California markets that are toughest to penetrate from a regulatory standpoint.
Hardik Goel:
That's probably the best response I've received to that question. And just my second one is pretty easy, just splitting out the blended lease-over-lease -- rent by new and renewal and maybe talking about pricing power in the fourth quarter, realizing that it's a low leasing volume quarter.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. In terms of Q3 specifically, in terms of the breakout, as I mentioned, it was a blended 3.2%, 4.6% on renewals. And per my comment earlier, it's been pretty stable all year. We expect it to be also relatively stable in the fourth quarter. And then on move-ins, it was 1.7% during the quarter. And that typically is a metric that, from a seasonal basis, tends to drift down as you move through Q4 and Q1 and peaks as you get into kind of late Q2, early Q3, and we don't see any reason for that pattern to be any different going forward over the next few quarters.
Operator:
Drew Babin with Baird is next.
Alexander Kubicek:
This is Alex on for Drew. Just one quick modeling question for us. Looked like a pretty sizable quarter when it came to asset preservation CapEx. Of our run rate, the current year-to-date pace, it looks like year-to-year growth could be over 18%. Obviously, rising costs and some seasonality at play here. But I was just curious what's driving that growth. And if you have any color you could provide us on how we should expect that to trend in 4Q and into '20?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex, this is Sean. Similar to what I talked about on maintenance projects, there tends to be seasonality at the CapEx as well. The way I'd probably think about it from a modeling perspective is that 2019 maintenance CapEx is probably going to be in the range of 5% to 6% of NOI. There's a piece of that, that we call remerchandising that is sort of a refresh of amenity spaces and such that you could probably say has some return to it, although hard to quantify. But if we use that 5% to 6% of NOI as sort of a run rate that's about right. It will be a little bit lumpy from year-to-year, but that's sort of how we're looking at it.
Operator:
We'll go to Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Just 2 quick ones for me. First, upfront, I didn't hear it but maybe it got lost. Your OpEx for the year, your guidance of 2.1% to 2.7%, you're trending 2.8% for the year. So what are the items in the fourth quarter that are going to bring it down? Or is the trend sort of what it is but within your overall FFO guidance, you're able to manage the higher OpEx?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex, this is Sean. We haven't changed our guidance. And so as I mentioned earlier, every quarter is a little bit lumpy. Q3 was lumpy for a number of reasons related to R&M projects that are done in certain seasons of the year. I mentioned marketing was up dramatically because of a substantial credit we received last year, when marketing was down 21%. Insurance renewal bleeds through. Payroll, we continue to see good reductions in FTEs as a result of the initiatives I mentioned. So I would say, at this point, we're pretty comfortable with where we are.
Kevin O'Shea:
It's Kevin. One more thing to think about as you evaluate for the year-over-year growth rate in OpEx is just, obviously, you need to look at what happened in the prior year, and last year, in the third quarter of '18, we had an increase on comp with year-over-year growth in OpEx of 50 basis points. So that's probably a key driver of the 4.2% this year. So I think there's -- the lumpiness that Sean alluded to, not only in terms of what we spend, but it's sort of what happened in the prior year. So you need to kind of incorporate that into your modeling.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, that's helpful. And then second is just going back to the new initiative you're trying on the sort of amenity-light and people-light properties. I understand the point about amenities. You walk the buildings, and certainly, there's a lot of space that doesn't get used. But I would think that part of what makes the REITs different from others, especially you guys, to be able to charge premium rents is sort of that in-person customer service. So in your testing, is there no diminishment of what the tenants will pay relative to not having the people around them, they feel they're being catered to? Or how do you make that trade-off between the premium rents versus giving people that experience that they're absolutely being catered to if they have a maintenance request or have a package request or anything like that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, Alex. So I'll respond to that one, and anyone else can chime in if they like. But we've done a fair bit of work on this in terms of consumer research both through surveys, focus groups, shadows, a lot of different things. We engaged some consultants to work with us on this. And what you'd find might be a little surprising, which is if you think about kind of consumerism today, what people experience, whether it's buying a car today, whether it's shopping through Amazon, whether it's a lot of other things, they kind of want to be able to do things when they want to do it on their own as opposed to being dependent upon someone else holding their hand all the way through. And for the most part, they actually don't want that unless they specifically need it for a purpose. And so all of our consumer research has said that, like, from a leasing standpoint, do they want to come in and meet a salesperson, spend an hour touring the community with the salesperson and kind of sell to them along the way. For the most part, the answer is no. They want to see everything they can online. And if they want to schedule a tour, they want to go there when they want to go there, regardless of the office hours. They really don't want someone to show us -- or show them around, except for one segment, kind of a mature social segment. So that's it.
And then on the maintenance and service side, it's more what's the right level of service. You're absolutely correct that some segments want the 24-hour response and the white glove service, but there is a decent chunk of the market that doesn't necessarily value that and may be perfectly fine with they have a -- pick something, if the dishwasher isn't working today, they don't cook a lot, they're fine if it's a 24 to 48-hour service. As long as you give them the option to tell you how important it is for them to have that thing fixed and are responsive to their demand, then that works just fine. So I think it's just segmenting the market in a more fine way so that the people that really do value those things are paying for it and the people that don't value those things aren't paying for it. And as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, absent the amenity space, which not only has capital cost, but pretty heavy recurring cost for OpEx and CapEx and sort of the on-demand service as opposed to the continuous services, how responsive, they can see rent that's 10% to 20% lower than a brand-new building down the street, and there's definitely a segment of the market that would prefer that option. So I don't know, Tim, do you want to add?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. No, I think you hit it at when I was going to jump in. I mean, a lower rent is part of the value proposition here. And I don't think necessarily low-touch necessarily is -- necessarily means low levels of service. I think you can have high level of service with high-tech and sort of a low-touch kind of offering. So I think it depends on the issue, Alex. But part of the value proposition is absolutely that they would pay a lower price than a comparable community that would have more -- be more amenitized and more fully staffed.
Operator:
We'll go to Linda Tsai with Jefferies.
Linda Tsai;Jefferies;Analyst:
The technologically driven efficiencies you're driving in leasing and maintenance, apologies if you've discussed this previously, is this across the entire portfolio or just a portion? I'm just wondering how much opportunity this is to reduce expenses further through these types of initiatives.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Linda, this is Sean. The expectation is that we would deploy it across the portfolio. You might have slightly different nuances across certain buildings, depending on the customer segment that's in that building. So as we were just talking about the limited service offering, that would be one extreme. There'd be another building, maybe as a high-touch, very high rent buildings, that could be the other extreme. But we expect to deploy a lot of it across 95% of our portfolio, where people have the option to self-serve as sort of the default. But if they would like a tour, they can schedule one at a time that's convenient for them and things like that. So we're taking advantage of the opportunity across the entire portfolio, and we may just see different usage of certain services or need for leasing, et cetera, based on the customer profile of each one.
Linda Tsai;Jefferies;Analyst:
And then on The Park Loggia, could you talk about the different -- how different the retail rents are between the 4 levels shown on Slide 13? And then what's the average term for the leases you've signed?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Linda, this is Matt. The rents are very different between the 4 levels. I think we provided some high-level thoughts about that maybe a year or so ago on a call, but you're talking about -- the highest rents are on the ground floor with the Broadway frontage. The second floor might be 40% to 50% of that rent. And then the basement and subbasement would be -- maybe the basement's a little bit less than that and the subbasement's quite a bit less than that. So it really does vary based on the specific space.
The lease terms are generally long-term leases. I think one of our anchor lease, the first 2 leases were -- I don't remember exactly. I think they were probably 20-year terms, I think, with some extension options beyond that. I probably can't get into terms for specific leases. But generally speaking, they've been relatively long term.
Linda Tsai;Jefferies;Analyst:
And then just a final one. The demand for fully furnished apartments, can you -- or can we assume the economics are more attractive for leasing these units if there are fewer of these units available across the market?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, if there's less supply of those units. There certainly would be a premium associated with the furnished products, of course.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will now go to Haendel St. Juste with Mizuho.
Haendel St. Juste:
I just want to follow up on Linda's question. Can you talk about the premium you're looking for or maybe give us some sense of required ROI? We're talking about a lot of furniture here. And also curious if you are thinking -- so should we expect that to be expensed, capitalized?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Haendel, this is Sean. So just a couple of things. We've been testing a variety of different premiums. What I can tell you that's out there is if you went to a third-party operator, Marriott has a product, some others do, typically, what you'd find is the rent for furnished unit relative to the base rent of a typical unit that's comparable would be about double. That's a company that is taking inventory risk and signing different leases and things of that sort. We are dealing with inventory risk. And so we probably think about that a little bit differently. But I wouldn't be surprised if we said we could generate, say, 50% premiums above the base rent for a unit to that customer to include the various services, maybe some bundled utilities; and the cord cutting, you may not need to provide cable; in some cases, you do.
And then as it relates to your specific question around the furniture, that will be capitalized, but then depreciate it over probably a 5- to 7-year period. At this point, we're depreciating it over 5. We think that's a reasonable proxy. We've been talking to others, including some of the student housing rates in terms of what to expect in that area seems to be 5 to 7 is sort of the expected range for useful life. So it's going to come back at 20% a year or so...
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Haendel, Tim here. Just to be clear, in terms of the premium, if you get a 50% premium, some of that would be for the furniture. Some of that would be -- for premium base with the short-term nature of these leases tend not to be -- on average, tend to be less than a year or 24 months, which our average resident stays. I think to date, it's been closer to 6 or 7 months. Sean, so there is a return sort of for that additional vacancy exposure that's factored into that 50% premium as well.
Haendel St. Juste:
That's helpful. Because I was thinking some of those numbers sounded more like shorter-term corporate units, but I appreciate that color.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. No, I think that's right. I think some of the premiums when you hear, it's like twice -- 2x, a lot of times, that is a very, very short term certainly...
Sean Breslin:
Yes, there's like the operator that might be taking a 12-month lease, but they're leasing it 30 days at a time type of thing. We would certainly have some of that business, but just we want to manage the exposure appropriately from a lease expiration profile standpoint. And so far, we've been serving customers that are interested in something that's slightly longer.
Haendel St. Juste:
Got it, got it. Okay. Appreciate that. And then I wanted to go back to some of these earlier comments on supply. First, in L.A., it seems like much of the supply coming online is more focused downtown. So curious what you're thinking about -- and thinking about for your more suburban SoCal portfolio, you're a bit more in the Pasadena, Burbank, Orange County. So I'm curious how you're thinking about the performance of your more suburban portfolio versus, say, downtown L.A.? And then maybe some similar commentary on Boston where, again, your portfolio is a bit more suburban versus the urban core there, where the supply seems to be coming on more.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Sure. Happy to talk about that briefly. Maybe starting in reverse order. In Boston, correct, most of the increase in supply will be concentrated in and around, call it, the core urban submarkets. Majority of our portfolio is suburban in Boston. We continue to develop a number of suburban communities that are performing quite well. So in that environment, we would expect our portfolio to hold up relatively well given most of that supply is concentrated downtown.
In terms of L.A., and your specific comments about L.A., yes, I mean, the supply is and it's heaviest in Koreatown, but then Woodland Hills, Warner Center, kind of Hollywood and Mid-Wilshire, South Central, there's a little bit actually and then some in Culver City and down by the -- along the coast, as I mentioned. So in terms of our portfolio, a little bit of exposure in Hollywood. We don't have anything in South Central or Koreatown. We have 2, 3 assets in Woodland Hills, Warner Center, but that market has seen -- that submarket has seen a fair amount of supply over the last decade, and it's done relatively well. Most of the assets we have there are more affordable price points, which tend to perform quite well in the face of new supplies. So in terms of L.A., I think we are positioned pretty well given where the supply will be delivered in 2020.
Operator:
We'll go to Nick Joseph with Citi.
Michael Bilerman:
It's Michael Bilerman. I just had a few follow-ups. The first is just back to the retail at The Park Loggia. Out of that $10 million of forecasted NOI, how much is represented by the 45,000 square feet of leasing? Effectively, how much of the $10 million have you secured?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Michael, it's Matt. I think it's probably roughly half, maybe a little bit more than half, I think, based on...
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, we had about $1 million in our third quarter numbers really.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. That didn't include 1 tenant.
Kevin O'Shea:
No. And we're -- it's a little bit early to kind of give guidance in terms of what will feather in through calendar 2020. But most of it is a lot of the target in place.
Michael Bilerman:
Right. Arguably, that's -- I mean you went through the rent differential between second floor and basement. And so while you're 2/3 leased, clearly, it's a lower overall rents relative to the street, where you still have the 9,000 that you're marketing, that's why I was just trying to get a picture of...
Timothy Naughton:
Correct. Michael, correct. I mean the lease rates is managed before all of the math depending upon what floor you're on. But I think it's -- the range is it's below $100 a foot to well over $400 a foot if you're on the parts of the ground floor. So it's -- I don't think that's what we have pro forma-ed into the balance of what's on the first floor. Some of the better parts of the first floor were already taken, but there is more high-value space left to be leased in that building.
Michael Bilerman:
Right. And that's why I was trying to get to the cash flow impact of what's been done and what's to come. So I take it 50% is a reasonable number then to use. And then part of that is -- do you have intentions to -- I mean, originally, this was supposed to be a JV on the retail or even a sale. Now that you're doing -- selling up the condos above, where is your mindset on selling or JV-ing the retail portions because arguably it would not be core anymore to the company?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Mike, I think at some point, we would likely sell this. And it's really just a question of when we -- how to optimize the value and when we'd actually sort of pull the trigger on that. So -- and then there is a tax issue just in terms of balancing it versus the -- any profits that we might have on the condo proceeds. And just to -- given that this is now a taxable transaction, we'll try to manage it to minimize taxes.
Michael Bilerman:
And then if you think about -- someone had asked earlier about development funding, as you go into 2020 in terms of capital that you will need, you squared away all of this year and you also have the equity forward that you put in place as well. I guess how should we earmark arguably that capital now sitting in the building upon which you'll start selling the condos? Are you going to earmark that next year? And I guess how should we think about that capital coming back to be able to fund developments you intend to hold?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. So Michael, this is Kevin. You're right. I mean we do anticipate receiving next year proceeds from the sale of condos. That will be an important component of, call it, our equity need for next year's funding activity. There may or may not be additional asset sale, disposition activity beyond that and beyond refinancing debt. We're likely to look to the debt markets as well.
As you know from our leverage profile today and our target leverage, we typically target 5 to 6 turns of leverage. We're below that now at 4.7 turns. So kind of when -- we haven't put our budgets together for next year, but certainly, I think it's fair to assume that we've got some scope to increase in leverage a little bit given how attractive debt capital markets are today.
Michael Bilerman:
And then on the AI initiatives on Slide 8, is Sydney really responding this quickly to people's requests?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. You can kind of program that to what you desire, so it can be instant or it can be as long as you want. Typically, instant isn't good in terms of the feeling people get, so it's typically within about a minute, Michael.
Michael Bilerman:
All right. Last one is you made the decision earlier this year to stop the quarterly guidance to effectively focus people on the long term because you are in a long-term business. I would say the reactions due to quarterly results since then, in the first, second and now in the third quarter, have been more volatile in terms of your stock price performance relative to the index. Now I know it's hard to separate out the results themselves from things because there are some factors at play. But help us understand, I mean are you going to reconsider? Is this a 1-year trial? And I guess how do you think about the short-term volatility that may be created with less information on a quarterly basis versus the long term?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Michael, Tim here. It's not our expectation that we change our practice at this point. I hear what you're saying. And there might be little bit more volatility because people's projections maybe a little bit more of a -- just a wider -- a bigger beta just around different sell-side projection on this. But again, we're trying to focus and we really do manage the business for the longer term, and we really think about more annual plan. That's how we talk to the Board, that's how we talk amongst ourselves as leaders in the company, and that's our intent to continue going forward.
Kevin O'Shea:
Just to add one thing, Michael. I mean I understand we're not providing the quarterly workflow and FFO numbers anymore. But to your comment about providing less information, apart from that, we still provide, as you can tell from even this call, just a robust level of detailed information on the business. And every 6 months, we go through a very detailed reforecast, which is akin to what we do internally here in managing the business ourselves and communicating to our Board. So there is still just an awful lot of information that we do try to provide transparency to investors. What we're not doing is providing the specific earnings number on a quarterly basis. And -- but we do think we give more than enough information for investors to derive their own estimates as they do before.
Michael Bilerman:
Yes. No. And I would concur with that comment. Your transparency and the time that you spend, I mean we're already in 1.5 hours on this earnings call, is very much appreciated and I think differentiates the company over the long term. I was just making a note that since you've changed the quarterly policy, your stock has reacted a lot more volatile relative to the index. Unfortunately, the last 2 quarters have been much more negative, that just to think about whether you're achieving the right output with the change on quarterly numbers, that's all.
Timothy Naughton:
Fair enough. Thank you, Michael.
Operator:
And there are no other questions, so I would like to turn it back to Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thanks, everybody. As Michael just mentioned, we're about 1.5 hours into this call. So we'll give you a quick goodbye, and we'll look forward to seeing you at NAREIT here in just about 2 or 3 weeks' time.
Operator:
Thank you very much. That does conclude our conference for today. I'd like to thank everyone for your participation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Second Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations.
Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Cody, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Second Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call.
Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason, and with me today are Kevin O'Shea; Sean Breslin; and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin and I will provide a brief commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing a summary of the Q2 and year-to-date results, an update to our 2019 outlook, a review of portfolio performance and then lastly, a discussion of risk management.
Starting now on Slide 4, highlights include core FFO growth of just under 2% for the quarter and 3.6% year-to-date. Same-store revenue growth in Q2 came in at 3.1% or 3.3% including redevelopment, with most regions except Seattle clustering in the 3% range. Year-to-date same-store revenue growth stands at 3.3%. We completed a $90 million development deal in New Jersey this quarter at an initial yield of 6.5% and $240 million so far this year at an average yield of 6.4%. Meanwhile, we started another $430 million in 3 communities located in the mid-Atlantic, Southern California and Boston markets. And lastly, we raised almost $600 million this past quarter in external capital at an average rate of 3.9% and have raised roughly 2/3 of our projected capital needs for 2019 in the first half of the year. Turning now to Slide 5 and our revised outlook for the full year. We expect a core FFO growth of 3.9% or $0.05 a share and 60 bps above our original outlook. Same-store revenue growth remains unchanged at 3%, and NOI growth is up 25 bps to 3.25% driven by lower-than-expected OpEx, which is down 60 basis points from our initial outlook. Development starts are expected to be down modestly in the $900 million range. And then lastly, in terms of acquisitions, we're projecting $300 million for the year, which really reflects what we've closed so far through Q2 plus what is expected to close in Q3. Acquisitions are roughly offset and funded by an increase in dispositions and opportunistic CEP activity that took place in the first half of the year. Turning now to Slide 6. The upward revision to core FFO growth is being driven primarily by the unbudgeted acquisitions and a favorable interest rate environment on newly issued and existing floating rate debt. Projected outperformance in our same-store portfolio has been offset by shortfalls in the redevelopment and lease-up portfolios. Turning to Slide 7, which provides many of the key assumptions underpinning our revised outlook. And I'm not going to go through this entire chart, but economic growth is moderating as expected, with the recent print of Q2 GDP growth of 2.1%, which is down 100 basis points from Q1 and the rate that was experienced for much of last year. The consumer remains in good shape but is also showing signs of moderation, with retail spending decelerating from its healthy pace of last year and auto and home sales flattening in recent quarters. Consumer confidence remains at a healthy level for now, supported by a very healthy labor market. Business investment has been relatively healthy so far this year as well, although business confidence has recently declined to a cyclical low as the prospect of trade wars weighs heavily on the psyche of many executives and capital allocators. This and other leading indicators have caused the Fed to reverse course with its rate cut earlier this week. Let's now turn to Slide 8 and see how this economic backdrop is impacting fundamentals in our markets. Job growth is expected to be in line with our initial outlook of -- at 1.3%, with most regions in the low 1% range, with the exception of Northern California and Seattle, which are projected to produce job growth in the low to mid-2% range. And while wage growth is projected to remain healthy at around 3%, this is 50 basis points below our initial assumption. And then lastly, while completions remain healthy at 1.9% of stock, this projection is down 40 bps due to the continuation of project delays experienced over the last few years, mostly from shortages in skilled labor. And so fundamentals are a little mixed from what we expected at the beginning of the year. Job growth is in line, deliveries are projected to be lower than expected, and wage growth is expected to be slightly less than our initial outlook. And with that, Sean will now discuss our markets and portfolio performance in more detail.
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 9. We've seen a steady convergence in the performance of our markets over the past few quarters. The East Coast has accelerated as a result of improved rent growth in both the New York and mid-Atlantic regions, while the West Coast has decelerated due to slowing growth across the majority of the markets in Northern and Southern California. Rent change for our same-store portfolio is following a similar pattern of convergence, with every region producing like-term effective rent change in the 3% to 4% range during Q2.
Turning to Slide 10 to address our same-store revenue outlook. We tightened our range and maintained the midpoint of 3% revenue growth for the full year. In terms of the regions, we expect the mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northwest to trend to the upper end of our original range, while Northern and Southern California are projected to come in closer to the lower end. Within the regions, better performance in the mid-Atlantic is being supported by continued improvement in both suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. Each market posted greater than 3% year-over-year revenue growth in Q2. The District of Columbia remains weak due to the volume of new supply, and revenue growth is running in the low 1% range. The Pacific Northwest has certainly exceeded our expectations for performance, with annualized job growth of 3%-plus in the last 6 months, supporting stronger demand as roughly 9,000 units are being delivered into the market this year. In Northern California, San Jose has been leading the way, supported by roughly 3.5% annualized job growth over the past 6 months. Job growth in San Francisco has also been healthy, but performance has been a bit more mixed given pockets of new supply in certain submarkets. The East Bay has been the weakest-performing market in Northern California due to more modest job growth and the impact of new supply. We're projecting roughly 4,700 new units will be delivered in the East Bay submarket this year, which is more than what's expected in San Jose and San Francisco. In Southern California, we have experienced weaker performance in Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley and to a lesser degree, San Diego. Some of the weakness in the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley markets relates to slower job growth earlier in the year. In addition, the Governor extended through mid-November the anti-gouging protections that were adopted following the wildfires last year. These protections kept rent increases at 10% above the lease that was in place immediately prior to the fires, so we can't profitably serve the segments of the market looking for shorter-term leases during the summer months. The absence of the rent premium and incremental occupancy associated with short-term leases has negatively impacted our expectations for performance in the greater Los Angeles market through Q3. In Boston, job growth in the low 1% range and a reduction in the volume of new supply has resulted in relatively steady performance across our portfolio. The slightly weaker for-sale market and more modest demand for temporary workers has tempered the demand for short-term leases, which has modestly impacted our outlook in Boston for Q3. And in New York/New Jersey, we have seen a steady improvement in market fundamentals as job growth has accelerated to an annualized rate of roughly 2% in the past 6 months and the pace of new deliveries, particularly in New York City, has slowed. While performance has improved, we are expecting our revenue growth in the region to moderate in the back half of the year, in part due to the recently adopted rent regulations, which will impact both rental rate growth and the generation of fee revenue. I thought I would also provide a little more insight into the key drivers of our overall same-store revenue growth, particularly as it relates to the first half of the year versus our expectations for the second half. During our first quarter call, I mentioned that roughly half of our same-store revenue outperformance was supported by the reclassification of bad debt and the other half from better occupancy. Through midyear, our same-store revenue growth of 3.3% was roughly 30 basis points ahead of our expectations, 20 basis points of which related to the reclassification of bad debt and an incremental 10 basis points from better occupancy. Looking forward to the second half of the year, we don't expect a material change in fundamentals. In fact, we expect overall rate growth in the second half of the year to mirror what we generated in the first half. The deceleration of revenue growth is the result of tailwinds we benefited from in the first half of this year that won't support incremental growth during the second half of the year. Most notably, as I mentioned, bad debt was a roughly 20 basis point lift in the first half of the year but is projected to be net neutral in the second half. The benefit resulting from our investment in data analytics to better screen prospective residents and enhance our collections effort was primarily realized in the second half of 2018 and the first half of 2019. Second, as we noted during the earnings call this past January, new entrants into our same-store pool from development and redevelopment represent a larger-than-normal percentage of our same-store asset base this year. The amortization of concessions from this pool of assets in the first half of last year provided a roughly 20 basis point lift to our revenue growth rate in the first 2 quarters of this year, but that benefit dissipates during the back half of 2019. And finally, the combination of the New York rent regulations and the extension of the anti-gouging protections in the greater Los Angeles region is projected to result in about a $2 million shortfall in revenue in the back half of this year, which represents about 22 basis points of growth for that period. Now turning to Slide 11. Our development communities in lease-up continued to perform well. During the second quarter, we averaged 32 leases and 38 occupancies per month. Average rental rates were about 2% ahead of pro forma, and yields were up 10 basis points to a very healthy 6.6%. Our performance in certain communities has been quite strong. At AVA Esterra Park in Redmond, Washington, occupancies now reached 53 homes per month, for a total of 160 for the quarter. And rents are currently trending about 5% ahead of pro forma. The projected yield is 6.3%, easily a couple hundred basis points above market cap rates. At Avalon Teaneck in Teaneck, New Jersey, new residents occupied 49 of the 80 homes we delivered during the quarter. Average rental rates at Teaneck were also about 5% ahead of pro forma, and the projected yield is 6.6%, leading to healthy value creation. And with that, I'll turn it over to Kevin to talk further about our development portfolio and the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 12, we highlight the significant future earnings growth expected to be generated from development underway. Specifically, we have $2.7 billion in new apartment communities that are under construction or recently completed with the projected 6% yield on stabilization. These communities are expected to generate $165 million in annual NOI on stabilization, of which only about $3.5 million in NOI is reflected in our second quarter earnings.
This external investment activity, which is already 80% match-funded with long-term capital, will provide us with a durable source of high-quality earnings growth from brand-new, well-located communities that will enhance our portfolio for many years to come. Turning to Slide 13. We show our $3.8 billion pipeline in future development opportunities, which are controlled at a very modest cost and offer a lot of flexibility as it relates to timing the start of construction. Only about half of our development rights are conventional conditional agreements or options to purchase land with private third-party land sellers. The other half are roughly evenly split between asset densification opportunities, where we are pursuing additional density at existing stabilized assets and public-private partnerships, which are generally long-term development efforts that span a number of years. These types of projects allow more flexibility to align the start of construction with favorable market conditions. In addition, it's worth noting that in creating this pipeline, we've been careful to limit our financial exposure so that we enjoy an attractive set of development opportunities at a modest upfront cost. At the end of the second quarter, land held for development was a mere $19 million, and pursuit costs represented an additional $60 million, allowing us to control nearly $4 billion of future development across our markets for an upfront investment of only 2% of projected total capital cost. Collectively, this investment in our pipeline is as low as it has ever been as a percentage of our total enterprise value. And while we've been active on development, we've also been disciplined in maintaining a strong balance sheet. On Slide 14, we show several of our key credit metrics and compare these to the sector average for unsecured multifamily REIT borrowers. As you can see, with net debt-to-core EBITDAre of 4.8x, unencumbered NOI at an all-time high of 93% and a weighted average years to maturity on our debt of 9.3 years, our credit metrics remain strong in both absolute and relative terms, reflecting our superior financial flexibility. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
All right. Great. Thanks, Kevin. And so in summary, our business plan remains more or less intact for the year. Our expectation for core FFO has increased modestly. The portfolio is performing slightly better than expected, with full year NOI growth of 3.25% projected, 25 basis points higher than initial outlook. Rent growth continues to converge to the 3% plus or minus range across our footprint. Lease-ups are performing well, as Sean mentioned, and are projected to contribute meaningfully to FFO and NAV growth over the coming quarters.
And lastly, 10 years into the current expansion, we are intensely focused on risk management on both sides of the balance sheet. On the investment side, we are positioned to deliver growth from new development but in a risk-measured way, with modest pursuit costs and land inventory exposure and match-funding development as we start construction. In terms of our capital position, our credit metrics and liquidity are at cyclically strong levels and better-than-industry averages. And with that, Cody, we are ready to open the call for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will hear first from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
I want to better understand the deceleration of same-store revenue growth in June. At NAREIT, you reported same-store revenue growth of 3.4% for April and May, which was 40 bps ahead of your expectation at the time, but then with 2Q growth, only at 3.1%. That implies June growth in the mid-2% range, and then guidance was maintained. So what exactly happened in June relative to the first 2 months of the quarter?
Sean Breslin:
Hey, Nick, it's Sean. Happy to elaborate on that. So as you pointed out, April and May basically came in at 3.4%, which back-end means June was essentially 2.6% or an 80 basis point reduction in the year-over-year growth rate. Really, 3 components driving that. First is economic occupancy in June was down about 30 basis points to 95.9% versus the 96.2% in April and May. Occupancy normally does decline in June just given the volume of activity and lease expirations, but it's probably down about 10 basis points more than we anticipated. So that's 30 basis points total though.
Bad debt was a tailwind of 20 basis points in April and May due to the write-off of some straight-line rent in our retail portfolio last year at that same time that provided a lift. As compared to June, it was a headwind of 20 basis points as it more normalized, so the total swing in bad debt from plus 20 tailwind in April and May versus a drag of 20 in June is a reversal of 40 basis points. And then the balance of 10 basis points really relates to decelerating tailwind from other residential revenue as the New York rent regs kicked in mid-month, slightly less of a lift related to concessions and a couple other just miscellaneous things. So the big bulk of it was the 30 basis point change in economic occupancy and then the 40 basis point swing related to the issues on bad debt that are kind of lumpy.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's very helpful. And then you mentioned that lease-up continues to perform well, but you're expecting margin and lower new development and lease-up NOI this year versus initial expectations. So what's causing the variance versus your initial guidance with that bucket?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Sure, Nick, it's Matt. I guess I can respond to that one. It's -- the lease-up NOI for this year was very back-loaded. We don't have a lot of -- even today, we don't have that many assets in lease-up. I think we have 8. First quarter, it was something like 5. So we do expect it to build over time. We're opening some new communities actually next month and this month, but it's basically delays in getting those first C of O's in a couple of large West Coast communities, in East Bay and in Hollywood, which are pretty big communities. So we're just opening the doors a month or 2 later than we had expected.
Nicholas Joseph:
That's more of a timing issue in 2019 versus anything on the stabilized yield for those assets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Absolutely.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI.
Richard Hightower:
Sean, I wanted to quickly backtrack on the bad debt comp there. I just want to understand the mechanics of -- okay. So it was a negative 20 basis point headwind in June, but in the prepared comments, you said that would be basically a neutral for the second half. I'm just wondering how that would work. I mean was there -- what happened last year that would make that a net neutral for the second half of '19, just so we understand that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So as we had talked about, I think, earlier in the year, we had made some pretty nice investments in data analytics that impacted both how we were screening prospective residents as well as our collection efforts. And we've realized the benefits of that kind of in the second half of '18 and first half of '19. So any tailwind from that is not present in the second half of 2019. It's basically sort of a net neutral. And then in addition to that, I had mentioned the noise within the second quarter as it relates to retail defaults that basically sort of propped up April and May growth rate because the write-off occurred last April and May. As compared to June, we didn't benefit from that. So it was really kind of a plus 20, minus 20 for the quarter. It was essentially a net neutral, and you'll see that continue as we move into the second half of the year as well. So we got a nice lift out of the investments we made, but the benefit is now burned off as we moved into basically June through the balance of the year.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Okay. That's helpful. And then I know you mentioned earlier about -- that there was an impact to rents due to some changes in the short-term rental, maybe restriction?
Sean Breslin:
L.A. Yes.
Richard Hightower:
Yes, in L.A. Can you quantify the impact there for the second half as well? Is that something that matters? There just wasn't a number attached to it.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Yes. Good question. Our expectation is really there's 2 issues out there that will impact the second half that were not anticipated. One is the rent regs in New York, which for the consolidated portfolio and same-store is a little over $1 million, it's $1.05 million. And then we're also expecting about $1 million shortfall on revenue across Southern California, mainly focused in Los Angeles, as a result of the lost rent premiums and incremental occupancy that's typically associated with short-term leases that we can't profitably offer to those customers because we're limited to a 10% rent premium based on the rent caps that are in place. So it's not a profitable bet to make for a 2- or 3-month lease, do that for a 10% premium. When you consider the incremental downtime, vacancy, turn costs, different rents when they're done.
Richard Hightower:
Okay, and I know that maybe 1 or 2 of your peers have kind of ramped up focus on the short-term rental program. So is that -- would you say that their success, maybe in the last couple of quarters on that front, is attributable to markets outside of L.A.? It sounds like it has to be.
Sean Breslin:
If you're complying with the anti-gouging laws related to 10% rent caps, I suspect that people are not offering short-term leases in that market. At least, in our view, it wouldn't be a profitable offering.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Richard Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Lauren Weston:
This is Lauren Weston on for Richard Hill. Could you just provide a little bit more color on what drove expenses higher? Specifically, in California, we see same-store expenses up nearly 7%. So can you just provide some more color around what drove that?
Sean Breslin:
Sure. Happy to do that. This is Sean, Lauren. As it relates to Southern California and Northern California, both up north of 7%, a number of sort of unusual things going on there. In terms of Southern California, there was a supplemental property tax assessment that came in. That's responsible for about 30% of the increase. We had our insurance renewal. It's about 15% of the increase. The other thing is we had a pretty soft growth rate last year. It was a little bit of a tough comp as it relates to the timing of maintenance projects and stuff. So it's kind of one-off items, if you look at it.
And then in Northern California, some of the specifics there. In terms of property taxes, it's about 20% of the increase. Utilities were about 15% because of a rebate last year, sort of a year-over-year comp issue. And then in both regions we were hit harder with benefits based on some claims activity in the second quarter, that impacted those numbers. So that's what's happening specifically in the California markets. In terms of just overall expense growth, maybe sort of high-level comments on things that are sort of outside the normal range. Payroll was up. About 2/3 of that relates to the increase in benefits cost that came in late in the quarter based on claims activity, and the balance of it was related to merit increases. If you look at payroll on a year-to-date basis, about 90% of the growth in payroll is due to benefits, but it's been offset by headcount reductions on site as part of our operating model work. And headcount on site is down about 4% year-over-year. So that's what's happening in that category. And then things like marketing on the positive side certainly reduced costs for ILS and PPC marketing, along with material reductions in our call center costs as a result of our adoption of AI for lead management earlier this year. Those are some of the outliers.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Shirley Wu with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Shirley Wu:
So I have a question based on the macro assumption changes that you made. So your delivery assumption is now down 40 bps to 1.9%. So I was just curious if you can give a little bit more color on which markets those were in, and have you seen any material benefits in '19?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Shirley, Sean. Happy to address that. In terms of delays, the delays were most pronounced in New York City and Northern New Jersey, about 1,500 units in New York City, 1,900 in Northern New Jersey, about 2,800 units in San Jose. And I mentioned in my prepared remarks that San Jose is kind of leading the way in Northern California. It's been a healthy market, certainly supported by reduced deliveries. And then about 3,900 units in terms of fewer deliveries in Los Angeles. Those are the ones that are most pronounced. And yes, our expectation is, that's sort of the heart of your question, is that we would expect these deliveries to bleed into 2020.
Shirley Wu:
Okay. That's good color. And on job growth and wage growth. So wage growth, so your assumption came down 50 bps versus job growth that was only up 10 bps. So I was curious as to how you guys think about that dynamic between those 2 drivers in relationship to demand.
Timothy Naughton:
Shirley, this is Tim. First of all, those aren't our numbers. Those are third-party numbers that we rely on. I think you've got -- and the wage growth number is for the entire population. So I think it's probably a fair question on what's happening with our resident base. Our resident base probably has seen a bit stronger wage growth than that just given the disproportionate number of 4-year college grad degree folks in our units. So not really sure what's -- why it's falling short from maybe the 3.5% to 3%, what's the driver, just given the shortage of labor and the tightness of the job market. But I guess the point of that slide from our standpoint is it's more or less -- from a demand standpoint, the big demand drivers are more or less coming in as expected, a little bit better on job growth, a little weaker, just marginally -- when you're talking about 50 basis points, I think it's almost a rounding error, honestly, but marginally weaker than originally anticipated.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank.
Trent Trujillo:
This is Trent Trujillo on with Nick. Sean, going back to the revenue growth from June, what drove the occupancy drop beyond expectations? Is that from pushing a little bit too aggressively on rent or not enough demand, move-outs to buy or some other factor?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I mean I'd say, generally, this relates to us having our foot on the gas earlier in the year. As we mentioned during Q1 and the early part of Q2, occupancy was running ahead of plan. So that would ignite a price response in terms of us being somewhat more aggressive. And so when you're talking about plus or minus 10 basis points, that's a little hard to call it that close in any 1 given month. I think I mentioned in my prepared remarks that, normally, you see declines in occupancy as you move into June. And so it was incremental 10 basis points or so as a result of what was primarily that effort. And then in addition to that, the only other thing I'd point to is you start seeing some of that short-term demand in L.A. show up in June, and we didn't have that this year.
Trent Trujillo:
Okay. And are you able to disclose the spread between asking rents and what was accepted, what was signed?
Sean Breslin:
In terms of renewal offers?
Trent Trujillo:
Yes.
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So in terms of renewal offers, those numbers typically run anywhere from 60 to 80 basis points. If you're in a really soft market, as much as 100 basis points, if that's what you're looking at in terms of overall acceptance.
Trent Trujillo:
Okay. And then, I guess, shifting a little bit -- I'm sorry if I missed this. But if you haven't spoken about it yet, on Columbus Circle, can you give an update on the condo sales process and how you're positioning that asset given a generally slowing high-end condo sales market in New York?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. I can give you a little update on that as well as on the retail leasing. On the residential, we've been open for sale for roughly 3 months, call it, and we do, at this time, have 23 executed contracts. So that's pretty consistent with the pace we would have expected. Again, the average sale price is around $3 million, and 80% of the units are less than $5 million. And it's really above $5 million where I think you've seen more softness. But we're continuing to take market feedback, and we'll continue to see how it goes. As it relates to the retail, we do have another lease that's been executed since the last call for 2,600 square feet on the ground floor. That brings us up to 69% leased by total square footage and roughly 55% by revenue.
Again, to remind everyone, we have about 66,000 -- 66,400 square feet of rentable retail there. At this point, we've leased 45,500, call it, which leaves us with about 21,000 up for lease. Of that, 12-ish, about 12,000 is on the second floor, and we are in active negotiations on that space with a potential tenant. And then there's another roughly 9,000 square feet remaining on the ground floor in 2 separate demise or future demise spaces. So things are proceeding there as we had hoped, and we'll continue to make progress there.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Drew Babin with Baird.
Alexander Kubicek:
This is Alex on for Drew. Given the softness in Southern California, curious if you could give us some commentary on why you're choosing to both buy and start developments on assets in the region. Are pricing and yields adjusted to reflect the conditions today? Are you guys expecting some incremental improvement in your underwriting?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Alex. This is Matt. I can speak to that one. Southern California is still doing fine and, as Sean mentioned earlier, kind of all the regions' performances converging. Southern Cal has historically been among the most steady and solid performers of all of our regions. It's probably the most diversified economy and has an excellent long-term track record. So it's not a market that frequently is going to see 5% and 6% and 7% rent growth like you might see in strong years in Northern Cal or Seattle. But by the same token, it doesn't see a lot of years where rents drop. And so it's actually performing pretty consistent with its long-term history and pattern right now. So we like that.
We did buy one asset there last quarter, a relatively small asset. And we did start a big deal there in Orange County this quarter, and we probably will start one more deal in Southern Cal later this year. So the development pipeline is more a function of when those deals are ready to start. Those are both deals that we signed up 2 to 3 years ago. We haven't actually signed up a new development right -- a new land position in either Southern or Northern California in quite some time now just given the development economics are more challenged there. But we do have a pipeline of deals that we've put together earlier in the cycle where the numbers still work, and we're also focused on some of these asset densification plays. And we actually have one that we added in our pipeline in Southern Cal that fits that description late last year that might start next year as well as several in Northern Cal and one in Seattle.
Alexander Kubicek:
Great. That color's really helpful. And then looking at the Belltown Towers, the WhyHotel deal. Curious if the initial leasing activity is what motivated that, or was it already in the hopper, and then kind of why you're talking about it. I know we're only dealing with 50 units right out of the gate, but just curious if you could give us some color on how that agreement works and kind of where you guys could see that going if it turns out to be a success.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, this is Matt. I can speak to that one as well, I guess. Yes -- no, it's really -- that's been in the works for -- probably, we've been talking to them for 1.5 years. And I think they're a great way on large assets, particularly high-rises, where just the way the nature of the building, the way it turns with the fire code units, you wind up with a lot of units turning in a short period of time. So you wind up with a lot of standing inventory regardless of how strong the market is. And so it's well suited to situations like that, and this would be one of them where we're turning all of those apartments over a fairly compressed period of time. And it just creates excess capacity, and it's a way to temporarily get some revenue out of that capacity. So it's a deal with a kind of a base rent and then a participation based on how they do. And I think the initial term is 6 to 12 months, 6 months, but then there's some extension options. We'll see how it goes. Typically, we try and manage the lease-up to be full within a year-ish, a year, give or take. So if we're consistent with that, then they will probably be there for roughly 9 or 10 months. I think they're going to open later this month in August.
Operator:
We'll now take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Tim or Matt, just curious to get your thoughts on your long-term outlook on your Connecticut portfolio and then suburban Jersey, Central, Northern New Jersey. 3 to 5 years, will you be net growers, shrinkers in those markets?
Timothy Naughton:
Sure, John, Tim. I think we've talked generally about capital allocation particularly as it relates to our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida, and that we'd fund those, in part, out of selling out of some of our northeast markets. We have been selling some of our Connecticut communities. In the case of New Jersey, we've had -- we've always had a deep and robust pipeline to create a lot of value. So it just kind of makes sense to sell some of those assets over time and recycle capital within that region.
But I think probably New Jersey will continue to be more active from an investment standpoint than Connecticut. It's a healthier economy than Connecticut. And if you look at kind of what we have, left in Connecticut, it tends to be the stuff kind of closer, Southern Fairfield, closer to Westchester, where it feeds more off of the dynamics in the city and Westchester County.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. And I know you've pruned in Connecticut the last 5 years, give or take. Is Connecticut a full exit in the coming years?
Timothy Naughton:
We have not made that decision. Certainly, like I said, most of the stuff we have left is kind of -- probably shares more with properties of what's going on in the stuff that we own in Westchester. But yes, so we own in places like Darien and New Canaan that are pretty protected from a supply standpoint. I think the thing that would -- if the state finances really continue to spiral out of control, again, we'll continue to assess kind of our ownership position there.
John Pawlowski:
Okay. And then last one for me. Just the land bank going forward and sites we don't yet see on Attachment 9. I guess in 2 or 3 years, when these roll in, is the mix more suburban or less suburban than the sites currently under construction?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hey, John, it's Matt. I'd say it's probably pretty similar -- probably more suburban. We don't have a lot of urban under construction now, and we have, I think, one high-rise in the pipeline at this point of those 28 development rights, so 1 or 2. So we're continuing to find much better value in the suburbs, much better risk-adjusted returns. Again, our sweet spot is really high-density wood-frame product, and I would expect that to continue, really, until the cycle turns.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
I think Sean, you mentioned in your prepared remarks that New York rent regulations will contribute to a $2 million shortfall in the second half of this year in revenue. Can you just remind us or clarify what exposure you have to rent-stabilized units that are not 421-a units in New York?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. So John, this is Sean. I'll clarify a couple of things. The $2 million actually represented 2 different components that I quoted. One is a little over $1 million in terms of the impact in the second half of the year of the New York rent regulations. The other $1 million is the loss of short-term lease revenue, both premium and occupancy, in L.A. That's the shortfall in the second half of the year, the $2 million.
As it relates to the New York regs specifically, in New York City, we have 4 assets representing about 2,100 market rate rent-stabilized units that basically have another 10 years to run sort of on a weighted average basis to maturity. That would be impacted in terms of the cap on taking preferential rents to legal rents when people move out, things like that, if that's what you're looking for in terms of information.
John Kim:
And what will be that impact going forward?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. We haven't modeled it beyond this year. As you get out 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, there's a lot of different assumptions that go into turnover rates and things of that sort. So we've not done a complete modeling on that over a longer period of time. So at this point, we're providing what we believe is the second half of 2019 impact. And once we see the market response to what's been adopted in the way of turnover, the potential impact on OpEx, the potential impact on the spreads between preferential rents and our ability to go to legal, what they would have been versus where they come in based on the RGB guidelines, just to make assumptions to model until we start to see some market response to the regulations that were adopted.
John Kim:
Sure. Then if I could ask a couple of questions on your blended lease growth rate, just the easier one first, a, do you provide a guidance for what this will be this year? And then secondly, when I look at Page 10 of your supplemental, it shows 3.3% this quarter and then 3.2% in the second quarter of last year. But if I look at last year's supplement, and I apologize, you may not have this in front of you, but last year's supplementals had about 2.8%. So is that difference of 40 basis points just change in mix?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, change in basket. As we mentioned earlier and -- on this call and then the earlier call back in January, the number of new entrants into the same-store pool from development and redevelopment was unusually large for the same-store pool this year. And those assets tend to have a little bit greater performance as it relates to lease renewal changes and new move-ins because of both burn-off on concessions. You're only leasing half the units on turnover as opposed to the whole building in the first year, a number of different drivers. It tends to have an outsized influence on our rate growth in the subsequent year.
John Kim:
And what's your expectation for this year?
Sean Breslin:
Our expectation for this year was blended rent change of 2.8% for the full year, which is up about 20 basis points from what we achieved last year at 2.6%. And that's still our expectation for this year.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Guinee with Stifel.
John Guinee:
John Guinee here. Just one curiosity question. I think one of your slides has $19 million of land, which shows up on the balance sheet, plus another $60 million of pursuit costs. Where does the -- where do the pursuit costs show up on the balance sheet? Are you expensing those?
Kevin O'Shea:
John, this is Kevin. They would show up on our other assets category, which we provide detail on in connection with our 10-Q.
John Guinee:
Great. Okay, other assets. All right. And then second, looking at a lot of your recent starts, as you mentioned, your sweet spot is high-density wood-frame. Looking at Marlborough, Owings Mills, Brea, can you talk a little bit more about the product? Is this surface park? Is it wrap? Is it podium? And by the way, when was the last time you actually started a high-rise?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. Those deals, Brea and Owings Mills, are both wrap deals. And Marlborough is a small second phase that's actually garden and direct-entry product. It's kind of a piece of land joining a community we completed there a couple of years ago. The last high-rise we started was the East Harbor deal in downtown Baltimore, which we started last year. And Southeast Florida is different because everything's concrete there because of the hurricane codes, but we did start the deal in Doral last year, which is 7 stories, 8 stories. That would be right on the verge between what you call mid-rise or high-rise, although technically, it's the mid-rise code for Southeast Florida.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll hear now from Hardik Goel with Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel:
I've got 2 for you. On the first one, just broadly speaking, taking a step back from the quarter, we asked some of your peers about suburban versus urban kind of exposure. I think EQR kind of mentioned you don't like the suburban areas because when supply hits, there's not enough demand to absorb it. UDR kind of focused on just the first string. What's your perspective on it? Obviously, we've heard from you before, but just how do you see that playing out when the cycle turns?
Timothy Naughton:
Hardik, yes, this is Tim. Yes, first of all, I'd say probably a lot of our suburban I would qualify as first string as well. I kind of figured it was infill, kind of city-adjacent, if you will, or urban-adjacent. So our portfolio is pretty, for the most part, located in employment center locations. So it is where there is economic activity. It is where the jobs are. It is where the people are.
As we said in the past, we're somewhat agnostic between the suburban infill and urban. We kind of allocate capital within the markets, trying to look for the highest, best risk-adjusted returns, and that tends to rotate over time. Sometimes, urban gets overdone. Sometimes, suburban gets overdone. And there, we find there are different points in the cycle. Even within a market, there's better bets to make and one over the other, and it's not always one or the other. So that's really sort of fundamental to our strategy. And if you look over a longer period of time, from just a pure rent growth standpoint, they pretty much track one another. But within the cycle, they oftentimes are -- can run a little countercyclical. I think actually, right now, urban is running at or just above suburban in terms of rent growth. It's the first time we've seen that in 2 or 3 years -- the first time in 4 years, I'm sorry. And while there's still more supply in urban market, it does suggest that demand is a little bit deeper in urban market. So we don't disagree with that. It's just supply has been overdone for the last 4 or 5 years in urban markets, and I think we're just starting to see -- at a point where a lot of the urban submarkets are really starting to catch up and, in some cases, pass some of the suburban markets. But as Matt mentioned, generally, if you look at just total returns on invested capital, generally, our sweet spot has been kind of that infill suburban. A lot of that, that has to do with it has the best development economics and then very -- it tends to be pretty healthy from a supply/demand standpoint, from a steady -- at the steady state.
Hardik Goel:
Got it. And just as a quick follow-up to that, are you seeing other developers kind of incrementally shift their focus to the suburban infill markets that you guys have kind of been involved in since, I guess, '17 and maybe even earlier?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. I think to some extent. I mean the average developer is a merchant builder. It's not an investment builder. And so just really, you're looking at deals where they think they can get the highest risk-adjusted initial going-in return, maybe not quite as focused on what the long-term return will be because they tend to exit pretty quickly. So I would say that it's probably been just because construction costs in some of these urban markets have kind of gotten out of control, that there's probably been unbalance, a bit of a shift from urban to suburban because it's been more economic, at least from an initial yield standpoint.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Just 2 questions. First, on New York, and maybe I missed it upfront, but 2 parts to this. One, did you guys quantify the revenue hit from the new regulations as far as fees and all that stuff? And then, two, on that front, given presumably we'll see less supply given the tougher regulations, your 421-a assets, do those in your view become more valuable because eventually they'll be market rate? Or the impact of the real estate tax abatement burn-off, coupled with maybe the length of time that the 421-a units are in existence, make it probably something that you'll look to continue to pair just as you sold some 421-as in the past?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Alex. This is Sean. Why don't I start with that one and then others can jump in as well. In terms of the dollar impact, yes, we did mention that in the second half of this year, we expect the impact on same-store sales and to our portfolio to be just over $1 million across the state. About 90% of it relates to the loss of fee revenue across the assets, which is not just in New York City, as you know, but across the state and then modeling some assumptions as it relates to turnover and things like that. But we don't really have the market feedback on that just yet.
And then in terms of the 421-a assets, Matt can jump in on that, but one of the things that we'll be trying to do is as we get market feedback about what happens to turnover rates, what happens with the RGB guidelines in terms of increases that's going to help kind of give us a better sense of the profile of loss to lease over a longer period of time and what impact that may have in terms of value at the end of the expiration of the tax abatements. But it's hard to predict what that looks like today. So Matt, I don't know if you want to add anything to that.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. No, I agree. I think there's also been some talk or question about how does this impact future new supply in New York. And the first thing is the affordable New York program, which is the program that replaced 421-a, was not affected by all this. So in theory, it doesn't, in the short run, change what might be on the horizon for new supply. In our view, the last couple of years, rental economics for new rental, certainly in Manhattan and even in the boroughs, doesn't make a lot of sense right now just given where construction costs are relative to where rents are. So -- but nothing in that equation necessarily has changed. You can speculate about the additional restrictions on how you operate as a landlord, the fees, the ability to charge late fees, the restrictions on evictions, those kind of things, does that change the investment desirability of owning multifamily real estate over the long run, and does that, in turn, influence supply. And that, I think, we're way too early to know.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then as far as your condo tower, the 15 West 61st, is that something that you think would now be more valuable as a rental just given its free of rent regulation? Or your view, is it still -- on an IRR basis, it's still more valuable to sell as condo?
Matthew Birenbaum:
I mean we've said from the start that the site offered a lot of flexibility, and one of the things it offered was not being subject to any particular regulatory regime as it related to the rents, if it was a rental asset. And that was true before, and it's still true. So again, we're selling -- we're marketing condos and looking for that market feedback to validate what we think the difference in the value is between it as a condo and a rental and trying to get as much data as we can on that before we finalize it.
Operator:
We'll hear now from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Just a couple of quick ones here. I was curious if there's been anything that you've seen on the demand front in terms of pullback or peaking early this year. Could you just provide any detail or thoughts there?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Austin, this is Sean. Nothing material at this point. I mean pretty normal seasonal patterns throughout the markets this year. I think we'll learn more in the second half of the year in terms of some of the mix, macroeconomic sentiment that's out there and how it might influence demand. But at this point, not a material shift.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. I appreciate that. And then secondly, you footnoted 2 acquisitions are expected to close in the third quarter to get you to the $300 million you've now assumed in guidance. I think you included 1 of the 2 in your release, but can you provide some detail on the second deal, location, economics, et cetera?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Austin. It's Matt. The second deal is in suburban Miami-Dade County. So it would be our third stabilized asset in Southeast Florida. So we're pretty excited about that. We expect it to close later this month, and it's close to $100 million, and it's kind of a mid-4% cap.
Austin Wurschmidt:
I appreciate that. And then just any other update on the acquisition opportunities in your expansion markets, be it South Florida or Denver, beyond the $100 million that you just announced?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, I mean, we're continuing to look, and it continues to be a pretty active market. I'd say Denver slowed down just a little bit. There's a lot of deals in lease-up that are having trouble getting full, and maybe they're waiting until they're truly full to go on the market. And Southeast Florida, it seems like there's still been the same level of pipeline and volume, and we're continuing to look. So I wouldn't say there's been any change per se. Overall, across the markets, if anything, cap rates across all our markets are probably down a shade over the last couple of quarters with interest rates. So everything we're selling, almost everything is below a 5%, almost no matter where it is or how old it is. So -- and certainly, we're seeing that on the buy side, too. It's all in the kind of anywhere from mid-4s to high 4s for what we view we're going to buy.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Austin. This is Tim. It is interesting. I mean both -- I mean if you're talking about operating performance or cap rates, it seems like everything's converging to around 3% on the rent growth side and in the mid- to high-4% range on the cap rate side, almost without regard to market at this point.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Cody. Nothing else on this. And thanks for being on the call today, and enjoy the rest of your summer.
Operator:
Thank you. That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for your participation.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Jessica, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call.
Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Matt and I will provide some brief comments on the slides that we posted last night, and then we'll all be available afterward for Q&A. Our comments will focus on providing a summary of Q1 results, an overview of development activity and lastly, progress in our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida.
So now starting on Slide 4. It was a solid quarter. Highlights include core FFO growth of 5.5%, driven by healthy internal growth, with same-store revenue and same-store NOI growth coming in at 3.4% and 4.9%, respectively. Interestingly, every region posted 3%-plus same-store revenue growth for the first time in over 6 years. As you recall from last quarter's earnings call, we expect little contribution to earnings in 2019 from external investment activity, primarily due to significantly lower apartment deliveries from our development portfolio this year; and secondly, the relatively higher cost of capital raised in late 2018, most of that being through dispositions. In Q1, we completed 2 communities in the very attractive suburban towns of Sudbury and Hingham in the Boston market, totaling $150 million, at an average initial yield of 6.3%. And then lastly, we raised $220 million of capital, external capital in the quarter, 2/3 of that being raised as equity from CEP and the balance from a D.C. area disposition. The initial cost in this capital was 4.5%, and our leverage remains at a cyclical low of 4.6x debt-to-EBITDA. So with that, I'm going to turn it over now to Sean, who will discuss portfolio operations, including performance on our lease-ups. Sean?
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to Slide 5. Apartment fundamentals continue to support healthy rent change in the portfolio. This slide represents same-store rent change on a trailing 4-quarter average, which reached a high-2% level during Q1.
As we've highlighted in the recent past, we believe the current pace of job and wage growth, combined with new supply of roughly 2% of stock, supports rent growth in the 2.5% to 3% range for our portfolio. Turning to Slide 6 to address Q1 specifically. Same-store rent change was 2.4% or 80 basis points above what we achieved during Q1 of 2018. This improved performance was primarily driven by our East Coast portfolio, which represents 52% of the overall same-store pool and produced roughly 150 basis points of improvement compared to last year. On the West Coast, we also achieved better rent change in the tech-driven Seattle and Northern California regions. Job growth has been quite healthy in both markets. In fact, it's actually running ahead of last year's pace through March. Southern California is the only region where rent change fell short of Q1 2018. While job growth in the region was roughly 1.25% for the full year 2018, it fell onto about half that rate in the last 6 months and is off to a weak start in 2019. Turning now to Slide 7 and the development portfolio. Our performance has been solid. For the 5 communities in lease-up during Q1, rents are trending about 3% ahead of pro forma. The total capital cost is projected to be within 1% of budget and the weighted average stabilized yield is expected to be roughly 10 basis points ahead of plan at a very healthy 6.8%. And with that, I'll turn it over to Matt to talk further about development underway and our expansion markets. Matt?
Matthew Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to Slide 8. We expect the $2.4 billion in development currently underway to generate $145 million in annual NOI once those communities are completed and stabilized.
As we talked about last quarter, this year is a bit unusual for us in that very little of that NOI has begun to flow through to earnings yet, given the timing of the individual lease-ups and deliveries, but it should be a good source of growth over the next few years as those projects move to completion. While there is still some capital to fund to complete construction, the tick-up in NOI should easily exceed the cost of the capital remaining to be sourced. Slide 9 shows the projected value creation from this development underway. If we apply a 4.5% cap rate to the $145 million in stabilized NOI, the value of these assets on completion would be $3.2 billion, which exceeds their projected cost by $800 million or roughly $5.75 per share. I also thought I would give a brief update on our progress in our new expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida. About 1.5 years ago, we announced the strategic expansion of our market footprint and indicated our intention to begin to rotate capital out of some of our legacy markets in the Northeast to these higher-growth regions of the country. As shown on Slide 10, we had begun this effort in Southeast Florida, acquiring 2 brand-new stabilized communities and breaking ground on a development community in partnership with a local sponsor. These 3 properties represent a $350 million investment in over 1,000 apartments and are a good start on assembling a diversified portfolio, spanning 3 different submarkets and 3 different product types, from garden to mid-rise to high-rise. Turning to Slide 11. We have been even more active in Denver, where we currently own 4 completed communities and one development site, with 2 additional development rights in the pipeline. This activity puts us on track to a portfolio of over $600 million and 2,000 units, again, diversified across a variety of different submarkets, with a generally more suburban footprint so far. We have indicated a long-term goal of a 5% allocation to each expansion market, so we expect to continue to grow our presence meaningfully via acquisitions, development and joint venture hybrid structures with local developers over the next few years. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim for some concluding remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, yes. Thanks, Matt. So overall, Q1 was a very good quarter, with results a bit better than expected. Same-store performance continues to improve, with revenue growth generally in the 3% to 4% range across our footprint. The development portfolio is performing well and in line with our expectations, delivering or projected to deliver meaningful NAV growth over the next couple of years, as Matt just mentioned. And lastly, we're making solid progress in our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida, having redeployed or committed almost $1 billion of capital through acquisitions and development to these markets over the last several quarters.
And with that, Jessica, we'll now open the call for Q&A. Thanks.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will now take our first question from Nick Joseph of Citi.
Nicholas Joseph:
You discussed the strength of acceleration in the East Coast market, but within your portfolio, what are you seeing in terms of trends of urban versus suburban or A versus B?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Nick, it's Sean. Happy to chat about that a little bit, if you like. I mean, when you look at our portfolio specifically, one thing to keep in mind is the mix of As and Bs is not necessarily representative of the market. But in our portfolio, for the first time in about 15 quarters, in Q1, A did outperform B assets by about 50 basis points, but the majority of that is really supported by some acceleration in some of the higher price point assets on the East Coast, which had been a little bit softer over the past few years. So we certainly have seen that change in the outcome in terms of the A/B mix. If you look at it in terms of broader sort of market coverage, and you look at Yardi or Axiometrics, they're showing it pretty much in balance at this point between A and B across our footprint, also supported by improvement in the A side of the product on the East Coast.
In terms of urban/suburban, those spreads are still relatively wide, suburbans outperforming urban by about 50 to 60 basis points in our portfolio. And if you look across sort of the market footprint, again, looking at Yardi or Axiometrics, that spread is closer to about 100 basis points. So still seeing outperformance, but varies by portfolio and market.
Nicholas Joseph:
And then just curious if you can give an update on Columbus Circle, both in terms of where you are in the marketing process on the residential units and also the retail lease-in.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Nick. This is Matt. I'll take that one. On the retail side, just to remind folks, we have 67,000 square feet of retail there in total across 4 floors. About 43,000 square feet of that is leased, including all of the 2 subfloors, a little bit of the ground floor and a portion of the second floor. Since the last call, activity actually has picked up, and we are in what I'd say is advanced discussions for 17,000 of the remaining 24,000 square feet of space, including the remainder of the second floor and a good portion of the ground floor as well. So hopefully, those deals will proceed to lease, and we'll have more to report on that in the quarters to come, but we are seeing strong activity there.
On the residential side, we did open our sales office there earlier this month, starting out really just with presales to broker contacts that were on the list. So we're not kind of open to the general public yet for walk-ins off the street. We're probably still a couple of weeks away from that. So we're really just now starting to get a read on the early sales activity side. I'm not going to comment on that yet. It's too early, but we do expect and we will provide a more detailed update on the residential sales activity on our second quarter call.
Operator:
We will now take our next question from Jeff Spector of Bank of America.
Jeffrey Spector:
Hopefully, you can hear me?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes.
Jeffrey Spector:
Great. Sorry. Sorry, there was an interruption there. I guess just big picture, Tim, if we could talk about the macro. I think you maintained your -- the estimates, but just listening to your opening remarks, again, solid quarter, healthy internal growth, every region posted 3% rev growth for the first time in 6 years. I know none of us are economists and can't predict exactly the future, but everyone's trying to figure out any weakness in the economy or when the recession will come. I guess from where you sit, things seem pretty strong.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Jeff. I'd say things more or less played out so far as we would expect it or projected when we gave our guidance a quarter ago. I mean I think our job growth outlook was down from the prior year at 1.2% for our markets. But on the other hand, we do expect stronger wage growth. We're projecting wage growth, as you recall, of 3.5% and supply growth in the low-2% range. Not much has really changed from that. We did say on the call though that we do expect economic growth to moderate over the course of the year, to be maybe a little bit more of a -- be a bit of a mirror image from what we saw in 2018. Now I don't think we changed our view on that, I mean, just based upon the little bit of slowdown on the global growth -- in global growth, just the stimulus from the tax reform starting to wear off.
If you look at -- I know Sean spoke a little bit about job growth, if you look at what we've seen over the last 6 months and 3 months, more or less in line with our expectations, but there are regional differences. Northern California, New York area have been a bit stronger than we anticipated. Southern California, weaker, as Sean mentioned. And probably the other thing that's maybe a little different than what we expected 3 months ago is the for sale is slowing down a bit, both in terms of volume and pricing. And I think you may have seen just in the last 24 hours just homeownership rates actually came down for the first time, I think, in the last couple of years. It's just one data point. But when you combine that with consumer confidence being down a little bit, those are probably the things we're watching right now, for in terms of as leading indicators, but really have been reflected certainly in terms of portfolio performance today.
Jeffrey Spector:
Okay. And then my one follow-up, just on the Northeast region, I guess, in particular, maybe New York City or Manhattan, I believe you somewhat commented that the luxury end was maybe better than expected in 1Q. I guess what are you seeing in the Northeast, the East Coast that was better than expected year-to-date?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Jeff, Sean. Happy to tell you about that a little bit. I mean I think the way to describe it is that pretty much across the East Coast footprint, things are, I would say, about where we expect it, maybe slightly better in a couple of areas, but for the most part, somewhat in line, as Tim mentioned too, as it relates to his response to the prior question.
In terms of specific markets or submarkets within regions, there are differences. So to give you some examples, in the Metro New York, New Jersey area, as an example, Long Island is quite strong, doing almost 5% year-over-year. And the other markets in and around New York City, New York suburban and Westchester, Northern New Jersey are more like 1% to 2%. That's certainly better in the case of New York City than maybe what we've seen. But in terms of absolute price points and what is improvement, I'd say, as I mentioned in the last response, we are seeing some pretty good acceleration in some of the higher-end price points in some of these submarkets, which has been helpful. And if you dissect it, it's really more a question about where the pockets of supply are most plentiful, where the impact is greatest on the higher-end assets. That's really what's driving it in terms of the difference in pricing power between the higher-end and say, the more moderately priced assets. So a specific example is D.C. proper is on the weaker side as opposed to suburban Virginia -- or Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland are much more healthy at this point, and it's just a function of the amount of supply being delivered in the district right now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Hightower of Evercore ISI.
Richard Hightower:
So I want to -- I know we've talked about this earlier today, but maybe just for the benefit of everyone on the call, just to kind of walk through the bad debt accounting change and its impact on same-store during the quarter. So can you help us just collectively understand the breakdown in better-than-expected performance across the accounting change, across occupancy, market rents, other revenues and just help us understand the building blocks so we're all on the same page.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, this is Sean. Why don't I go through it at a fairly high level. To the extent there's a lot of detailed questions about drivers of other rental revenue and things like that, that may be more appropriate to take offline. But in terms of the broad view of the TRR growth or rental revenue growth in Q1, the impact from the change in bad debt is 30 basis points.
Regionally, the range is sort of between 0 and call it, 60, 70 basis points, depending on the specific region. And that is a reflection of underlying changes year-over-year in bad debt, which are really driven by a couple of factors. One is some investments we've made in data analytics to improve our bad debt profile in the residential side, both in terms of people coming to our communities as well as our collection processes. And the second piece of that is in certain regions, in particular, we had some write-offs as it relates to retail tenants in Q1 of 2018 that we don't have in 2019, and that really accounts for some of those regional differences that occur. But the overall broad impact, again, is the 30 basis points. We had mentioned that, when we were at the Citi conference, that we were trending about 20 basis points ahead of what we had expected in terms of revenue growth through January and February. So if you look at the full Q1 number in terms of our outperformance, basically, about half of it is in just raw performance mainly driven by occupancy, and the other half essentially is the bad debt component is the way I look at it in terms of from a revenue perspective. On the OpEx side of things, we reported Q1 OpEx growth of 20 basis points. That actually would have been down 90 basis points year-over-year in Q1 if bad debt had remained expensed. So that's the full impact on Q1. Hopefully, that's clear.
Richard Hightower:
Okay. Yes. I appreciate the detail there, and we'll probably have a few follow-ups. But I'm going to take a stab at the next question here, and feel free not to answer because I know Avalon's policy on guidance and everything. But is it fair to say that on an all-else-equal basis, given everything that you just described in terms of the building blocks, that a same-store range should go up because of what you described? Or is it not fair to say that, and we can interpret that as we wish?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey, Rich, this is Kevin. I guess at the outset, just to say what we said before, we're not intending to update guidance until the second quarter. So we don't really have any additional comment on that. I think one question that's embedded in what you're asking is if we had known back in the beginning of the year, when we gave our initial guidance, that bad debt would need to be moved geographically up into revenue, would we have changed our guidance, the answer is no because we did not forecast at that point in time a material improvement in bad debt recoveries. So those are probably the 2 points that I'd emphasize for you to consider.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt of KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
You guys have sustained a positive spread on like-term lease rates now for the past 3 quarters, I believe. So does the same-store revenue guidance assume that those lease rate spreads converge by year-end or that you continue to sustain some level of a positive spread each quarter throughout the year?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Hey, Austin, this is Sean. I think what I said in my prepared remarks in last quarter is that, on average, throughout the year, we expected rent change, like-term rent change, to be 20 basis points greater in 2019 as compared to 2018. We didn't specifically go under the quarterly numbers, but that's what we expected for the full year.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Got it. And then can you just provide a little bit of an update on what you've seen into April as far as lease rate trends?
Sean Breslin:
Sure. Thus far, through April, rent change is running 3.1%, which is about 50, 60 basis points above April of last year. And the renewal offers are basically going out in the 5% range for May and June.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Appreciate that. And then just last one for me. As far as leverage, you kind of have held steady within that 4.6x range now for the last couple of quarters. And just curious if we should expect that to continue to tick up. Or has the opportunity to issue a little bit of equity under the ATM given your ability to kind of sustain lower leverage, and that's really your intention now moving forward?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey, Austin, this is Kevin. I think as I indicated in the last quarter, our net debt-to-EBITDA fell at around 4.6 turns, which is where it is today and where it was last quarter. And that was primarily driven by the closing of our New York City joint venture transaction, among the other dispositions that we completed last year, as Tim alluded to in his opening remarks. So that was sort of an outcome of a portfolio set of activities that we undertook. It wasn't really a direct objective of ours, and so it sort of came about as a result of selling those assets.
As we've mentioned in the past, over a full cycle, we'd like to have our leverage run somewhere between 5 and 6 turns, and we're comfortable being a little bit above or a little bit below that. At this point in the cycle, our preference is to be more around 5 turns. We happen to be a little bit below that today. And I guess what I'd say is we're relatively comfortable with where we are now. It may be that it probably ticks up a little bit, but I don't think there's any great haste in doing so. And while we are where we are, we feel like we have incremental financial flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that might be out there.
Timothy Naughton:
Kevin, maybe just remind Austin sort of what the capital plan was for this year just in terms of sort of mix.
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. Yes. Just as a reference, when we began the year, our capital plan for 2019 contemplated sourcing $1 billion of external capital, with roughly half of that to come in the form of newly issued debt, and the other half in the form of equity, which we planned would be net disposition activity. And in terms of where we are today, as you know from reading the release, we sourced $150 million in equity issuance. And then in terms of net disposition activity, we sourced an additional $80 million. We've got probably a couple hundred million or so of assets through in the market today. So I'd say the capital plan, while it can certainly change based on market conditions and changes in capital uses in terms of where we stand today, I think we're kind of roughly intact in terms of where we are on the capital plan.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Nick Yulico of Scotiabank.
Nicholas Yulico:
Just a question on the same-store expense growth, looked unusually low this quarter, and I guess you did have that 3% year-over-year drop in payroll and office costs. You talked about lower bonuses, lower overheads. So I guess I'm just wondering what -- hearing a little bit more about what drove that and how we should think about that versus the same-store expense guidance this year, which was 3%, and you only did just over flat in the first quarter.
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Nick. This is Sean. Happy to take that one. As it relates to Q1, as you pointed out, we certainly had some things go our way as well as a pretty good comp as it relates to last year. So it certainly had some benefit on the marketing side, certainly on the utility side. As you noted, maybe property taxes were basically 1% in the first quarter. As we move through the year, you start to see things pick up in some of these other categories. So for example, over the next couple of quarters, you'll see merit increases kick in on the payroll side. You'll see more normal property tax growth in the first quarter. We had the benefit of an appeal that kicked in, which was helpful to us as well as a rate reset in Seattle. And so you've got some of those one-off things in the first quarter that helped us that will not recur in the second quarter, and then we have a tougher comp on utilities in Q2 and things like that. So we certainly had a benefit across multiple categories in Q1, except -- expect to see a tick-up a little bit in Q2, and so you'll start to see that pattern.
As it relates to maybe payroll and some other things and how you should think about it over the next couple of years, maybe just a couple things to mention. So in the property tax side, assessments have grown materially this cycle. We don't have a lot of 421-a exposure. So I expect that the property tax growth should be less over the next couple of years than it's been in the last 2 or 3 years. And then maybe just to touch on a couple of other things that are certainly working well for us in terms of being able to contain OpEx growth, maybe mention a couple of categories. One is payroll, which, as you know, is about 24% of our OpEx. We've been investing in a number of initiatives that will continue to allow us to contain payroll growth in the future. And just to cite a few examples, through additional potting and other consolidation efforts, we reduced on-site office headcount by about 3.5% year-over-year in Q1. In addition, during Q1, we launched an AI platform to facilitate interactions between an automated agent and our prospects. While it's still early, we're seeing better conversion rates from a platform that runs 24/7 and doesn't require interaction with our on-site staff. And overall, I mean, we're investing in other opportunities to use technology to enhance the self-service experience for our customers, but also allow our staff to be more efficient and effective. And that's all being done by leveraging both automation and centralization, which is allowing us to think about maybe a little bit different sales and service model at our communities. So that's certainly helpful, not only as we think about payroll this year, but over the next couple of years. And we're also making investments in other areas in terms of utilities and our renewable energy efforts and other sustainability initiatives, and on the marketing side, doing a lot of great things with organic search for our website and a number of self-service tools that we launched about 18 months ago, where we're seeing great penetration from our customers so they can schedule tours online, bypassing the call center, which reduces some of those costs. So overall, while we're facing pressure in some areas, maybe like repairs and maintenance, we do think investments in some of these other areas are going to pay off for us over the next couple of years.
Nicholas Yulico:
Okay. That's very helpful. In terms of rent control taking more of a focus in New York, there could be some changes that could happen in June. Can you just break out for when we look at your Metro New York portfolio, how much is subject to, let's say, rent stabilization in New York City, if any of the suburban assets, any of the units there are also subject? And I guess just separately, within New York City, how much of the 80-20 buildings you still own where you're getting the 421-a tax abatement?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, happy to chat about that a little bit. As you know, it's a complicated issue in New York because there's different classifications of buildings that are regulated and for what purpose. So there's certainly buildings with very low rent that are rent-stabilized at very different types of levels. But in terms of what we're talking about, which is essentially a market rate portfolio subject to 421-a with stabilized units, for us, our stabilized -- or our same-store pool is about 3,800 apartment homes. Of that, about 2/3 roughly are what's considered market-stabilized. And of that 2/3, there's only about 20% of it that's capped at what is known as the legal rent. So the others are paying what's known as a preferential rent, if you understand the terms, where they effectively are in a loss-to-lease position is probably the simple way to describe it.
So that's what we have in terms of our same-store assets. There's a lot of things being talked about in New York in terms of what would be impacted. For the most part, based on what we're hearing through a pretty strong organization in REBNY, is that the target is typically much more of the lower-price point assets that are regulated, where people are spending a lot of energy trying to figure out what should happen with the policies associated with those assets and not as much time on the market rate side. There are certainly some chatter about the market rate side, but based on what we know, there seems to be a greater focus on the lower price point, particularly issues of displacement and things like that. And we'll know more certainly as we get to June, but there's some debate on that as we get into May as well.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Drew Babin of Baird.
Drew Babin:
A quick question on L.A., drilling in a little bit. Obviously, supply in downtown L.A. has been elevated and concessions are pretty aggressive. Given that you don't have many properties or any properties really in downtown L.A., I thought I'd ask kind of where within L.A. you're maybe seeing some of the softness that occurred in the first quarter. And if you could also give an update on how things are kind of progressing in April, that would be very helpful.
Sean Breslin:
Sure. Drew, this is Sean. Happy to chat about that. You are correct in that we have one same-store asset in downtown L.A. in Little Tokyo. Fortunately, it is at a price point where it's actually performing quite well right now. But in terms of the rest of the assets, I'd say the slowness that we're seeing in L.A. is relatively widespread. It's a little bit more in the San Fernando Valley specifically. But when you look at the individual assets across the San Fernando Valley and L.A. and say there are certain pockets where it's weaker, maybe at the margin a little bit. But I'd say we expected some slowdown in Southern California as reflected in the chart that we presented during the Q1 call, where we show sort of the distribution of anticipated revenue growth. Southern California was the only region where we expected it to be down. Job growth had already started to slow. And so we forecasted that for the most part.
I would say that certain pockets in San Fernando Valley, as an example, might be a little bit weaker than what we anticipated. I think the issue that will play out in Southern California this year, a little bit that people may not be as clear about, is there are some anti-rent gouging caps in place throughout parts of Los Angeles right now as a result of the fires from last year. Those caps are in place through November of 2019. And while it's a 10% cap and you don't think of it as being material, what it does impact is your ability to generate and execute short-term leases at premiums through the summer season. And so some acceleration that you might typically see in L.A. through the summer as you generate short-term leases for a variety of different types of customers, that incremental revenue is not anticipated to come through this year at the same extent that it did last year because of the nature of these caps where you can't increase the rent by more than 10% of the amount the prior customer was paying for that specific unit. So some of those nuances are at play as well, but in terms of the environment, I would say across L.A., it's been a little bit weaker than we would have anticipated, but not too far off.
Drew Babin:
Okay. That's helpful. And then just one quick follow-up on East Bay. Obviously, it was one of the slower revenue growth markets during the first quarter. I guess it would be helpful if you could talk about kind of within the context of Northern California doing better than expectations, would you say that Oakland-East Bay is sort of performing in line with what you expected going into the year given the supply, or has it been a little bit weaker than you expected?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. No, good question. We certainly expected San Jose and San Francisco to perform better than the East Bay, a combination of several different factors, including just the nature of the job growth that we expected across the footprint there as well as certain pockets of supply. I'd say that our assets in Walnut Creek are performing quite well, but assets in Pleasanton, Dublin, not quite as much. So it's one of those places where, as you probably know, the East Bay has sort of lagged performance in San Jose and San Francisco. We've seen a rebound come through in both of those market areas, and the East Bay tends to lag and it is, this year, lagging as well. So not a surprise.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim of BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
On the uncollectible lease revenue or bad debt, has this figure been trending down over the last few years? And how does this really compare to historic levels? And is it something that you're going to be breaking out in future years? Or was it just this year because of the accounting change?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John. Happy to chat about that. In terms of the year-over-year change, I'd say, what we're seeing right now -- or what we saw this year in Q1, to be specific, is a little bit more than normal in terms of the year-over-year reduction in bad debt, which fueled the 30 basis point increase in the revenue numbers that we put out, and really driven by 2 things. One, I mentioned some investments we had made recently over the last year or 2 in data analytics, and that has led to some pretty good outcomes as it relates to both how we screen residents coming into our communities as well as the collection efforts at our customer care center in terms of sort of our queuing theory and how we pursue customers on the collection side. Both of those have had a meaningful impact in terms of cohorts of move-ins over the last 12 months. So you'll see that play through over the next couple of quarters in particular, certainly, the most meaningful one, I would say. So that's had a big lift.
And then, certainly, Q1, I think I mentioned earlier, we had a couple of retail write-offs in Q1 of 2018 that we don't have in Q1 '19 that also helped us. So I would say, the bad debt, it certainly cycles with the economy. So it's come down quite a bit from the Great Recession, but I'd say the incremental improvement that you're seeing now is really primarily a function of our investment in data analytics and screening customers better and the collection side.
John Kim:
And then are you going to provide this figure going forward? Or is it just for...
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Sorry, I didn't address that. It's really just for this year. We don't anticipate doing that going forward. It's just sort of a transition year for us.
John Kim:
Okay. It looks like you didn't have any development starts this quarter. I was wondering if you're still on track for the $950 million of starts in your guidance for the year?
Matthew Birenbaum:
I think -- John, it's Matt. We'll see. I think there were specific projects identified, and they're all moving through. We certainly are going to start at least a couple of deals this quarter. The exact timing on some of these does tend to move around a little bit. So we may hit it. We may have a couple of deals that slide a quarter or 2, would cause us to miss it, but it's too early to tell.
Timothy Naughton:
And John, we'll certainly update, as part of our midyear guidance update as well, what we expect for that. As Matt said, it's kind of premature to update you on that at this point.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Guinee of Stifel.
John Guinee:
A couple of quick questions. One is Oakwood Arlington, I was sort of surprised to see you sell that given all the hype in Arlington. Can you pinpoint exactly where that's located and then your thought process and pricing?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure. This is Matt. That was -- that's a very unusual asset or it was a very unusual asset in our portfolio. It's a late '80s vintage, a 30-year old asset located in Rosslyn, so here in Arlington, in Northern Virginia. We actually acquired that asset through the Archstone acquisition, and it was master leased to Oakwood, who was operating it as furnished housing, and that master lease was actually nearing the end of its term. So when we looked at taking it back to market operations, a combination of the capital that would be required and where we expected the NOI to go, we think it was about a 4 cap, which is lower than I think if it had been a conventionally operated community. And Oakwood actually was the buyer. So it kind of fit with their program of actually starting to buy some assets as well as operate assets. So it was just a unique combination of events there. We weren't necessarily looking to sell it. We were just as part of the negotiation of the lease extension. It became clear they had an interest in owning real estate, and at that price, we had an interest in selling it.
John Guinee:
Great. And then the second question, regarding the hard costs of Washington, D.C. in particular, but elsewhere. What are you seeing? What did you see in the last year? And what's your projection for the next 12, 24 months in terms of hard cost increases?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. It's Matt again. I guess I can take a shot at that one, and others, feel free to chime in. The D.C. market has been -- certainly, hard cost inflation has exceeded rent growth, which has been very modest. But if compared to most of our markets, it's been somewhat more muted. So I'd call it probably 3% to 5% maybe. We're just getting ready to break ground actually on a wood frame project in suburban Baltimore this quarter, so we do have some fairly current numbers on that.
Other markets, we're still seeing mid-single digits, and the West Coast is still probably high single digits in terms of the inflation of hard cost. Commodities, lumber actually has come down. So that hopefully will start to help, but still, the overwhelming driver is labor. One of the things we have seen just very recently is labor availability pick up a little bit on the West Coast and better subcontractor coverage on our bids. That has not yet chased its way through into a cessation of pretty aggressive inflation, but that's, I'd say, a necessary but not sufficient precursor. So maybe, maybe it comes down a little bit looking forward over the next 12 to 18 months, but it's very speculative.
Timothy Naughton:
Hey, John, this is Tim. As you know, D.C., it's always been sort of a deeper subcontractor market here, and so even when we've had periods of development and supply, we tend not to have the same kind of swings in construction pricing. So we never really saw what we saw on the West Coast even when production levels got up to sort of cyclical highs here, and so I don't think we anticipate dramatic disruption of inflation in the mid-Atlantic over the next year.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Hill of Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill:
I wanted to just come back to New York for a second. You've been vocal in the past about maybe allocating away from New York City to higher growth markets, but you obviously had a pretty nice rebound in this market. And there were some commentary that led me to believe that it was widespread. So I am curious, is it as widespread as maybe I perceived? Or do you think it's reflective of the fruits of your labor pruning your portfolio and really focusing on properties that make the most sense in the Greater New York City area?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Rich, this is Sean. Happy to provide a couple of comments on that. I mean as I mentioned, I think earlier, the suburban markets are probably performing a little bit better, but New York City is starting to show some life, let's just say. I mean it's not going gangbusters for a change in the city in Q1 with only 1.5% as compared to, say, Long Island was 5%, as an example. So I would say that the assets that we have in the same-store pool today are pretty well-positioned. So for example, the 2 high-rises on the waterfront in Long Island City is sort of leading the charge in terms of revenue growth, but our Brooklyn assets are doing fine as well, particularly Fort Greene, which is at a different price point from a lot of the newer product that's being delivered in and around that submarket. So I'd say, overall, we're seeing improvement, and depending on where you are and the amount of supply being delivered in that particular neighborhood, has a material impact on the performance of assets in the city specifically.
Richard Hill:
Okay. Helpful. And then one of the things that you had highlighted in your investor presentation was the increase in effective rents, which has been ongoing for some and I guess, for a couple of quarters now. I'm curious, as you head into peak leasing season, how are you thinking about occupancies versus rents? And do you think your portfolio is particularly well-positioned to push rents from here?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Happy to take that one. That's a process that is ever ongoing, I guess, I would say, that we feel like we're in a position from an occupancy standpoint certainly to push rents, but it is not only a submarket-by-submarket, it's an asset-by-asset process that has a lot of discipline behind it in terms of revenue management, blended with efforts from our market research group to try to optimize the revenue growth from an asset. So it's not necessarily one answer to solve all of that. In some cases, it's more protecting occupancy like in the district, where there's a lot of supply right now, and trying to extend lease duration. Yes, that's one strategy. In a market that's rebounding, maybe more like a San Francisco or parts of Boston, we might yield slightly more occupancy to generate better renewal rates or move-in rates. So it's an ongoing process. We're comfortable with how we're positioned, and the strategy changes from asset to asset depending on the nature of the environment.
Timothy Naughton:
Hey, Rich, Tim here. Just maybe just to add a little bit to that. I mean occupancy is healthy across our markets, but it's been healthy really the entire cycle. And ultimately, it's going to be a function, I think, mostly of, as Sean said, supply and demand within that particular market. But what's interesting is as you look across the entire housing market, homeowner -- including for sale in single-family, housing vacancy is at a 30-year low, which does provide some additional support, I think, to continue to sort of push pricing.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Pawlowski of Green Street Advisors.
John Pawlowski:
Circling back to your comments on the political scene in Albany, so if the Real Estate Board of New York's most likely scenario plays out, I guess, what percent of your New York units would feel some sort of impact?
Sean Breslin:
John, this is Sean. It depends on how it plays out, but if the focus is really on the very low-rent regulated units, there's 0 risk for us in terms of impact on what we can charge for assets that we own. I think the date on that is 1974, is my recollection in terms of the date of construction, but it's also a rent threshold as well, those kind of 2 variables that go together. So the impact would be negligible, 0 in that specific case.
John Pawlowski:
Sure. So your political contacts aren't concerned at all about the vacancy control threshold being strengthened?
Sean Breslin:
I wouldn't say that they're not concerned. I would say that they're -- in the case of both California and New York, there are some pretty strong organizations there with deep relationships in the sort of political apparatus, if you want to call it that, that they're working in those relationships, they're working to make sure people are educated about the unintended consequences of certain policy issues that could be adopted. And so we think the efforts, particularly in those 2 states, with the organizations that we have, have been successful in the past and hope that they would be successful in the future. No guarantees by any means, but that's just based on what we know today.
John Pawlowski:
Understood. And then, Sean, your comments about the Orange County being off to a slow start, has the sluggishness persisted in early 2Q? And can you share some leasing stats for Orange County in April?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. I'd say, generally, across Southern California, as I mentioned earlier, we anticipated it to be weaker than the other markets just if you look at year-over-year revenue growth that we had laid out. That certainly has been the case across all 3 markets in Q1 and continuing into April, L.A., Orange County and San Diego. If you look at it from the perspective of rent change, for example, in Q1, in the L.A. and San Fernando Valley, it's kind of the 2% to 3% range. It was weaker actually in Orange County and San Diego, more in the mid-1% range. We're seeing some acceleration into April, but that's more seasonal than anything else. So to give you some reference points, we're averaging more like 3% in L.A. right now on a blended basis for April, almost 3% in Orange County and about 2.5% in San Diego. So there's some seasonal component to that obviously in terms of the lift. But when you compare that to healthier environments where we would have had better job growth, we certainly would be putting up better numbers in terms of rent change across that geography.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We will now take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb of Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb:
So my first question is, Tim, just going again back to New York with the recent energy efficiency legislation they passed, I don't know if you guys have had a chance to assess the legislation versus your buildings. But if you have, can you just give us a sense for how you guys would trend towards the initial 2024 mandates?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Sure, Alex. This is Matt. I can speak to that a little bit. It is obviously hot off the press, so we're still digesting it. But a couple things. Number one, I believe buildings with rent-regulated units may be exempt, which would be most of our buildings. But there are a few that are not, and it's perhaps still unclear exactly how wide that net might get cast. But as we looked at it, our buildings scored pretty well. Most of our buildings are actually probably performing today in a place that they would meet the 24 to 29 targets. There's a few that are a little bit over, but we continue to make investments in cogen and solar and other things. So we've actually been leaders in this area, and I think we're pretty well positioned.
Sean Breslin:
Alex, just to add on to that a little bit. There's really one building that matters for us that doesn't have regulated units, which is the Riverview buildings in Long Island City, and we have cogen there. So we're pretty comfortable that one's going to clear.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. That's helpful. And then the second question is as you ramp up more in Denver and South Florida, has there been any change in sort of what you guys initially thought that you would -- where you would invest, whether it's acquisition or development? And then submarkets, has anything changed? Now that you've put $1 billion in, are you still according to plan, or have some things changed where you're finding out maybe it's easier to develop or maybe there are more developers who want to sell you their lease-up assets or something?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Sure, Alex. It's Matt. I would say it's been pretty much as we had expected and as we had hoped. We did not -- we said that we were going to go into those markets with a goal of reaching that 5% for each, but that we didn't put any particular time frame on it because we were going to do it in a way that was responsive to market conditions. We know there's a lot of merchant build activity in both those markets, so there've been a lot of new assets to acquire, which we've been focused on.
I'd say, we expected to be more active in vertical developments sooner in Denver, just given some of our personnel and knowledge of those markets, and that's played out where we actually own one development site there that will start later this year, hopefully. And we actually have 2 others working their way through the due diligence process. So -- but all of the above. We continue to look for acquisitions, we continue to talk to developers about JVs, and we continue to look for development sites. So it's been, I'd say, pretty much what we had hoped for, and we'll continue to proceed as market opportunities allow.
Operator:
Our final question comes from Hardik Goel of Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel:
I had 2 quick ones. So first one on the transaction markets in New York and D.C. Have you guys noticed some slowdown there? We heard some reports that investors were holding back before the rental guideline board meets in June in New York, and something similar in D.C. with regards to people, the transaction markets as being sluggish.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes. Hi, Hardik, it's Matt. We're not active in the New York transaction market right now at this moment. Obviously, we were last year. So I can't comment on that specifically other than the transaction market, in general, in our markets was down a little bit in the first quarter. And there has been some concern in D.C. There has been a little bit of concern about some changes to the rent control ordinance as it relates to older assets. Again, I think that's pre-'78 constructions. So there were some changes there that may have slowed that transaction market a little bit, but it's hard to tell in D.C. because you have the TOPA law, which gives the tenants the right to organize to buy the building and match third-party offers. So any transactions you see closing in D.C. are the transactions that were struck anywhere from 6 to 12 months earlier. So to the extent there's an impact on the market with assets in the market today, you wouldn't necessarily see that in the closing statistics for another couple of quarters.
Hardik Goel:
Got it. And just another quick one on your same-store revenue number. The way I understand it is if I roll up your sequentials, I'm getting to a 2.7% or 2.8% growth rate, and the gap between the 3.4% and that is 75 basis points or so. 30 of that is your bad debt change, the reporting change, as you guys mentioned, and the remaining seems to be from the change in the same-store pool. Can you give me the growth rate for the incoming units into the pool or the units that are not comparable in the pool? Do you have the -- just the rough range?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Hardik, this is Sean. For the 2019 same-store pool, the entrants into that pool from development and redevelopment activity that has stabilized previous to that is a little greater than it normally is. It was almost 10% of the pool, and growth rates on those assets remaining in the pool was in the low 6% range. So they are growing faster than the base. So that -- some changes in other rental revenue associated with those communities, that's coming through, that nudges that up a little bit more even, and then the bad debt change are sort of the big components, as you pointed out.
Operator:
This concludes today's question-and-answer session. At this time, I would like to turn the call back to Tim Naughton for closing remarks.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thank you, Jessica, and thanks all for being on the call today. I know you're busy given it's the beginning of earnings season, and we look forward to seeing many of you at NAREIT in June. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference call is Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investors Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, April, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2018 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Jason. With me today on the call are Kevin O'Shea, Matt Birenbaum and Sean Breslin. Sean is actually joining us remotely. The three of us will -- or the four of us will provide comments on the slides that we posted last night and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing a summary of Q4 and the full year results, and then a discussion surrounding our outlook for 2019. Before we get started, I thought I'd just note that we have chosen to eliminate quarterly guidance issue. You may have noticed that in our release. We've thought about this for some time and have concluded that, so long as we continue providing good disclosure that allows investors to assess our business in a detailed way, which we believe we do, moving away from quarterly guidance is better aligned with how we think about the business and will help discourage undue focus on short-term quarterly results. We will, however, continue to update our annual guidance at the second quarter, concurrent with our internal mid-year reforecasting process. Starting now on the slide four. Highlights for the quarter and the year include, core FFO growth of 2.7% in Q4 and 4.4% for the full year which was 80 basis points above our initial outlook. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.7% for the quarter or 2.8% once you include redevelopment. For the full year, same-store revenue growth ended at 2.5% which was equal to what we saw in 2017. We completed $740 million of new development for the year at a 6.4% initial projected stabilized yield and started another $720 million. And lastly, we raised $1.7 billion in external capital this year, this past year, principally through asset sales at an average initial cost of 4.7%, with more than half of that being raised in Q4, mostly from the closing of our New York JV where we contributed an 80% interest in five stabilized assets to the newly formed venture. The next two slides provide a little more detail on 2018 performance and I think they provide some helpful context to our 2019 outlook. Turning to slide 5. As I mentioned before, same-store revenue growth for the year was consistent with 2017. However, some region saw improvement while others actually decelerated from the prior year. Specifically, Boston and Northern California showed significant improvement from 2017, up 60 basis points and 130 basis points respectively, while Seattle decelerated by almost 300 bps as that market began to feel the impact of several years of continuous and elevated supply. Turning to slide 6. While same-store revenue growth was equal to that experienced in 2017, the cadence of rent growth through the year was not. We saw rent growth accelerate in the second half of the year, outpacing 2017 and Q3 and Q4 by 70 bps and 120 bps respectively benefiting from a strengthening economy towards the end of the year and a cooling for-sale housing market. This provides good momentum for our business going into 2019. Moving to slide 7, and turning to the development portfolio. We continue to see a meaningful contribution to core FFO growth from stabilizing new development, although at a lesser rate than in years past as we delivered only about a third of the homes as we did in 2017 and completed about half as much in capitalized costs as we had on average in the prior four years. With our starts down by about 40% over the last couple years, we will generate less growth from external investment over the next two years to three years than we did in the early and middle part of this cycle when development economics were particularly compelling. Moving to slide 8. Of the capital that we raised this year, $1.3 billion came from wholly-owned dispositions and the sale of 80% interest of the New York JV that I mentioned earlier. The initial cost of the capital activity was about 110 basis points greater than the $2.6 billion that we raised in 2017 when about 70% of that was raised in the form of debt. Since much of this higher cost capital was raised in Q4 at the end of the year and 2018 it will also contribute to lower external growth in 2019. Now on to slide 9. Our elevated disposition activity in 2018 did help drive down leverage. At year-end debt-to-EBITDA stood at a cyclical low of 4.6 times. Our liquidity and credit metrics as you can see are in excellent shape as we move into what will be the 10th year of the current expansion. And finally, on the slide 10, we excelled and made progress with several of our other stakeholders this last year, including our customers, where we ranked number one nationally among all apartment REITs for Online Reputation for the third consecutive year. With our associates, we're renamed to Glassdoor's list of top 100 Best Places to Work for the second consecutive year and by Indeed as a Top 5 Workplace in D.C. And lastly, with our communities, where our efforts on the ESG front have been widely recognized by several organizations helping to establish AVB as an industry leader in this area. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kevin who will provide an overview of our outlook for 2019.
Kevin O'Shea:
Okay. Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 11. We provide an outlook for 2019. In particular, we expect core FFO growth of 3.3% same-store revenue NOI growth of 3%. In addition, we expect to start just under $1 billion of new development and complete $650 million of projects. NOI from development communities is expected to be roughly $27 million at the midpoint, which is down about one-half from last year. This is primarily a function of lower level of completions in 2018 and 2019 and unit occupancies being weighted to the back half of the year in 2019. Turning to slide 12, which summarizes the major components of core FFO growth. As you can see all of our core FFO growth in 2019 is expected to come from the stabilized and redevelopment portfolio. Internal growth from the stabilized and redevelopment portfolio was contributing around 3.6% to core FFO growth or 170 basis points more than in 2018 and external growth from stabilizing investment and lease-up activity net of capital cost is not projected to provide a net contribution to core FFO growth this year. The next three slides identify some of the major drivers impacting projected external growth. I'll quickly summarize. And slide 13, demonstrates the impact of a declining level of development completions later in the cycle as we expect 2018 and 2019 completions to be down by about $0.5 billion for the average over the prior four years. Slide 14, highlights the impact of higher short-term interest rates on $1 billion or so of floating rate debt. And slide 15, shows the impact of higher funding costs on long-term capital raised in 2018. Each of these factors is contributing to a decline in external growth in 2019. Some are cyclical in nature like lower development volume and higher interest rates while others are more of a one-time impact such as the mix of capital raised in the prior year. Turning to slide 16. The next few slides provide further context to our outlook for the upcoming year. I won't go into them in detail, but in many ways 2019 is expected to be a bit of a mirror image of 2018. We're starting the year with a strong economy and labor market, but for a number of reasons while we expect the economy to remain healthy in 2019, we do expect economic growth to moderate as we move through the year, driven by a number of factors including a projected slowdown in global growth, the stimulative effects of corporate tax reform beginning to wear-off and heightened uncertainty in volatility surrounding government dysfunction and monetary policy. As a result, we expect corporate profit growth to decelerate in 2019 but remain at healthy levels. Combined with elevated corporate debt and waning business confidence, we may see a slowdown in business investment as the year progresses. The consumer on the other hand should continue to propel the economy in 2019. The healthy labor market and accelerating wages are boosting confidence, spending and household formation. Furthermore, demographics and housing affordability should continue to support the apartment market on the demand side of the equation. On the supply side, we expect deliveries to remain elevated in 2019 at a bit over 2% of stock. And while construction starts have remained elevated over the last year nationally, we've actually seen a decline in our markets, which should provide some relief next year. Construction cost inflation has been particularly acute in the coastal markets and lenders have begun to take a more cautious stance in the sector. These factors should help constrain supply beyond 2019. So overall for 2019, we expect the macro environment to remain favorable and fundamentals to support healthy operating performance in the apartment sector. As noted in slide 17 through 23 drill down on these themes in more detail. We'll let you review these on your own. But for now we'll skip to slide 24 where Sean will touch on demand and supply fundamentals in our markets and the outlook for our portfolio in 2019. Sean?
Sean Breslin:
Thanks Kevin. I'll share a few thoughts about the demand-and-supply outlook for 2019 and our same-store revenue expectations. Turning to Slide 24, while 2018 job growth of 1.7% or 2.6 million jobs, exceeded most forecasts. The consensus outlook currently reflects a deceleration to roughly 1.2% job growth or 1.8 million jobs during 2019. The slower pace of job creation is expected in all of our markets, but it is most notable in the tech markets of the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. While job growth is expected to slow, the employees are certainly benefiting from the tight labor market. Wage growth has been accelerating over the past year and is expected to average about 3% during 2019. Turning to Slide 25 to address supply in our markets, new deliveries for 2018 came in below expectations at 2% of stock, as the tight labor market and constrained capacity at local municipalities resulted in extended construction schedules. Supply for 2019 is now expected to take up to roughly 2.3% of stock, driven by increases in Northern and Southern California and the Mid-Atlantic. In Northern California, the increase in deliveries will be concentrated in San Jose and East Bay with San Francisco being relatively flat. In Southern California, the increase in deliveries is expected to occur in L.A. with modest reductions at both Orange County and San Diego. And for the Mid-Atlantic, the increase is driven by new deliveries in the district. While, we're tracking the deliveries that represent 2.3% of stock, our expectation is that the tight labor market will again result in some construction delays. Actual deliveries will likely be in a range of 2% by the end of the year. Turning to Slide 26. Our same-store rental revenue outlook reflects a midpoint of 3% with the expected improvement in all of our regions except Southern California which should perform relatively consistent with 2018. We're starting off the year in good shape with roughly 1.2% of embedded revenue growth in the portfolio, based upon rent increases we achieved last year. And for the month of January, same-store rental revenue growth was an even 3%. In addition like term rent change for January was 2.1%, a 150 basis points ahead of last year. And with that I'll turn the call over to Matt to talk about development. Matt?
Matt Birenbaum:
All right. Great. Thanks Sean. I'll start on Slide 27. Our development activity has been moderating as the cycle matures as you can see on this slide. We've averaged about $1.4 billion per year in new starts in the middle part of the decade, but are expecting about $825 million per year for 2017 to 2019, as good deals are harder to find and capital becomes a bit more costly. This is a good late cycle run rate for development volume for us with starts in the $800 million to $1 billion per year range, keeping our local teams engaged, while preserving our balance sheet strength. As shown on Slide 28, we also continue to maintain a land-light posture at this point in the cycle. Since 2016 we have managed our land position to be at or below $100 million and we will continue to be disciplined about structuring land contracts, so that we minimize the risk of carrying too much land on the balance sheet when the cycle turns. At year-end, the only significant land position included in our $85 million in land held for development is a site in Orange County California where we expect to start construction in the second quarter. In addition to minimizing the drag from land carry, this puts us in a good position to take advantage of any interesting opportunities that might arise, if there is any future disruption in the land market. Turning to slide 29. We have structured our $4.1 billion development rights pipeline to provide a great deal of flexibility. These development rights represent future growth opportunities for the company, over the next several years. Only about half are conventional land purchase contracts with private third-party land sellers, where we would be expected to close on the land once entitlements are obtained. The other half are roughly split between asset densification opportunities, where we are pursuing added density at existing stabilized assets and public-private partnerships, which are generally long-term development efforts that span multiple cycles. These types of projects allow more flexibility to align the start of construction with favorable market conditions. Of the $800 million in new development rights added in the fourth quarter, $500 million came through three new asset densification opportunities located in three different markets. It is also important to note that, we are controlling the entire $4.1 billion future pipeline through a very modest current investment of just $125 million including the land owned and other invested pursuit cost today. And with that, I'll turn it back to Kevin.
Kevin O'Shea:
Thanks Matt. Turning to Slide 30. As we've discussed before, another way in which we mitigate risk from development is by substantially match-funding development underway with long-term capital. This allows us to lock in development profit and reduce development exposure to future changes in capital costs. As you can see on the slide, we were approximately 75% match-funded against development underway at the end of the fourth quarter of 2018. On Slide 31, we show several of our key credit metrics and compare these to the sector average for unsecured multi-family REIT borrowers. As you can see, our credit metrics remain strong in both absolute and relative terms reflecting our superior financial flexibility. Specifically, at year-end, net debt-to-core EBITDA was low at 4.6 times, unencumbered NOI was high at 91% and the weighted average years to maturity on our total debt outstanding remained high at 9.7 years. Additionally, as a result of our relative balance sheet strength, we enjoy relatively lower cost of debt funding, which is all the more notable because we issue longer-term debt. Finally on slide 32, over time we have fashioned a debt maturity schedule that enhances our financial flexibility by reducing the capital needed to refinance existing debt over the next decade. In particular, with over 20% of our debt maturing after 2028, average debt maturities over the next decade represent about $550 million per year on average, which is only about 1.5% of our total enterprise value. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim for concluding remarks.
Tim Naughton:
Well, thanks Kevin. So, in summary 2018 was better than expected for AvalonBay. We delivered core FFO of $9 per share, which was $0.07 above our initial outlook. We saw rent growth accelerate meaningfully in the second half of the year. We reduced our portfolio allocation to the Northeast and began to make strides in our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida. And we reduced leverage through cyclical low of 4.6 times extended duration and increased unencumbered NOI to more than 90% as Kevin just mentioned. In 2019, we expect the economy and apartment markets to remain healthy. For us same-store revenue growth is expected to be 3%, up 50 basis points from the prior year. Growth from external investment and capital formation will be lower than past years, due to a variety of factors mentioned earlier. And we'll continue to manage liquidity, the balance sheet, and our development pipeline to pursue growth, but in a risk-measured way as we move further into the current economic expansion. And with that, April we'd be happy to open up the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we'll first hear from Nick Joseph of Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Has a final decision to do a condo execution on Columbus Circle been made? And where are you in terms of premarketing and how has it gone so far?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure Nick, this is Matt. I can answer that one. It is our plan and the numbers that were provided are based on the presumption that we do move forward with condos there. Really the next step is going to be opening a sales office. And we expect that'll happen probably in April and then we'll see how it goes as sales go as we hope and we will proceed along that path, but probably, won't be -- yes probably won't be until the third or fourth quarter before we actually see any settlement proceeds. But that is the plan right now. We have a thin website up where we're just collecting names of interested parties but we haven't really started active marketing yet. Again we expect by April we will have a full floor and a tower complete with white-glove ready models to show and a full sales office. So, that's really when we’ll launch.
Nick Joseph:
Then how's the lease in retail space going? I think with the last re-lease you are 45% of total retail revenue leased or in advanced negotiations?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. So there's really no further update since the last quarter. We are those two spaces are spoken for and we're pleased with that. And the retailers in general get pretty focused on sales over the holidays. So not anything more to report since then.
Nick Joseph:
When does the retail NOI begin to come online?
Matt Birenbaum:
It will start I believe in the second quarter, late in the second quarter when we turn the first spaces over to those first couple of tenants for their build out.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks.
Operator:
Next we'll hear from Rich Hightower of Evercore ISI.
Rich Hightower:
Hey good morning guys.
Tim Naughton:
Hello.
Rich Hightower:
Yes, can you hear me?
Tim Naughton:
Yes, we hear you fine. Thank you.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, yes. Thanks. So, a couple of questions here. Can you -- maybe this is one for Kevin. Could you kindly break down there's $1 billion here it says new capital sourced from a variety of activities included within guidance. Can you -- I see $70 million to $80 million of that is condo proceeds. So, it sounds like you're baking in some level of certainty, at least, with regard to that line item in that $1 billion. But then between other asset sales and then other capital markets activities can you help us understand the detail behind that number?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure, Rich, this is Kevin. There's -- on slide 15, you maybe see a little bit of breakdown on external growth. So, as you pointed out on our earnings release page 23, we have on the top right some summary information with respect to our sources and uses for the year. Essentially, there's about $1 billion of external capital, we expect to source a portion of that. Broadly speaking, there's two pieces of it right now, disposition equity if you will which includes a modest amount from condo sales and the balance from wholly-owned dispositions primarily; and then unsecured debt. So, that's the capital plan. It's just really capital from those two sources, selling assets if you will and selling debt. What we'll ultimately do of course will depend on how the capital markets and the real estate markets and our business needs evolve over the year. But the current capital plan is to blended mix of debt and equity with the equity coming from asset sales and a little bit of condo sale activity.
Rich Hightower:
Okay. Thanks for that. And then I guess maybe on a related note, you tapped the ATM the last quarter roughly around where we are today in terms of the stock price. Can you tell us how that source of equity factors into how you view different sources of capital?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. Well as you know we resourced $1.7 billion of external capital last year. A little less than $50 million or 3% was from the common equity market. So it's been a pretty modest source of capital for us lately. In fact, over the last three years, we've only sourced $150 million of equity out of $6 billion of external capital. So 97% of the activity has been from asset sales and unsecured debt. We're at the part of the cycle where that's a reasonable expectation is that we would be primarily looking at the unsecured debt market and the transaction market for equity. In terms of the ATM usage last year, it was a modest amount. And essentially what we look at is among other factors kind of the liquidation cost of selling assets and what that involves from a liquidation NAV if you will relative to the alternative selling common equity. And we of course try to be thoughtful and judicious in raising common equity, given the sensitivity that some investors have for that topic. But ultimately, we're making choice on what we think is mathematically the superior choice from capital allocation point of view taking into account the alternative selling assets not merely from a growing concern NAV point of view, but take into account the liquidation cost which from time to time can include property routine costs and tax abatement costs. And going forward, we'll wait and see what the capital markets provide in terms of alternatives and what the real estate markets provide in terms of transaction pricing and what our business uses need. But as I noted before, our capital plan currently contemplates looking to the unsecured debt markets and the transaction markets from a planning point of view.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, got it. That is helpful and then one quick last one here. I appreciate the development starts on a trailing three-year average basis are down versus the prior sort of era. But starts are ticking up year-over-year in 2019. So is there anything specifically driving that with respect to specific projects in the pipeline? Or is there anything that may be characterized as the more macro view on development that's driving that? Just any color around that.
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. Rich, it's Matt. It's basically driven by one project, large project the one I mentioned that the one land position we own in Orange County in Brea. We thought that was actually going to start last year. And if you look back to our guidance for last year starts volume was higher. That project is now likely to start in the second quarter. So it's just basically move that one project and it changes the volume from one year to the next.
Tim Naughton:
Yes, and Rich, just to add to that. This is Tim. I think we talked in the past that we felt comfortable being in the $800 million to $1 billion range. So that's a level which we think we can start and basically do it on a leverage-neutral basis, based upon what the balance sheet capacity is, when you look at combination of free cash flow, additional debt capacity and amount of asset sales that we're likely to do in any given year before sort of having a trigger any tax-related distribution requirements. So it's kind of -- when you look at it over a couple of years, it's kind of consistent with that that $800 million to $900 million range.
Rich Hightower:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
Next we'll hear from Jeffrey Spector of Bank of America.
Jeffrey Spector:
Good morning. Maybe just a big-picture question on strategy possibly for Tim, just trying to think about developments and the comments on fundamentals are healthy, yields remain strong on development. Maybe specifically we can talk about I guess rates. Rates are flattening. Maybe your cost of capital will remain flat and all the forecasts had been wrong. I guess how do you balance between the healthy fundamentals again all the forecasts for higher rates or real weakening economy been wrong. How do you balance that from what you're actually seeing in your markets and how tempting is it to potentially even pickup development or take on more land, just trying to get a feel for that balance when it comes to your strategy?
Tim Naughton:
Well Jeff yes, thanks for the question. I mean some of its strategy and some of its opportunity, right? In terms of adding land to our balance sheet or significantly increase in level of development rights beyond what -- beyond maybe some of the densification opportunities that Matt mentioned. The opportunity set just isn't that compelling to really ratchet that up relative to maybe early in the cycle. I'd say, the way we're managing, it really is really kind of how we’re thinking about risks. We still think it's profitable as long as you match-fund it which we're trying to do. Even the deals that we're starting this year, we think they're sort of comfortably clear cap rates by 150 basis points plus. And as long as we're match-funding, we're basically bringing that capital onto the balance sheet and then it just becomes a matter of execution. As long as it's match-funded, it shouldn't look that much different than your stabilized portfolio other than the execution risk behind it which is something obviously is a competency of the company. And then lastly, it's just making sure that we maintain as much optionality as we can not much land, try to really manage pursuit cost carefully. If we get caught in the downdraft, we'll have some options. And in the last cycle where you had pretty severe correction, we -- we’re in many cases, we’re able to salvage those development opportunities in part because we didn't own the land and we're able to go back and at some cases renegotiate the basis. But it's really just about maintaining flexibility around the development pipeline. But I think just given where we are from a capital markets standpoint, we're not -- over the next two or three years, it's not our intent to rely on the equity markets to develop. There may be opportunities from time to time to tap the equity markets and ATM, but late cycle typically the -- I don't think it's a good strategy to rely in the equity markets to being open and available, priced at a level where it's going to be -- where you're going to be able to accrete a lot of value to the development platform.
Jeffrey Spector:
Okay, thanks Tim. That's helpful. And I guess just if we can turn to supply, I don't believe you discussed supply by market. Could you talk about that a little bit? And again one of your peers commented that they expect New York City supply to be down 50%. Can you give a little bit more details on supply in your various markets?
Tim Naughton:
Sure. I'm going to ask Sean to jump in on that. Sean, you want to take that?
Sean Breslin:
Yes Jeff. I'm happy to take that one. In terms of the various regions and given kind of the high-level overview and then talk about the distribution in specific markets if you're interested. But in New England which is pretty much Boston, we are expecting supply to tick down about 40 basis points. It was 2.9% of stock in 2018. We're expecting it to be closer to about 2.5%, which is roughly a reduction of about 1,100 units. In New York, New Jersey specifically you mentioned that region overall is expected to be relatively flat at about 1.9% of stock. New York City itself, we also expect to be relatively flat on a year-over-year basis in terms of deliveries being around of those. As it relates to the comment you made about reductions in specific parts of New York City, just so you know how we look at it. We look at it in terms of the aggregate amount of supply, delivered across New York City as opposed to potentially others may look at it relative to what they think may impact them. We try to look at it more on an aggregate fashion. So sometimes that leads to differences in the way people talk about supply. So that's specific to New York just so you know as well. In mid-Atlantic, I mentioned in my prepared remarks that we're expecting an increase in the mid-Atlantic that's all pretty much concentrated in the district, where all that supply's coming online. We're pretty flat in suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. Seattle Pacific, Northwest so 4% year-over-year both 2018 and 2019 pretty much concentrated in the urban infill markets in and around downtown Seattle, whether it's Forest Hill, downtown Seattle or even South Lake Union as an example. That's where the heavy amounts of supply are located in Seattle. There's not as much in places like downtown Bellevue, Redmond in the north end of Seattle, which has been helpful to us. And then in Northern California, we are expecting it to tick-up the most in Northern California from 1.6% of stock to 2.7% of stock in 2019 that's all coming as I mentioned in both San Jose and in East Bay. It's relatively flat in San Francisco in terms of deliveries. So it should be pretty much at par there. And then Southern California, ticking up about 30 basis points from 1.4% of stock to 1.7%, which is about 4,200 units. All of that is in the L.A. market, primarily downtown L.A. kind of Mid-Wilshire, Hollywood those submarkets, primarily a little bit in Warner Center, Woodland Hills as compared to Orange County and San Diego we're expecting supply to come down in actually both of those markets. So that's sort of a high-level overview and if you want to talk about specific submarkets happy to chat with you about that off line as well.
Tim Naughton:
Hey, Jeff just one thing to add as you probably hear from Sean's comments a lot of it continues to be concentrated in the urban submarkets as it was probably the last year we're expecting urban to basically outpace suburban supply by about two times. In our markets that two, three basically breaks down to about one-seven in the suburban markets and about 3.2% in the urban submarkets. So it's almost about twice as much. Next year, we expect that different scenario quite a bit. So –
Jeffrey Spector:
Great. Thank you. Very helpful.
Operator:
Nick Yulico of Scotiabank.
Nick Yulico:
Thanks. Good morning, everyone. A couple questions on the condo project. On Attachment 14 you give some details there, which is helpful. I guess, question is when you talk about the projected gross proceeds from sales expected to be $70 million to $80 million is that the total after-tax profit for the project?
Matt Birenbaum:
No. Nick, I think – this is Matt. I think that's just the number that we have in our budget for settlement proceeds this year. It's cash in the door basically. Okay.
Tim Naughton:
And kind of vary a lot based on when the settlements actually happen on how sales actually go. We just had to put something in kind of unexpected case for starters for budgeting purposes. If it winds up being more or less then, we may raise more or less capital from other sources as Kevin mentioned.
Nick Yulico:
Okay, yes. I think you said in the past that you expected about $150 million of incremental value above your cost on the project, which is on a pre-tax basis. Is that still a good number to think about?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes. That was last quarter, that was really think about what we think the building is worth as a condo building versus a rental building, not necessarily relative to our basis, although, we do think it's worth more than our basis. But we're saying that based on where we thought the condo values would settle out, if you looked at what the total sell-out would be of that relative to what it would be worth as an apartment building if you leased it up and if you put a cap rate on it, I think that that difference is about $150 million. That is a before-tax number.
Nick Yulico:
Okay. So do you have any number you could share on what the ultimate NAV benefit is assuming you hit your sale plans on an after-tax basis?
Kevin O'Shea:
Nick, this is Kevin. I mean, I think it's all premature. At this point, we've yet to even commence marketing. So we'll see over time what happens in terms of the sales we closed not only this year, but in succeeding years when most of the sale activity would occur. If you take Matt's comment about $150 million pre-tax value associated with the residential or condo portion, you just have to apply kind of a tax rate to that which for rough numbers assumed a third is taxes. And then the balance call it $100 million is what we would hope to achieve on a pro forma basis in terms of net profit after taxes to our shareholders when all is said and done when we finally sell everything out. But we're early days in this and we'll see what happens when we go down the path and market this and see if this is a path we ultimately want to pursue and then so what comes from that effort.
Nick Yulico:
Okay. And then in terms of the FFO impact this year, the guidance is assuming that this project is a $0.04 drag on FFO. Is that right?
Kevin O'Shea:
So just to walk through the pieces for the sake of clarity, if you look at Page 23 Attachment 14, we lay out sort of the bottom right of the core FFO adjustments related to Columbus Circle or 15 West 61st Street. So as Matt noted, we only have modest amount of sale activity in our forecast for this year $70 million to $80 million that would generate an anticipated amount of gains of $8 million that would be included within NAREIT FFO, but then excluded when going to core FFO. So you see that negative $8 million shown on Attachment 14. There are also two other line items that are worth talking about here. The first is expense costs incurred related to condominium homes. Those represent basically marketing costs and operating costs associated with selling condominium inventory. We'll incur those. They'll be part of EPS and NAREIT FFO, but -- and they will burden those items, but then we will add them back and carve that out of core FFO that's $6 million. And then there is the final line, which is the estimated carrying cost of unsold inventory. Essentially, when we complete this project you'll have call it roughly $400 plus million of condominium inventory that we will have put on to our balance sheet at a cost. We continue to carry those costs and so we will be carving those costs out of core FFO and adding it back. So essentially what we're trying to do with these adjustments is recognize that this is a different business line. It's not a traditional REIT activity and trying to present our core FFO in a manner that shows our operating performance year-over-year on kind of traditional REIT multifamily rental activities and looking at this Columbus Circle activity as a discrete business and carving those costs and gains out and treating them differently from a core FFO point of view.
Nick Yulico:
Right. Okay. That's helpful. But still all the net result here is, it looks like a $0.04 negative impact to your reported FFO in 2019. Is that right?
Kevin O'Shea:
No it's just the opposite, adding it back. So look at those items as being sort of a NAREIT FFO to core FFO reconciliation with NAREIT FFO at the top. So adding back to NAREIT FFO $6 million of expense marketing costs, reducing $8 million of gains and then adding $8 million in imputed carrying cost for unsold inventory for net addition to core FFO of $6 million or $0.04. So the net positive impact going from NAREIT FFO to core FFO when taking into account those are three line items is $0.04.
Tim Naughton:
And Nick our guidance difference was $0.05 between core FFO and NAREIT FFO. So basically this is $0.04 of that $0.05.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes.
Nick Yulico:
Okay. All right, we get a lag of 0.5. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Hill of Morgan Stanley.
Rich Hill:
Hey good morning guys. Wanted to maybe spend just little bit more time on your development pipeline, recognize why development might be coming down late cycle and clearly see it as prudent. But there's still likely some markets that need new supply of apartments. So I'm curious when you're thinking about your development pipeline, what land you have under option, where you're already developing? How do you sort of think about that relative to your existing portfolio?
Matt Birenbaum:
Rich, it's Matt. I'll try and take a shot at that one. It is somewhat bottom-up as Tim was mentioning. So it really starts with where we're seeing the best risk-adjusted opportunities? Where are the economics of development still favorable? Typically that's going to be a wood frame product at this point in the cycle. I don't think we have any -- all of our starts planned for this year are high density wood frame product and everything we started last year, except one, fit that description as well. Typically they're in kind of infill suburban locations, where demand is strong and there are more supply constraints than the urban submarkets. So it takes a little longer to get through the process and that tends to meet or out supply in a more measured way which is one reason those submarkets aren't necessarily seeing the same pressure on rents, although urban markets actually have seen rents rebound here recently a little bit. But generally speaking rents have held up a little better over the last couple of years. So, we are seeing some of the suburban Northeast deals still pencil out. This past quarter we added a development right in Long Island. It's probably a 2 year to 3 year entitlement process. Those types of deals tend to be pretty resistant to the cycles. So still be favorable. And then we're seeing opportunities in our own portfolio, locations where we already are and again as I mentioned we have six densification development rights now which is $1 billion in locations that we love, where we have the opportunity to do more over time. It's going to take a while to get at those. They're complicated from entitlement point of view, but we have one in Redmond. We have one in Mountain View. We have one in Suburban Boston. So those are great things, where the economics are likely to work through most market cycles. And then we are also trying to find opportunities in the expansion markets and we started a deal in Florida last year in Doral. We have our first ground-up development right in the Denver market, which is in RiNo, which is kind of a very hot neighborhood outside of downtown there, but it's a wood-frame product that we hope to start this year. So those are kind of the places where it's still making it through the screen.
Tim Naughton:
Yes, Rich. I think, sort of, probably the three areas where we haven't been as active, because of just cycle dynamics has been the Bay Area. We just haven't used land and construction costs, generally doesn't make new development feasible from our standpoint. Densification is a different kind of opportunity. So within our portfolio we've been able to do that. Seattle, I think, is where we haven't been that active in the land markets the last three years. And then most urban submarkets, again, due to concrete, generally doesn't pencil later in the cycles. So those are -- we try to blend sort of where we want to be, where we want to be from a portfolio allocation standpoint, use development to help us get there, but to recognize there are times in the cycle where something just doesn't pencil, which doesn’t make -- this is not as good a use of capital as other places.
Rich Hill:
Got it. And what I'm ultimately getting at, sort of, sounds like your development pipeline is nice to have and not need to have. I was struck by your growth being driven by stabilized portfolio with new contribution coming from new investment activity. So it sounds like, the development pipeline is a nice to have. It's in areas that you think really still need supply. But even if the development went away as we start to think about 2019 and beyond, your stabilized portfolio can grow consistent with peers. Is that sort of fair in the way you're thinking about it?
Tim Naughton:
Our outlook. I mean, our outlook for this year probably is somewhere in the middle of where kind of our peers are, just glancing at it real quickly. So we're in 20%, 25% of the U.S. which a lot of our peers are in the same markets. So the notion that we might perform similar in terms of same-store basis, I think, is a reasonable expectation. I would say on the development, I wouldn’t say it's a nice to have, but we think it makes sense to have. So at this point in the cycle albeit a lesser amount and being judicious about where you're deploying that capital. We think we -- this year is a really, is an anomaly, just for what's happening both on the delivery side and the capital that was raised in 2018. But we still think it's accretive both on a go-forward basis, accretive to both NAV and FFO, in particular as you consider sort of reinvesting free cash flow which doesn't have at least an initial financial cost to it, accounting cost to it. So we think we can still grow accretively both from an earnings standpoint by continuing with our development pipeline and the opportunity set that we see.
Rich Hill:
Great. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it.
Operator:
Austin Wurschmidt of KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Yes. Thank you. Good morning. You guys pointed out that your cost of capital in the past year is up about 110 basis points versus 2017 and I was just curious what are you factoring into guidance for the $1 billion you've assumed in your capital plan in 2019?
Kevin O'Shea:
Austin, this is Kevin. We've never commented on that before. We actually typically don't comment on capital markets. So by even showing the 50-50 blend of asset sales and unsecured debt, we're doing something we've never done in our 25-year history. Essentially to bite into our budget process, but we’re essentially assuming that we're going to achieve kind of market rate execution on transaction activity and unsecured debt issuance over the course of 2019.
Tim Naughton:
Kevin on the debt, we typically would just look at the forward curve and…
Kevin O'Shea:
Make some adjustments.
Tim Naughton:
Make some adjustments of that.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Thanks. Appreciate that. And then just curious what the attractiveness today is for redevelopment as you have seen rental rate growth improve albeit gradually, and given the decrease in development starts moving forward.
Tim Naughton:
Yes. Thanks, Austin. Sean you want to take that?
Sean Breslin:
Sure. Happy to do so. Yes, Austin. I mean, development -- excuse me, redevelopments been pretty active for us. We invested almost $200 million in the past year across about 7,300 homes. A chunk of that related to the rebuild at Avalon headquarters about $70 million, but still around 7,000 units that redeveloped last year. And in terms of planning forward going forward, I'd probably think about we're going to spend somewhere in the range of $150 million to $200 million a year over the next couple of years on redevelopment activity. And then beyond that it will breaks out a little bit, but the returns have been compelling and the opportunity set has been something that we're comfortable with. So that's kind of where we are.
Austin Wurschmidt:
And how do you think about the returns on those and is the majority moving forward more kitchen and bath-type opportunities versus I guess the redevelopment Edgewater a little bit of a different animal?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. Edgewater is certainly that was sort of a one-time thing. The rest of it is a combination of either full scale redevelopments where we're doing not only the apartment homes, we're doing the common areas. It includes some projects that are just purely large CapEx projects, that really just not generating any kind of incremental return. It's just CapEx. And then there are other projects which we call apartment only, which are just touching the apartment homes. And so when you look at the redevelopment activity and the apartment-only activity, typically we're seeing returns that are sort of in the 10% on capital type range based on the enhancements that are being invested in the building. And again, as I said, the CapEx side of it is probably something you just underwrite basically zero, but in terms of apartment-only [indiscernible], they generate nice returns.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks for the time.
Sean Breslin:
Yes.
Operator:
Drew Babin of Baird.
Drew Babin:
Hey, good morning. Presumably looking out to 2020 as more of the condos in Columbus Circle are sold the gains on sale number will increase. And I think that the positive add-back between NAREIT FFO and core FFO should go negative, I'm assuming. Will that the apartment NOI that you would have been getting from the project is replaced with these gains, which would be backed out of core FFO. I guess, the difference is now you have more cash coming in that can be reinvested. Do you think the reinvestment of that cash will occur rapidly enough to kind of offset the dilution to core FFO that would be happening in 2020 to see if you sold the condos and kind of how that is cash if that makes sense?
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes. Drew, this is Kevin. I'll make a couple of comments and I'll let Tim maybe want to add on top of that. So essentially to extent we generate gains on selling condominiums that will boost NAREIT FFO and of course as it would we would be true for other real estate gains. We will exclude those gains when computing for FFO. From an underlying cash point of view, certainly all else equal, we would prefer to sell through the condos quickly and receive the capital back so that we can reinvest it, and generate a return on that. And then that return, of course, will flow through naturally as any source of capital would in our earnings. In the meantime, while we have our inventory outstanding in terms of capital, we created these condominiums. We're marketing them. We're bearing cost for having created those condominiums, but we've not yet sold them. Potentially that creates an inventory cost if you will and we are adjusting for that as you can see on Attachment 14, where we have $8 million imputed carrying costs on the capital associated with the unsold inventory condominiums that were calculating at corporate unsecured borrowing rate, which is about 3.7% today. So essentially that's in add-back to core FFO from NAREIT FFO during the pendency of the cell process while the inventories and our balance sheet and not otherwise earning a return. I don't know Tim if you want to add.
Tim Naughton:
Yeah. I mean, obviously, as we sell the amount of unsold inventory goes down so carrying cost adjustment would go down with it.
Kevin O’Shea:
Yeah.
Tim Naughton:
Secondly, Drew, I would just think of this as just more disposition capital. And so just means we're going to sell less assets than we otherwise would. So in terms of how quickly you get to deploy and yeah we get deployed presumably as quickly as any other asset that we sell. So I don't know that you need to really think differently in terms of how you model it's just a source of capital and cash as Kevin mentioned.
Drew Babin:
That's very helpful detail. The other question I have here is, if you look on at least my numbers, total NOI for 2018 not same-store was up just over 6%. Corporate overhead, property management, investment management expenses all increased and this is on adjusted for severance and things like that but in the double digits. And then based on guidance for 2019 it looks like that rate moderates quite a bit. So I'm guessing where the large investments internally, I'm kind of sourcing some of these development projects or things like that in 2018 are explicitly going away in 2019? Or is there anything going on behind the scenes there causing that variability?
Kevin O’Shea:
Well, in terms of 2018 there are a number of factors that drove overhead over costs up. You did have as you may recall rent occupancy costs that were included in PMOH, which is part of the overhead that's referenced in our Attachment 14 for our outlook. G&A increased for a number of reasons. Compensation was part of it but there were some settlements in estate sales used tax accruals and then there was some severance costs. So -- and at the same time there's also been historically some investment in some strategic initiatives, which will certainly and are bearing fruit on the operating side and Sean could speak to. So there's a number of drivers of growth that we've had over the past couple of years that are starting to abate, which is why you're seeing that relative decline in year-over-year growth in overhead, which I think is about 2% to 7% based on the math in Attachment 14.
Drew Babin:
Okay. That’s all very helpful. That’s all for me. Thank you.
Operator:
John Kim with BMO Capital Market has our next question.
John Kim:
Thank you. So you have development starts picking up this year, but there's still a noticeable gap between the construction costs growth rate and rental growth. So I'm wondering if you believe that gap will narrow as you go through the development pipeline. And if not, how will that impact yield?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure, John this is Matt. It's a good question, and certainly one we've been watching. It does feel like construction costs growth in some markets has moderated somewhat. And again this speaks to the mix of business. As Tim was mentioning before, we signed a very few new development rights in Northern Cal and Seattle over the last three, four years and we have very key starts in those two regions. In fact, we don't have any Northern Cal last year or this year. And that's really a function of the reality, if that's the market -- if those of the markets that have seen the most aggressive hard costs growth relative to their rent growth. So it does affect the regional mix. And again, I mentioned some of these northeastern markets, a lot more stable and the gap between construction cost growth and rent growth is not nearly as wide, but it does put downward pressure on margins and that's one reason the volume is down.
John Kim:
On your dispositions that you've executed last year, it was the highest amount that you’ve sold, the lowest cap rates, but also you have the lower IRR compared to what you achieved historically. Is there anything unusual in what you sold last year that brought down that figure?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes this is Matt again. It really is kind of a mix from one year to another. So I wouldn't kind of infer anything from kind of the basket that happens to be one year versus another. The one thing that we do tend to see as it gets later in the cycle, there's probably more pressure on us to sell assets with a little bit lower tax gains because we just had kind of a long cycle of realizing gains and that essentially puts pressure on our dividend coverage. So again, there's plenty of other assets we could sell that would have higher returns, but they might generate enough tax gains that it would require a special dividend. So that's definitely more of a consideration later in the cycle. And then also to some extent we start looking for assets which may be are little bit more difficult in terms of the execution and calling some of the ones that maybe weren't our greatest successes, where it's easier to do that in a very strong sales market like what we've seen recently.
John Kim:
Okay. And then a final question. I guess Tim you mentioned in your prepared remarks at the beginning that you're moving away from quarterly guidance. And I'm wondering if it ended up being too distracting to manage that quarterly number? And generally speaking, what do you think about quarterly reporting and whether or not that's completely necessary?
Tim Naughton:
Well, I don't have a view necessarily on quarterly report. We continue to issue quarterly reports. It's just -- it really comes down to how we kind of manage the business. When we talk amongst ourselves and to our board, we're not talking about managing the business to what's happening in the quarter and try to minimize variances relative to our budget or explain variances relative to our budget on a quarter-over-quarter basis. When it comes to revenue, we're looking at that, daily and weekly. I mean -- but when it comes to sort of the overall earnings, there's just a lot of noise from quarter-to-quarter. And just -- we don't think it really serves a great purpose ultimately for our investors to be trying to -- always trying to sync up and explain and reconcile, what we think is often times is noise. So that's -- as much anything that’s driving it.
John Kim:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Alexander Goldfarb of Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Good morning down there. So two questions. Just first, on the condo project Columbus Circle or I guess 15 West 61st, just -- with some of the recent articles about sort of weakness I mean today in the Journal they have the article on weakness under the $5 million price point. Can you just talk a little bit about how you guys are thinking about pricing for the project now versus maybe last year when you were contemplating switching it to condos? And then how much flexibility do you have once you set price? Or it sort of a fluctuating factor as you go forward with the sales process to try and hit that target number of units that you want to sell before fully committing?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yeah. Hi, Alex its Matt. It's definitely a dynamic process. So we can change pricing weekly. You have to file your offering plan with the Attorney General with your initial pricing. And once you've done that, obviously you have the flexibility to meet the market, however you choose to do so and that's just like we change our rents every day. We'll be watching that very closely once we launch for-sale. Yeah, the market is definitely as we talked about last quarter, it's softer than it was, call it 18 months ago. And the slowdown had more been at the higher price points. There might be some softness now a little bit more in the moderate price points. So I think most market experts would tell you, if the product had been available to sell and settle in 2017, it would probably sell for higher price than where we sell today, but the price – we believe it will sell today is still very attractive relative to the values of the rental building. But again, we'll know a lot more in probably four, five months once we actually get some sales activity underway.
Tim Naughton:
Yeah, Alex, just I don't know if you had a split or remember – a little over 80% of the units are actually scheduled to be less than $5 million where as Matt mentioned, its kind of the higher end and it's feeling more of the softness. So one of the things that we like about potential condo execution here is we think it's a unique offering particularly in that submarket where units tend to be larger and much more expensive in terms of total price. So we think we're going to be competing against – other neighborhoods that maybe offering a little bit larger unit, but not near the location and lifestyle amenities that this site has. So it's – ultimately, the market will determine whether that strategy is a successful one, but we do think it's positioned relatively uniquely to everything else that's out there. Plus, it's going to be available versus buying off a plan so.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Right. Tim, yeah, that's why I asked the question, because the Journal article referenced that under $5 million price point is being now softer. The second question is on the development sort of going back one of the earlier questions was on sort of the external development is – the benefits for that are offset by the funding. So, assuming that the economy sort of stays as is, would it make sense to curtail the development pipeline even more? I'm just thinking from risk-reward perspective, if you're not being paid for it as far as boosting earnings growth from a risk perspective, why not curtail the development program even more than where it is right now if it's not adding to your earnings growth?
Tim Naughton:
Maybe, I'll take – I mean, I think I did mention earlier this is an unusual year. This is unique year and I mentioned that to an earlier question that we do expect it to add to our earnings growth and NAV growth that we do see it as accretive. And there is just some unusual things about the cadence of deliveries this year. It's only generating the midpoint development NOIs is $27 million, which was half of what was generated, the prior year. A lot of that has to do with the combination of Columbus Circle, but mainly the cadence of deliveries this year, which is largely back-half weighted. So a lot of that capital is already raised and was raised in Q4. It was raised in the form of disposition. It was raised at –
Kevin O'Shea:
Yeah.
Tim Naughton:
As I mentioned, it sort of – at a 5%. So I think there is some unique things happening. And then, if you look at what "unfunded or not match-funded", it's pretty small relative to our remaining liquidity where we have zero out on $1.5 billion line. So we think from a risk standpoint, it's pretty -- it's already pretty measured.
Matt Birenbaum:
If you look at Attachment 9, the development attachment, I don't remember the last time, only three of those deals are basically in lease-up right now, and fourth, just starting out of 21 deals. It's just an odd schedule.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Hardik Goel of Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel:
Hey guys, thanks for taking my question. Just on The Meadows acquisition, I see that 2018 build in relatively suburban sourced area, do you see a situation in the future where there's a lot of merchant built sort of product coming on the market that you could acquire at a small premium to replacement cost and you would rather do that than develop ground up if it's in the right area?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, hi Hardik, it's Matt. Definitely we're doing that. If you look at what we've been buying in Denver and in Florida and even the one deal we bought last year near BWI Airport, they all fit that description. They were brand-new assets built by merchant builders where the premium to replacement cost was pretty modest. I don't necessarily view it as an either or, I think it's kind of an and. But those are deals where certainly on the development deals we're doing in those markets, we're looking for a bigger margin, obviously, because there's more risk involved, but we think that's a great way to add to our portfolio and certainly we're doing more of that than we are development in those markets where we're doing some of each.
Hardik Goel:
Could there be a trade-off though in the future where you see more of these opportunities come up and you pare back development and maybe put that capital in acquisition? And I understand the cadence is different because of development. It's more a little bit at a time rather than acquisition you need to come up with capital right away.
Tim Naughton:
Yes, I think it's a hard one to answer. Not every cycle is the same. This cycle was particularly attractive from a development economic standpoint. Some cycles may not yield quite the development opportunity as others and therefore, you might be inclined to allocate more capital to acquisitions on a risk-adjusted basis. So, if the returns right there on a risk-adjusted basis then we're not going to allocate capital towards that activity. We'll allocate it somewhere else or not deploy it, raise it in the first place.
Hardik Goel:
And just lastly, thanks for indulging me. On the Harrison deal, could you highlight how you found that deal and like what the process was like and why you picked that specific location?
Matt Birenbaum:
Sure. That was actually a public-private partnership. We broke out the Denver assets that way. Of course for the first time that would have been in the public-private partnership bucket.
Tim Naughton:
With MCA.
Matt Birenbaum:
We've been showing it that way for the last couple of years. So, it was with the MTA literally at the train station in Harrison. It was a long process. I think we've been working on that deal for at least five years. And there's significant amount of retail there as well as residential, very infill, very high barrier to entry location in Westchester County. Honestly, we had hoped that there might be more of those at those train stations, but it's just a very, very difficult process between the state and the local jurisdictions. So, I'm not sure how many more of those we're going to see.
Hardik Goel:
Perfect. That's all from me. Thanks.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Next we'll hear from Tayo Okusanya of Jefferies.
Tayo Okusanya:
Yes. Good afternoon. Question, do you guys put any impact of Amazon's HQ2 into the numbers for 2019 guidance? And if you don't, can you just kind of talk generally about how you think about how that could impact numbers?
Tim Naughton:
Yes, Tayo, this is Tim. I mean, certainly, when we look at sort of job growth projections, we rely a lot on third parties. And certainly to some extent they're incorporating a little bit of Amazon, the Amazon effect. I think -- honestly, I think potentially, the opportunity may be more in Virginia than the -- may be more in Virginia than D.C. properties, may be some of the knock-on effects of just Amazon coming in, like a lot of other technologies companies already doing, whether it's Apple or Google, Facebook are looking well beyond Seattle and Silicon Valley for talent and establishing beachheads and other markets where there's a depth of technology talent. So I think the HQ decision just sort of validated when you look -- where the finals where ultimately they chose, where they thought there was depth of talent. And ultimately, it'll be more of a magnet I think for potentially other technology companies. So we'll see. I think nationals are huge winner in this as well by the way, its only 5,000 jobs, but I think it might have as big of an impact maybe kind of that market just given the size of the market.
Tayo Okusanya:
Got you. And then 2019 guidance while you don't explicitly talk about acquisitions, could you just talk a little bit about kind of what you may expect to see? And then two, if the focus is still on building your presence in Denver and Florida?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yes, Tayo, it's Matt. Exactly. We'll see. We don't specifically include any number for acquisitions in our guidance just because it's so unpredictable. To the extent, we find deals we like then we will fund that likely with incremental dispositions, which is what we've been doing the last couple of years and sometimes we do that through tax-free exchanges. So neither acquisitions or dispositions are reflecting the capital plan per se, but our primary focus is going to continue to be Denver and Southeast Florida.
Tayo Okusanya:
Got you. So the $1 billion you have is that all in guidance for sources of funding? That's all just condo sales?
Kevin O'Shea:
No. So Tayo this is Kevin. So essentially, conceptually, we sell assets for one of two reasons. One is to fund development. The other is as Matt -- related to kind of paired trade basis to help fund acquisition activity. We don't have any acquisitions in our budget for the year and so correspondingly we don't have any related disposition activity paired with acquisitions in our capital plan. However, the external capital of $1 billion which represents roughly a 50-50 blend of disposition equity from selling wholly-owned assets to fund development and unsecured debt is what you see there. So we do have disposition activity related to funding development.
Tayo Okusanya:
Okay perfect. And then one more if you could indulge me. The joint venture, could you just talk about the fee structure associated with that? Just trying to get a sense of if we should be building any meaningful fee income into our numbers for 2019?
Kevin O'Shea:
There are fees, primarily it's property management fee. There are some other minor fees around kind of deploying renovation capital. But I mean, the way to think about it is there's a kind of a margin rate property management fee that will be added in.
Tayo Okusanya:
I guess the guidance was that how do we kind of think about, how much you could be forecasting that?
Kevin O'Shea:
I'm sorry in terms of -- what was the question again.
Tayo Okusanya:
In terms of 2019 or how -- just kind of think about quantifying just how much fee income could be coming from that?
Kevin O'Shea:
So essentially we sold 80% of $760 million or $610 million which will generate a certain amount of revenue and against which we'll generate property management fee of call it 3%. So that's one way to think about the incremental fees associated with the New York City joint venture. It's a moderate amount of fees, but it's not akin to the asset management platform that we had -- where we had a full suite of fees that were property management, asset management and so forth. But it does provide good economics for the activity we expect to do for this venture.
Q – Tayo Okusanya:
Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Thank you.
Operator:
Next we'll hear from John Pawlowski of Green Street Advisors.
Q – John Pawlowski:
Thanks. Kevin just two quick ones for you. Your comments that lenders are becoming more cautious on the sector, could you provide more details because everything we heard at the NMHC meeting was that lenders love multifamily.
A – Kevin O'Shea:
I think on a relative basis, you're right. I think probably both comments are probably true. It's just -- I think there's increased caution in the later stages of the cycle that you want to make sure with respect to non-recourse financing that you're not over levered, that there's appropriate equity support, that there's not a lot of flexibility on terms. I do think there's -- while there is cautiousness around structuring to your point, there is relatively higher interest by construction lenders in multifamily. And pricing is relatively competitive from what we hear. We're not in the market as you’re well aware because we don't fund our construction from the construction market provided on our line. What we understand is, pricing for construction financings on non-recourse basis is 55% to 60% LTC is kind of more on the L plus mid-200 basis points range.
A – Tim Naughton:
And John just to be specific, this is Tim. Just refer to slide 23, we provide the one chart to the right which speaks to senior loan officer sentiment.
A – Kevin O'Shea:
So there's interest, but I think that lenders are just being a lot more judicious which is probably a good sign for the markets overall the discipline.
Q – John Pawlowski:
Okay. On the expense guidance, can you provide the property tax and payroll growth assumptions that are baked into 2019 guidance?
A – Tim Naughton:
Sean, do you want to handle that?
A – Sean Breslin:
Yes absolutely. John, property tax growth we're expecting is about 3% and then payroll is 2.4%. Just to give you some perspective about 60% of the total OpEx growth we expect for 2019 is coming from property taxes and insurance, control blocks base growth is really projected at 2% for payroll utilities, R&M and everything else.
Q – John Pawlowski:
Okay. Thanks guys.
Operator:
At this time, there are no further questions. I would like to turn the call back over to Tim for any additional or closing comments.
Tim Naughton:
Thanks April, and thanks everyone for being on today. And we look forward to seeing many of you in the coming months over the course of the spring. Thank you.
Operator:
That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Nicholas Yulico - Scotia Capital, Inc. Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Third Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investors Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Brandon, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' third quarter 2018 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. This attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Great. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to the Q3 call. Joining me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Matt and I will provide management commentary on the slides that we posted last night and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments this morning will focus on providing a summary of the results for the quarter, an overview of economic and apartment fundamentals, and their impact on current portfolio performance, a review of investment and portfolio management activity where we were very active this past quarter. And finally, we'll share some progress on our Columbus Circle mixed-use development. Starting now on slide 4, our highlights for the quarter include the core FFO growth of 4.1%, which was $0.03 per share above the midpoint of our Q3 outlook. You'll note that we've increased the midpoint of our full-year 2018 outlook by $0.03 to $9 per share. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.3% and the same-store NOI growth was 3.1% for the quarter. The midpoint of the range for same-store performance, revenues, expenses and NOI, remain unchanged from our mid-year updated outlook. You'll note, however, we did provide additional ranges for a revised same-store basket that excludes the New York JV assets, assuming that deal closes prior to the end of the year as expected. We completed $315 million in new development for the quarter at an average initial projected yield of 6.2% and have now completed $740 million at a 6.4% projected yield for the year. We also started two new communities totaling just over $200 million in Q3. And lastly, we raised $170 million of external capital through the sale of one community at an average cap rate of just under 4.5%. Turning now to slide 5 and an overview of fundamentals, I'll just go through this quickly. As all of you know, the U.S. economy is very healthy currently with the GDP growth running around 3.5%, corporate profits surging by double digits, labor markets one of the tightest we've seen so far this cycle, and the household wealth recently reaching record highs before the recent pullback in the equity markets. Turning to slide 6, the economy is being driven by both the business sector and the consumer. Strong business and consumer sentiment is translating into increased levels of capital investment and household formation, both of which are good signs for the economy in the housing market over the next few quarters. While these and most other leading indicators are still pointing up, there are some potential risks that are worth watching, including rising geopolitical tensions, the threat of trade wars, and the normalization of interest rates through continued Fed tightening. But, overall, it appears we'll have a solid macro environment in which to operate over the next few quarters. Turning to slide 7, this favorable macro environment is in turn supporting apartment fundamentals, which are showing signs of renewed strength with several drivers of rental demand turning up, including young-adult job growth, which is running above 2% again; wage growth reaching a cyclical high; and housing affordability actually hitting a cyclical low; all positive trends for apartment demand. These drivers are all further supported by demographics as the young-adult age cohort, or those under 34, is projected to experience decent growth for the next five years and not peak until 2024. Turning now to slide 8 in the supply side of the equation. It appears we're beginning to see some early signs of relief in supply, as both permits and starts have been declining in our markets for most of the year. In fact, over the last two quarters, on a seasonally adjusted basis, starts and permits are down by over 20% in the prior two quarters. This is probably mostly due to construction cost inflation that we've been talking about and it's been averaging in the high-single-digit range over the last year, with some regions like the Bay Area even reaching double-digit growth. With rent growth generally averaging 2% to 3% over the last year, projected yields on prospective deals have deteriorated by 25 basis points to 50 basis points over the last year, so depending upon the market. It stands to reason then that this would begin to have an impact on new development investment, and that seems to be occurring in our markets and to some extent nationally. We've also seen a pullback in the public markets as the apartment REIT sector's cut back on development underway by roughly 35% since year-end 2016. Of course, this recent pullback and start activity in 2018 won't be felt really in terms of deliveries until 2020 or late 2019 at the earliest, as we expect new deliveries to remain elevated over the next four quarters or so, as you can see in the box in the lower right in this chart. Turning now to slide 9, as you might expect, improving demand fundamentals are starting to translate into stronger portfolio performance. And indeed, this is happening. This chart depicts the four-quarter moving average in like-term rent change for our same-store portfolio. As you can see, rent change has started to turn up – again, this is a four-quarter moving average – driven by improvement in Q2 and Q3, which posted stronger rent growth than the same quarters last year with Q3 average rent growth of 3.2% or 70 basis points greater than Q3 of last year. Similarly, growth potential for the same-store portfolio has started to turn up and in Q3 was at 2.3% or 60 basis points higher than Q3 of 2017 for the same-store portfolio. And turning to slide 10, most of our regions saw solid improvement in the quarter. Northern California saw the biggest bounce with rent growth of 4%, which was 250 basis points higher than Q3 of last year. All three East Coast regions saw good improvement in the 50 basis points to 100 basis points range. Southern California saw modest deceleration and Seattle more significant deceleration from the prior year. Q3 rent growth in both of those regions, however, was still at or above the portfolio average of 3.2%. These trends have largely continued into Q4 with like-term rents up by about 3% in October. In addition, rent growth is broad-based with every region currently in the 2.5% to 4% range, and the East and West performing roughly in line with one another for the first time since 2011. I'll now turn it over to Matt, who will discuss investment and portfolio management activities past quarter. Matt?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning first to our current development activity. As you can see on slide 11, our completions this year have continued to meet our initial underwriting and deliver very healthy value creation with yields of 6.4% compared to estimated cap rates for those same assets of roughly 4.5%. In addition, our development portfolio is generating lease-up NOI as expected, contributing to earnings in 2018 right in line with our initial guidance. This quarter we completed Avalon Dogpatch, our largest development completion of the year. This wood frame community which is uniquely positioned in an emerging neighborhood of San Francisco that offers mainly high-rise product was delivered at a very compelling basis, which in turn contributes to its 6.2% yield, a remarkable result for the Bay Area. Turning to slide 12, we have an excellent long-term track record of delivering new communities in accordance with our initial budgets. This is in large part due to us acting as our own general contractor in most cases and having a majority of our trade costs locked in at the time we start a new project. This is particularly important given the increasing cost base in our industry. As Tim indicated, construction inflation is running well ahead of rent increases, a particularly acute issue in the tech markets on the West Coast. This quarter, we did recognize cost increases on two wood frame projects currently under construction in the East Bay in Emeryville and Walnut Creek. These budget increases, which collectively total approximately $40 million or 15% of our original estimate for those two projects, were the result of unexpected union pressures and subcontractor performance issues. These two projects are exceptions to the general trend which continues to reflect excellent construction execution. And across our current overall development portfolio, even including these two communities, our actual costs are tracking within 1.6% of the original budget as shown on the slide. Turning to slide 13, our sector-leading development platform continues to provide excellent risk-adjusted returns with approximately $3 billion in value creation so far this cycle and another $800 million expected from the development currently underway. While new starts may be less profitable than early cycle deals due to the cost pressures just mentioned, we are confident that long-term returns will still be highly accretive, consistent with our track record as shown in the chart in the upper left. And we continue to manage capital markets risk by match-funding our development activity as shown in the lower right. Turning to slide 14, our transactions team has had a productive year. As we executed on our strategy to rotate capital into our expansion markets of Denver and Southeast Florida, we are on track to complete the acquisition of four communities before year-end, including two suburban garden properties in the Denver area, the high-rise in downtown West Palm Beach and a garden community in the Baltimore-Washington Corridor just north of BWI Airport and the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade. We've been opportunistically funding both our acquisition and development activity primarily through the transaction market, as shown in the table on the left-hand side of the slide. We will have sold over $1.2 billion in wholly-owned assets by year-end, which after netting out $335 million in planned acquisitions leaves us as net sellers of roughly $895 million during the course of the year, providing cost-effective capital to fund our external investment activity. To provide a little bit more detail on the Manhattan JV transaction, as we announced earlier this month and as shown on slide 15, we are selling an 80% interest in five stabilized properties valued at $760 million on a gross basis. As we've indicated for the past several years, our allocation to the Greater New York region is a bit higher than we would like and this imbalance would otherwise be trending even higher due to the development pipeline we have in the region. We have sold about $1.1 billion in suburban New York assets over the last four years, but have not sold any wholly-owned properties in New York City itself until now. This transaction further reduces our allocation to the Greater New York region, while preserving our brand presence and rebalances our allocation within the region to roughly $130 million (13:06) each in the city, the New Jersey suburbs, and suburban New York including Long Island and Westchester. It is important to note that while these are among the most highly valued assets in our portfolio, there is a material difference between the short-term earnings yield or initial investment return and the transaction cap rate as that term is defined by various market participants. This is due to the presence of property tax abatements on all five assets and a ground lease structure on two of the assets, which provide a short-term boost to cash flow until their expirations and/or resets. Consequently, the unlevered earnings yield on the assets is in the low-5% range. But this yield is roughly 150 basis points higher than what might be considered a normalized cap rate after adjusting for these factors. The impact of the JV transaction on our portfolio can be seen on slide 16. Metro New York share of our total NOI will drop from 24% to 22%, closer to our long-term target of 20%. Moving to slide 17, I'd like to provide an update on our Columbus Circle development. This asset includes approximately 67,000 square feet of prime retail space on Broadway and 172 residential units, and is on track for completion next year. Turning first to the retail component of the project, this slide shows our leasing progress to-date. We are pleased to report that we have executed a 35,000-square-foot lease for the two below-grade floors and a main entrance on Broadway to Target. In addition, we are in advanced negotiations to lease just under half of the second floor space as well. These two tenants will bring us to 65% leased by square footage and 45% leased by revenue, and both are at economics at or better than our initial underwriting. We expect to turn over both spaces for TI work to these tenants in early 2019. As to the residential component, we are currently exploring a shift from rental apartments to for-sale condominiums. From the beginning, one of the most appealing aspects of this project, apart from its absolutely AAA location, has been the flexibility it provides with no tax abatements, zoning restrictions, or affordable component that would impede a condominium strategy if it offer a better return profile. While the Manhattan condo market has softened somewhat over the last year, as shown in the lower left corner of slide 18, our building offers some compelling advantages as indicated in the upper-right-hand side of the slide. Our average unit size of roughly 1,100 square feet, while large for a Manhattan rental building, would actually be on the smaller side for a condominium offering, which in turn allows for lower whole-dollar pricing than most other new product on the market. As a result, 85% of our homes would be priced below $5 million at our initial projected target pricing with a wide variety of price points depending on unit size and location in the building, averaging roughly $3.2 million to $3.5 million per home. And between the 8-foot deep (15:54) facing Broadway and the balconies on the other frontages, more than 40% of the units have private outdoor space, an extreme rarity for such a prime Manhattan address. The outdoor space is not included in the average unit size, providing even greater value to potential buyers. We're still studying this option in greater detail, but our economic analysis suggests that at current market pricing, there could be more than $150 million in additional pre-tax value through a condo execution. To maximize our optionality, we are proceeding with some modest upgrades to the finishes in the building, which we believe would have value under either scenario and which will increase the expected total capital cost by less than 5%. If we decide to proceed with the condo execution, we would open for sales in March or April of next year, establish a threshold level of minimum sales contracts which we would require before finalizing the condo regime and proceeding the first settlement. Of course, we will continue to keep you apprised of our progress and our thinking on this as it evolves. With that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Matt. So, in summary, a healthy U.S. economy is supporting stronger apartment market fundamentals in most of our regions, with same-store rent change improving over the last two quarters and so far in Q4. Development activities generally tracking expectations in terms of lease-up and yield performance, although we are experiencing some cost challenges in certain markets, as Matt mentioned. We continue to make progress on our portfolio management objectives through activity in the transaction and joint venture market. And lastly, as Matt just mentioned, we're making really solid strides in retail leasing at our Columbus Circle mixed-use development where we're also evaluating a condo execution on the residential component. And we'll certainly continue to share our thinking with that as we explore this opportunity further over the next couple of quarters. So, with that, Brandon, we'll be happy to open the call for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. The first question will come from Nick Joseph with Citi. Please go ahead with your question.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. On Columbus Circle, when do you need to make a final decision on condo execution versus rental?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Matt, why don't you walk Nick through kind of the timeline there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. Yeah. So, Nick, what we're thinking is that we would start some early pre-marketing shortly in the next month or two, just to start building a prospect list. And then, if we're feeling comfortable with it, we would open a sales center onsite probably in March. One of the things we have to offer that most other new condos don't is that we would have the product to actually show. So we think by March or April, we'll have a floor in the tower with four different unit types complete and kind of white-glove-ready as it were, which would provide – so we're not thinking pre-sales before we actually have product to show. But if we open on that schedule, we'd open in kind of March, April. And then if we were going to do that, we would just see how it goes. We would establish internally a minimum threshold percentage of units that we would want to have under contract before we locked-in. And that might take anywhere from two to four months, depending on how sales go. But it wouldn't be until after we reach that threshold, whatever it would be 30%, 40%, 50%, whatever we want, that we would then actually record the condo and start settlement. So we would have optionality all the way up until that point.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick. And maybe just to add to that, it's probably obvious, but the opportunity costs would be potentially some lost lease-up revenue over the two to three or four months that Matt mentioned, as we're seeing the kind of traction that a condo execution would get, so.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Makes sense. And if settlements do begin in the back half of next year, what do you underwrite in, in terms of timing for a total sell-out?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
To some extent, that's going to be a function of pricing and that gets into some of our tactics and strategy. I don't think we're really at a point where we want to throw a target out there yet at this point for that.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And just, finally, given the progress made on the retail we've seen, what are the longer-term plans for the retail? And will you look to sell it once it's leased or are you comfortable owning and operating longer-term?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Hey, Nick. It's Matt again. I think we would probably expect to complete the lease-up of the retail space in the next year or two, and then we'll look and we'll see. Hopefully, there'll be good NOI stream in place. But we may well turn around and decide to sell that in a couple of years because obviously it is a large retail asset and that's not our core business. But to get maximum execution on that, to go ahead and lease it up, and then we'll kind of see what it feels like at that time.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead with your question.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Hey. Good morning, everybody. Maybe just to quickly follow-up on the Columbus Circle retail question there. Can you give us a sense of just how competitive the leasing process was for the space that Target took down and then also what is currently being offered to the market there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Rich. It's Matt. I can speak to that a little bit again. There's been a lot of interest from a lot of different categories and for all different kinds of space. We have three very different priced spaces. We have the subgrade space, we have the Broadway frontage ground-level space, and then we have the second floor space. So, at this point, all the subgrade space, a little bit of the ground floor just for the entry for Target and the entry for the second floor tenant and about half of the second floor is spoken for. So, what we're left with, it's still available, would be probably 85% of the ground floor and a little more than half of the second floor. And we continue to see – it's different categories of users. Obviously, those are different rent levels, so they're different kind of tenants. So we've had pretty good interest from a wide variety of tenants for the space Target took. We've had a reasonable amount of interest on the second floor. The ground floor space is the most expensive space and probably the space that – the thought was we needed to get the anchor tenant set first and that would generate more traction there. We are talking to folks, but we always expected that to probably be the last space to lease. So we're kind of not surprised with where that sits today.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. Thanks for the color there. And then my second question, I appreciate the detail in the earnings release surrounding the New York City JV portfolio impact on same-store results for 2018. Can you help us understand, I guess, in rough terms what the impact on 2019 same-store would be from those assets being excluded from the portfolio?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, this is Sean. And to the extent that we complete the execution of the JV, whether it's December or January, those assets would be removed from same-store. So there would not be an impact on same-store per se. It would be removed for both periods for both 2018 and 2019 in terms of the calculation of the same-store metrics for the calendar year 2019, if that's your specific question. The issues that led to the potential change in guidance as a result of the closing of the JV relate to two specific issues. One is the ground lease that we disclosed previously that we acquired; the fee for Morningside Park last December, that's about $2.3 million. And then, there is another roughly $700,000 that relates to the write-off of a retail leased from third quarter of last year. So those are obviously a tailwind as it relates to the 2018 same-store results, particularly on operating expenses, and there was an impact on NOI. So, that's why it was necessary to basically indicate what the impact on the same-store performance would be by changing the composition of the bucket with and without the New York JV assets.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Yeah. I guess...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
But just...
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Aside from those two factors, the impact was negligible to the overall same-store.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. We're pretty much tracking where we thought we'd be in terms of all the same-store metrics, except for the impact of the New York transaction.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay. Yeah. And I guess to be clear, I mean, obviously the pool will change in terms of the calculation next year. But I guess my question would be, let's assume they were in the pool for all of 2019 and then we compare that number to what the pool without them in 2019 would be, just to get a sense of growth across the rest of the portfolio, if that helps frame it a little better.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, we're not ready to talk about 2019 in detail just yet. But certainly New York is a market that we'd be talking about that there's a fair amount of supply this year. The supply starts to fall off somewhat next year. So you might see some marginal improvement there. But we haven't run through all the metrics in terms of the calculation of what we expect from New York and those assets in 2019 yet to be able to give you enough insight into what the impact would have been if we didn't sell them and they remained in the same-store.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Nick Yulico with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Nicholas Yulico - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
Thank you. So, your forecast for supply in 2019 is a little bit higher than this year. Could you break that down, the impact among some of your major markets where you see supply getting tougher or easier?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick, this is Sean. Happy to address that maybe at a sort of regional level and then insight on a few markets. But as it relates to 2019, in terms of what we expect relative to 2018, we do see supply drifting down a bit in New England, primarily in Boston, up a little bit around 30 basis points in the mid-Atlantic, and then up about 80 basis points in Northern California. And if you look at the markets where there's some meaningful change to really talk about in terms of increases in supply in 2019 relative to 2018, D.C. is about 3,500 units and then the East Bay and San José are each about 2,400 units in 2019 and beyond what they projected to deliver in 2018. In terms of meaningful declines, what we can see for sure, Boston about 1,100 units, Baltimore about 2,000, Orange County about 1,200, about 2,000 in San Diego. We do expect to see a decline in New York City, but given the nature of the construction and delivery cycle there, there's some question as to what's going to be delayed moving into next year. So we expect some modest reduction there, probably not what would have been anticipated mid-year when we saw it at that point, which is more meaningful, but we'll be scrubbing that pipeline later in the fourth quarter to provide good solid updates when we get into the January call.
Nicholas Yulico - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
Okay. That's helpful. And then going back to the potential condo sales now in New York, I get that the overall NAV impact may be higher, or the NAV benefit may be higher. But how do you weigh that versus taxes you'd have to pay on sales of units, economic risk for selling units rather than leasing them and, lastly, how this all sort of plays into FFO? And I'd say it feels like investors have kind of discredited condo sales income in FFO historically for REITs. So, how do you kind of weigh all that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Nick, Tim here. First of all, as an investment, when we first got into this, we had a sense that maybe condo may be the highest and best use, just given the fact there's no affordables here, just the outstanding location. We programmed the community to give us some optionality. While the units are smaller than a typical condominium, they're larger than the typical rental. So we'd always sort of programmed this to provide some optionality. As we got further into construction and we saw what the potential differential was between a rental value, capital highs and condominium, we just thought we owed it to ourselves as a good capital steward to explore further. And, as Matt mentioned, we think the differential may be about $150 million on a pre-tax basis. So, even if you calculate some tax in there, so that's probably still talking about a nine-figure differential. And we think that we owe it to ourselves to explore that. And just the fact that this building is going to be ready for occupancy sometime next year, it is a unique advantage in that we have existing units that we can sell, whereas a lot of condos that are on the market today are on a pre-sale basis that are well beyond that kind of time period in which they can deliver. So the cost here, the opportunity cost is a little bit of upgrades that we think we can capture value on the rental side as well. But it's really sort of foregone lease-up NOI for a few months. If we decide that demand just isn't there at the kind of values that we thought, we can always turn the lease-up on this thing in really a couple weeks. So I think the risk profile, this is maybe a little different than somebody who's thinking about this from ground-up perspective. Renting is our base business, and so if that's the fallback, we don't really see where the extra risk is. And we'll probably ultimately will require a higher pre-sale requirement before making the condominium effective than maybe somebody who is building a condominium purpose-built from the beginning. So, hopefully, that's responsive to the questions. It's something we've been thinking a lot in terms of how to just risk-manage this opportunity. And as Matt laid out in his schedule, we think we've done that. And as we said, we'll continue to keep both the analysts and investment community very well informed as to how we're seeing the market and how it's playing out.
Nicholas Yulico - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
Okay. Appreciate that. Thanks, Tim.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Juan Sanabria with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Just a question on the strength or lack thereof of seasonality this year. Have you seen any benefits from an elongated seasonal lease-up period that may act as a headwind as we think about 2019 versus 2018?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Juan, this is Sean. Not really. I mean, things are pretty much falling within a traditional cycle for us in terms of seasonality. So I don't think there's any material impact if you look at it. I mean, there was some discussion around that topic a couple of years ago as it relates to some specific markets and what was happening and a shortened durations to the leasing season, but nothing unusual in terms of what we're seeing this year that would bleed into 2019.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And just going back to Nick's question about developments and kind of the earnings impact from an FFO perspective, I guess is there any development – or should we think about any risk to FFO on developments coming online for 2019 kind of with and without going condo on the Upper West Side project?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Juan, this is Kevin. The only development that really is relevant here would be on the Circle. And as Tim alluded to, there would be as a consequence of pursuing a condo strategy, if we go that route, a couple of impacts as we've discussed. We wouldn't have the lease-up NOI, you'd have capitalized interest ceasing as it would for a rental but it would be stopped once those units were made available, and then probably be some marketing costs associated with the pursuit of a condo strategy that would probably be carved out of core FFO. So those are probably the two big things, the fact that there might be condo gains that would be carved out of core FFO, marketing costs would be carved out of core FFO. And then I guess the third thing is lease-up NOI that wouldn't be present on the residential piece. There may be one or two other things, but those are the main things.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And when we give our outlook in January 1, we'll be explicit as to what our underlying assumptions are with respect to Columbus Circle and lease-up income as we have this year.
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Juan, just one other thing to add to that. I'm not sure if you were referring to this or not, but there was some discussion as we moved into 2018 that our deliveries in 2018 would be down a fair bit relative to 2017. As we move into 2019, we do expect deliveries to come back up to levels that are more consistent with what we saw in 2017. Obviously, you have to set aside the Columbus Circle which would have different use, but you'd start to see more deliveries coming through which would obviously look different to us in terms of earnings impact in 2019 versus 2018.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Great. And do you guys mind giving the portfolio-wide new and renewals for the third quarter and what you're setting out the fourth quarter numbers at for renewals?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. In terms of portfolio-wide numbers as opposed to individual markets, I mean, as Tim alluded to in terms of October, we're running around 3% in terms of blended rent change for the entire portfolio. And then if you're looking at offers, offers are sort of in the mid-6% range for November and December.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. This is really the first quarter we've seen turnover increase in some time, and I'm just curious if this was necessarily by design or just a function on the higher rents on renewals starting to force tenants out? And then, did you see any notable increase, I guess, in the regions for move-out?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Austin. This is Sean. What you're seeing is a little bit of an anomaly. We had more expirations in the third quarter of this year relative to the third quarter of last year. So, if you look at it, turnover as a percentage of expirations, it was actually down about 220 basis points, pretty consistent with what we've seen through most of this year in terms of reduced turnover. But there is a change to the expiration profile that moves the numbers a little bit from quarter-to-quarter. So, in general, the trend has been down in terms of reduced turnover, and that remains the case. So, in terms of reasons for move-out, there's no material changes whatsoever in terms of what we've seen this year relative to last year. It's been pretty consistent.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for the clarification. And then, as you evaluated the New York City joint venture, I mean, did you consider including any assets in the outer boroughs, I guess, considering that's where it seems like a significant portion of the new supply is being delivered over the next several quarters?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Hey, Austin. It's Matt. We didn't. Actually the portfolio that we brought to the market was all Manhattan assets and it was all stabilized assets. And that was by design that for the types of capital we were looking to partner with and selling a partial interest sale, we wanted a portfolio that had a fair amount of consistency to it. And so we were advised by the folks who were working with on it, and I think appropriately, that the more consistent the portfolio could be the better. And for many capital sources, there's still obviously deep, deep institutional demand in the boroughs as well, but that would be kind of the thing that would get the most attention from the capital that we were targeting.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for taking the question.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Drew Babin with Baird. Please go ahead.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Hey. Good morning. A question on New Jersey. It looked like revenue growth year-over-year decelerated a bit in 3Q relative to 2Q. And I was just wondering with a decent amount of supply looking to come to North Jersey next year, is that a market that you expect to maybe be a bit softer going forward? And I guess can you talk about Northern Jersey versus some of the properties you have in Central Jersey and what's going on there?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Drew, this is Sean. Happy to chat about that. In terms of Northern New Jersey, we don't have a significant portfolio there. And I'd say what's probably most exposed in this supply, as it normally is, is our Jersey City asset. Yeah, there's a fair amount on the Gold Coast being done, but we don't have a big presence there other than potential impacts on Jersey City. So you will see some impact there. And the rest of the assets in Bergen County are generally, at this point, in terms of the nature of how they perform, they tend to be not super high data assets is the way I'd describe them. So they're not right along the Gold Coast in terms of sensitivity to new supply. So they tend to just chug along and perform quite well, same thing with the Central Jersey assets for the most part. So they don't present a lot of volatility, but they tend to be stable environments like this where there's a lot of supply at the high end, whether it's in the city or on the Gold Coast in Northern New Jersey. So we'll provide better insight into it in terms of the supply as we get into next year, but it's a pretty stable book of business overall. It kind of runs like Long Island in terms of performing pretty well without a lot of volatility.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
And I guess a related question as you kind of rotate around New York City, the Fairfield-New Haven market, it's not in the New York metro disclosures, doesn't really grow like Boston but also not a lot of new supply. I guess, how should we think about that market long-term? And is there potentially a point where that might make sense for harvesting some capital?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I'm happy to comment on that and then Matt can as well. We certainly have been a net seller in the Greater Fairfield market over the last few years. And based on what we're seeing overall in terms of demand drivers in that environment, independent of supply, we probably will likely to be a net seller. But, again, that market tends to perform just like the other ones that I mentioned, tends to run – I mean, we're talking about 2% year-over-year kind of numbers right now. It tends to hold between, I'd say, 1.5% and 2.5% historically in terms of revenue growth if you look at it over a longer period of time. But to the extent that we find opportunity to sell some of those assets, some of which are uniquely positioned potentially as for-sale assets or others or other uses as rental, we will certainly consider that.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Okay.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Drew, this is Matt. I'll just add to that a little bit. We do think of Fairfield and New Haven, they're actually two separate MSAs. So we're pretty much out of New Haven at this point. We sold Milford last year, which I think was our last asset in the New Haven MSA. But of what we have left in Fairfield, a lot of it is much further kind of down county, closer to New York City with better train connectivity. But there are still probably a few assets that are a little more far-flung that we are likely to sell there in the next couple years.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
That helps. And then lastly, a question for Kevin on the balance sheet. Seeing property yield on sales obviously down in the mid-4x range, as 30-year debt sort of in the mid-4x range, is there a certain point where if that costs begin to creep up more that you might considered even lower leverage model if the economics between selling properties and secured bonds, if the difference, at least in the short-term, kind of equals out? Is that something that might be explored or should we continue to think about roughly 5x net debt-to-EBITDA sort of the lower bound to the leverage target?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Drew, it's Kevin. Yeah. I think for now probably thinking about our leverage target in the low 5x net debt-to-EBITDA turn level seems to make sense. Certainly, we're tracking where capital costs are today and we have been able to sell some attractively priced assets to help support our investment activity. But I think we're pretty comfortable with where our leverage is right now.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Great. That's really helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Richard Hill from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead with your question.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
This is Ronald Kamdem on for Richard Hill. Just two quick ones from me. Just looking at the projected long-term goals in terms of New York, and given that that's going to be one where you continue to sell, just curious between New York City, New Jersey, New York suburban, do you guys have a sense of where some of the low-hanging fruits are? Are there going to be more sales in New York City, is it Jersey or is it sort of all around?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, sure, Ronald. This is Matt. As I've mentioned in the prepared remarks, we had been selling more in the suburbs than the cities, but this is really the first time we've sold wholly-owned asset in the city this cycle. And I think the balance right now, which is roughly a third, a third, a third, feels pretty good. So, we may lighten up a bit more in the New York metro area. But I would look for kind of those proportions to the extent we do. Central Jersey, we might be a little heavy still because we have a lot of development actually coming in Central Jersey. So it might be a little bit more weighted that direction. But we're trying to keep the same rough proportion.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. And the other one, I was just – it was interesting when you mentioned the two communities in Northern California where those construction costs increased and so forth. One, is there any other markets where you're seeing that sort of pressure? And two, can you just talk about maybe some of the long-term benefits in terms of reducing supplies to those areas?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, it's interesting. The flip side of the pain, right?
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Right.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Certainly, in terms of hard cost pressure, Northern California would be the most extreme right now. Frankly, Denver is also seeing quite a lot of it. We're not building anything in Denver, but that is one thing that's informed our approach to partnering with others and frankly lay off some of that risk to partners, and through potential kind of capital JV-type structures that we've been looking at, similar to what we're doing in Southeast Florida with TCR in Doral. So, Seattle has seen quite a bit of pressure. I think it has, for whatever reason, a little bit of a deeper labor market and subcontractor base. So, while it's seen also a great ramp-up in supply, it hasn't responded quite as aggressively as Northern Cal, but that would be the other region where we're seeing still very strong hard cost growth. The impact on supply, we'll see. I think, as Tim mentioned, we're starting to see it in the start numbers in our markets in general, perhaps more so in Northern Cal. I'd tell you, on the development side, we haven't signed up a new third-party development right in Northern Cal in years. What we are focused on is entitlements where we begin to flying (44:06) in our own portfolio and we had a couple of great opportunities there and/or public-private partnerships, like the deal we have with the city at Balboa Reservoir. So we've certainly seen it in our behavior. And you would think at some point it would start to impact starts there. Again, we're seeing it across our portfolio. I don't know that it's disproportionately to Northern Cal right now though.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Helpful. Thank you. That's all I got.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates. Please go ahead.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Hi. Thanks for taking my question. First one, just going back to Columbus Circle, I just want to make sure I understood the catalysts more near-term. When you have the flexibility over time to think about condo versus rental I think since the transaction was initially announced, the for-sale market probably has gotten softer. And then you've got tax reform on top of that kind of creates some additional risk on the ownership side. So, just wondering, is there something that happened more recently or something as you think about the rental assumptions that would have tilted this towards condo?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Dennis, maybe I'll start and let Matt jump in if you like. I think the one thing that maybe we underestimated was the value of selling a new condominium versus a conversion. So, just from a pure value and execution standpoint, we probably underestimated that as we thought about kind of what our options when we made the investment in the first place. So, that's informed our view a bit in terms of exploring it now rather than saying let's just lease it up and explore it when the market is white hot. So, that's probably been the biggest factor. From a rental standpoint, the market has been pretty flat to slightly up, I think Sean mentioned. So, that really hasn't changed in terms of our view of the rental economics at least on the revenue side.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. And then, as you think about just the backdrop of the market, you noted a couple of stats there on the slide there about contract activity being down and pricing incentives being up. What would you be assuming over the next 18, 24 months as far as the backdrop of the market? Are you just kind of holding that steady as far as the competitive nature?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, I guess the way we're thinking about it is we're going to go into this pre-marketing period and see how strong the market is and let the market tell us. And so, to the extent we get a great response there through the brokerage community, the brokerage network, we think we can start converting some of those prospects to contract within that sort of the second milestone to actually try to start building contracts. And again, we have sort of a second opportunity to decide whether we want to move forward or not based upon the strength of the market. And again, we don't have to be committed to this route. If the weakness just is stronger than we think, then we always have the ability to lease these units up and essentially cancel any deals that we may have had in the market. So we think we've got a couple sort of milestones here that we can sort of test the depth of the market. And if it's there, we'll go. If it's not, we'll go back to sort of plan A.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. And then, just one last question on the supply outlook. Today you're looking for relatively stable deliveries in your markets 2018 versus 2017, and then 2019 to be up a little bit. If we go back to earlier in the year, I think 2018 was going to be up more and 2019 would have been a fairly sizable drop. Can you just maybe explain kind of the shifting between the years? How much of this is a net-net increase if you look at 2018 and 2019 together, versus just maybe delay from some of the competitive supply?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I think – Dennis, it's Sean. When we talked about it earlier in the year, I think what we said is that we expected some mild reduction probably in 2019. But given what we've seen historically, to the extent that we see more delays than what has been normal the last two or three years, those numbers could even out. And based on what we see today, that appears to be happening. So the same assets are under construction and what's actually getting delivered in 2019 is increasing as a result of some movement from 2018. So, as I said earlier in response to one of the questions, we'll be scrubbing the pipeline hard here in Q4 before we finalize our guidance for 2019, and be able to provide a good update at that point. But to be honest, just based on where we are in the cycle for construction and the labor availability, you can say that 2019 number, you expect that probably to come down some as you move through 2019. It's just hard to get visibility on exactly where it's going to be and how much.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
But net-net, as you sit here today, is that collective 2018, 2019 in your markets higher today than earlier in the year or just distributed differently?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Distributed differently based on what we know.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. Thank you, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
As a nearby resident, thanks for bringing Target to the neighborhood. On your developments, with the pullback in starts among your competitors, is your strategy now to increase your pipeline going forward or elevated costs kind of keeping you at current levels?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. John, it's Matt. I mean, our pipeline is driven by two things
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. John, just to put some numbers to it. I think we talked about this this last quarter. If you looked at the 2013 to 2016 period, we probably averaged somewhere around $1.3 billion in starts. And it was our expectation in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that was probably going to be down kind of commensurate with what I said, the overall REIT sector is down by about 35%, 40%, more in the $800 million, maybe $900 million range. And that's kind of consistent with kind of the market opportunity that we've seen as well, as Matt was mentioning in his remarks. So, that's kind of where we see it, at least for the foreseeable future, all subject to kind of what the economics actually look like at the time which we have to actually make the capital allocation decision.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
And is the 6.4% yield that you've had on completions year-to-date, is that representative of your overall pipeline at Columbus Circle or when you're underwriting for new projects?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
The development rates that haven't yet started, the basket as a whole is probably in the low-6s, so it's probably just a little bit under that. But it varies a lot based on where you are in terms of geography and product type.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. And just one quick one on Columbus Circle. The local press is referring to the building as 1865 Broadway. Is the retail basically being rebranded or branded differently than the residential?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, I mean, the residential address is actually 15 West 61st Street. Whether rental or condo, that's where the front door to the residential is. It's obviously not on Broadway, which is the prime, most viable retail space. And the retail address is probably a Broadway address. There may be a second floor tenant who technically has a 61st Street address as well, but the retail engages with Broadway, the residential really engages with the side street.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The next question will come from John Guinee with Stifel. Please go ahead.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Great. Thank you. A bit of an oversimplification, but on the condo conversion, looks like, let's say, $110 million profit after tax, 172 units, about $650,000 in additional value created after tax. What happens to the retail we're assuming that you get out of that? Can you make any money on the retail or would the retail offset the value created on a condo?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
John, we don't expect to lose money per se on the retail. As Matt mentioned, it's not our core business area, so we're probably a little less confident in our projections here. But based upon our pro forma and the kind of rents that we're currently renting at, we think it probably contributes modestly to the profitability of this project.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Great. And then a second question. What's your crystal ball look like for hard costs over the next two or three years, assuming the economy remains reasonably healthy? Is it the north of 5% annual increases or more inflation-esque at 2% to 3%?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. No, it's a great question, John. When you're kind of in the middle of seeing these really healthy single digits, you kind of ask yourself what's going to change to sort of change that outcome. We are seeing a drop in starts in our markets. So, that's the first sort of canary in a coal mine where it might actually see some relief on pricing. You are starting to see the builders reporting order volumes being down, so that might help a little bit. But we're at full employment and we're not replacing some of the skilled labor we have in the construction trades. And so, this is maybe both a secular issue and a cyclical issue. So I don't think we're – we're not betting that it's going to be 2% or 3% or in line with rents, and it's one of the reasons why we're trying to maintain as much optionality on the development of that portfolio as we can. So we also laid it out. Until there's some kind of correction or, ultimately, if we need to write off some of these deals, we will if we just see them as uneconomic.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Last question, any effect on land prices or land prices are sort of remaining sticky?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I think it's still too early. John, this is Matt again. We do get that question seems like every quarter. We're waiting. But land prices are sticky. I would say, for the most part, they probably stopped going up. And there are deals that aren't trading. There are land deals that aren't trading. So, in terms of maybe getting a little more favorable, people don't always expect to put it under contract today and close tomorrow. But we haven't seen any material decline in land prices that would make up for the increase in hard costs yet.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. The thing to remember, John, is land costs are generally 15% to 20% of total capital costs; whereas, construction is probably 65%, maybe as high as 70%, and soft costs maybe another 15%. So, land costs will have to come down a lot to make up for the kind of appreciation and escalation we're seeing on the construction side.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you for your question. The next question will come from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead with your question.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Hey. Good morning down there. Two questions. First, as far as the condo and the retail at Columbus Circle, are those now both in, like, a TRS? Or as far as the retail goes, is there some sort of holding period that you need to maintain to allow that to be good REIT income versus having it be taxable?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Alex, they actually are both in TRSs.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. That's easy. And then the second question is, just as far as New York State goes, with the rent control coming up for renewal next year and the possible change in the Senate and Albany composition, is there any concern that if they change the rent control laws that that would impact your affordable units that are part of your 421-a or those are separate from any legislation changes they may consider?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Alex, this is Sean. A good question with a whole lot of speculation around it. And whether the impact would be on affordable homes specifically or more of the market rate homes that are subject to rent stabilization because of the 421-a program, I suspect anything that would be related to the 421-a program, given the fact it's already occurred over that, would probably be very difficult to get through. And that's what would impact potentially our portfolio. It wouldn't impact it in a meaningful way. There's only about 7% of the units in the portfolio that are basically at legal caps at this point in terms of the rents that are allowed. So the impact wouldn't be material. But I wouldn't suspect that that would happen, given everything we've been through on the 421-a program over the last few years in New York.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. But if they change and do away with vacancy decontrol, you don't think that that would impact you or that could impact you?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It depends on what they're talking about in terms of the population of units that would be impacted by any change, whether it's affordable units or just the stabilized units, because you're into these different programs in New York that you have to work through. So I'd be surprised if it was on the market rate units that are subject to stabilization because of 421-a, as opposed to technically affordable units that are set aside that are different.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So there's a lot of speculation around this, but there's nothing substantial that's actually being drafted or negotiated. So I think we'd likely be okay, but even if something came through that affected the piece that we'd be worried about, it wouldn't be a material impact on the assets.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thank you, Sean.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
Thank you for your question. The next question will come from John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors. Please go ahead with your question.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Thanks. On Columbus Circle, if you had kept it or if you do keep it for rental, what was the unlevered IRR expectation over the long-term for this site?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hi, John. We typically don't provide disclosure on projected long-term IRRs, but I think we gave a sense that we thought the economics here on a development basis were in the mid-4% range, including the retail. So you'd have to sort of kind of – you can probably input your own assumptions there in terms of growth and reversion at cap rates, as to what that would translate into an unlevered IRR.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Yeah. Understood. Could you share the contracted retail rents per foot and what's under negotiation? How does that compare, how will it compare to initial underwriting?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Hey, John. It's Matt. Yeah. We're not going to disclose what the actual rents were in the lease. But as I did mention, the two deals that we have either signed or very close to being signed are both at or better than the economics we had underwritten both in terms of rent and also in terms of TIs and free rent. So, so far, we're tracking a little ahead of our program. Obviously, we still have a lot of space left to lease.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Okay. That helps. Thanks a lot.
Operator:
Thank you for the question. The final question will come from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Yeah. Hi, everyone. Just want to go back to those East Bay developments. I think you mentioned you had a $40 million cost overrun. But when I look at Avalon Public Market and Avalon Walnut Creek, it looks like the cost went up $30 million. So, did the subcontractor eat the $10 million? And then if you have costs locked-in ahead of time for the developments, was this driven by increased labor costs or did the whole thing just had to be reworked?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Hey, Wes. It's Matt. You're right. What we recognized this quarter across those two projects compared to last quarter was $30 million higher. To be fair, there was an additional $10 million in cost increases we had already recognized on Emeryville, if you go back to the very beginning when we first started the projects. So, relative to what we thought what our initial budgets were, that's where the $40 million came from. And you're right in that, normally, 90-plus-percent of the time when we start a project we have, most of the trade costs locked-in with subcontractors who perform. And consequently that's why if you look at that slide, over a long, long period of time, we're generally bringing projects in within 1% of budget plus or minus. This is the kind of environment in Northern California, particularly right now, kind of one market once every cycle where you see – while you thought you had your costs locked-in, the subcontractors failed to perform. You force them to build it. If they're not making money doing it, they thought they could get labor at a certain price, they couldn't. One of those deals in Walnut Creek we had a further complication which was it's a public-private deal with BART as the ground lessor and there were some prevailing wage requirements which in turn created additional union requirements for the execution that we were not expecting there. So, that was a piece of it as well. But, generally, we are very successful in locking down our costs at the start. But there are extreme situations and this would be one of them where the subcontractors just won't perform and you basically have to switch, find new subs at whatever the prevailing market price at that time is.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Wes, maybe just to add a couple of general comments. I think they do apply to what's happened in the East Bay. And as you get late in the cycle like this where we have a lot of production going on, I mentioned earlier just the lack of skilled labor, they are adding skilled labor, but it's oftentimes not as productive, not as good, and just the market is so stretched that the margin for errors is just very low. So, there if one sub fails, it tends to have a cascading effect on all the subs behind them. So, in a normal market, sometimes if one sub fails, you can oftentimes replace them quickly without an impact to schedule or cost to the other subs. That's not this kind of market right now, particularly in Northern California, just a very low margin of error, and something that we're trying to be mindful of from a risk standpoint at this point in the cycle, so.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And then last one for me. We obviously just heard Sears filed bankruptcy and we're hearing from a lot of the retail landlords that this can unlock some densification opportunities. So, have you noticed an uptick in inbound calls to Avalon looking at potential multi-family on retail sites?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
John, we've actually – I'm sorry, Wes, that's something we've been working on for a while. And, in fact, the deal I mentioned, the new dev right this quarter which is at the Alderwood Mall outside of Seattle, that is actually a former Sears box. So we're working with GGP on it but actually Seritage is in the deal as well. And we assigned a fairly senior development person to kind of work on those opportunities really about a year or two ago. So we continue to talk to mall owners, to retail owners, and we do view that as a great opportunity for us. I don't think there's anything – we're not seeing any more specifically because of the Sears bankruptcy yet, and frankly, a lot of those locations are not locations that we're going to be all that interested in but, as a general macro trend, absolutely.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks a lot, guys.
Operator:
Thank you. This concludes the Q&A portion for today. I'd like to turn the conference back over to Tim Naughton for closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Brandon. And thanks for all of you being on today and look forward to seeing you in the near future. Take care.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's event. You may now disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA LLC Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investors Relations. Mr. Reilley, please go ahead.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Travis, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities second quarter 2018 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measure and other terms which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q2 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin, and I will provide a brief commentary on the slides that we posted last night and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing first, an overview of results for the quarter. Secondly, an update to our outlook for the full year; and then, lastly, we want to touch on how we're managing risk at this point in the cycle. Starting on slide 4, highlights for the quarter include core FFO growth of 6.7% or $0.04 per share above the midpoint of our Q2 outlook. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.5%, which was about 20 basis points higher than budget for the quarter and roughly 30 bps above budget year-to-date. We completed $140 million in new development at an average initial projected yield of 6.4% and so far this year completed $430 million at a projected yield of 6.5%. And then, lastly, we raised about $300 million of external capital through the sale four communities at an average cap rate of 4.7% as the transaction market continues to be very healthy. Turning now to slide 5 and touching on our outlook update for the full year, core FFO growth is now projected at 4.1% or 50 basis points above our original outlook. Same-store revenue and NOI growth are expected to come in at 2.4% and 2.3% respectively, both up by about 30 basis points from our original outlook. Expected NOI from development is unchanged at $52 million as deliveries, occupancies, and rates are all largely consistent with plan. Projected development starts for the year, still tracking our plan of roughly $900 million. And then, lastly, planned external funding for the year is now $950 million. We're about $300 million less than originally expected, mainly due to reduced development spend at some new developments that started or expected to start a little later in the year than we had originally planned. Turning now to slide 6. Slide 6 provides a breakdown of our revision to core FFO of $0.04 in the revised outlook. As you can see, higher than expected stabilized community NOI from same-store and redevelopment is driving the upward revision with virtually all of that coming from stronger-than-expected revenue growth. Minor revisions to our capital plan and updated overhead projections more or less offset one another for the balance of the revisions to our forecast. Turning now to slide 7. What's driving this upward revision? It's really coming from stronger-than-expected economic and job growth. And if you look at it nationally, job growth is expected to be about 400,000 jobs or about 20% higher than initial forecast that was embedded in our original outlook. And about 150,000 jobs or about 30% higher than originally anticipated in our markets, which are even stronger. On the supply side, if you look at projected deliveries in our markets, we now expect to be off by about 5% from what we had anticipated at the beginning of the year. And so that the operating performance is really being driven by stronger-than-expected fundamentals on both the demand and supply side. I'm now going to turn it over to Sean to provide a little bit more color on portfolio performance across our markets. Sean?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 8, as Tim mentioned earlier, we increased the midpoint of our same-store revenue growth outlook by 30 basis points to 2.4%. This outperformance is supported by our outlook for stronger growth in New England and Northern California which represents about 35% of our portfolio; and is being partially offset by weaker performance in Seattle, which only represents about 5% of assets. For New England, it's benefiting from better than expected performance in the Boston market, job growth which has been running at an annualized rate of 1.6% over the past six months. A reduced level of supply resulted in fairly positive momentum thus far this year. At the portfolio level, reduced turnover which is down more than 400 basis points in Q2 alone has allowed us to maintain roughly 96% occupancy as we push rental rates. We achieved 3.8% rent change from our primarily suburban portfolio during Q2 and are trending above 4% for July. In Northern California, better-than-expected job growth, strong wage growth and overall confidence in the tech sector has led to increased demand in both San Jose and San Francisco. Job growth has accelerated to an annualized pace of 2% in San Francisco and 3% in San Jose over the past six months. This healthy level of demand combined with moderating supply has resulted in better pricing power over the past quarter. Many of our year-over-year key performance metrics for San Jose and San Francisco improved materially during Q2. Turnover decreased more than 700 basis points in San Jose and 900 basis points in San Francisco. Occupancy increased 60 basis points in San Jose and 80 basis points in San Francisco. For the quarter, occupancy averaged roughly 97% in each market. The median household income of new residents was up 7.5% compared to Q2 last year. And rent change averaged 4.7% in San Jose and 4.6% in San Francisco, up 160 basis points and 350 basis points, respectively compared to Q2 last year. When you look at July, rent change is trending above 5% in both markets. Moving to the Pacific Northwest, performance is moderated as new supply, which has had a cyclical (07:58) of inventory comes online. Job growth remains strong, but is also slowed from the blistering pace of a couple years ago. Rent change in our portfolio averaged 3% in Q2, about 400 basis points below what we achieved in Q2 2017. In terms of portfolio revenue growth, year-to-date results have also been impacted by activity, including lease terminations associated with our retail portfolio in the region. On a year-to-date basis, our 3% same-store revenue growth rate represents 3.5% revenue growth from the residential portfolio and a roughly 15% reduction in the revenue generated from the retail portfolio. The performance in our New York, New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern California regions is expected to be relatively consistent with our original outlook. Moving to slide 9. The healthy demand we've experienced over the past year, combined with the leveling-off of supply, has resulted in relatively stable rent change at the portfolio level. This slide depicts the trailing four-quarter average rent change to eliminate the effect of seasonal patterns in our business. We've averaged roughly 2% since Q2 last year, which has supported revenue growth in the low to mid-2% range the last four quarters. In terms of recent activity, blended rent change for July is currently 3.25%, about 50 basis points greater than what we achieved in July 2017. This is the first month the portfolio has produced a material year-over-year increase in rent change since October 2015. Renewal offers for August and September are running in the high 5% range, about 25 basis points greater than the offers made at the same time last year. Now, I'll turn it over to Kevin to talk about development in the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Sean. Turning to slide 10. As the business cycle has matured, we have focused on reducing development risk while further enhancing our credit profile. As you can see on slide 10, we have reduced development starts for 2017 and 2018 to about $900 million per year. This is $500 million or 35% lower than the average start volume of $1.4 billion per year in the preceding four-year period. At this reduced level, new development starts can be funded on a roughly leverage neutral basis through a combination of internal free cash flow, leveraged EBITDA growth, and disposition activity. As shown on slide 11, we focused on increasing timing flexibility within our $3.5 billion development rights pipeline so that we have greater flexibility to adjust new development starts to real estate and capital market conditions. Specifically in the first two bars on the left, about 40% or $1.4 billion of the pipeline represents projects that are likely to start over the next two-and-a-half years. In the middle bar, about $400 million of potential development activity represents opportunities to densify existing apartment communities on the West Coast and an opportunity with flexible timing in the Mid-Atlantic. These opportunities can proceed as starts when entitlements are complete if they continue to make economic sense at that time or these can be held in inventory for the next cycle at little cost if necessary since there is no third-party land to be purchased. And about one-third or $1.2 billion represent projects that are likely to start at least a few years from now sometime in the next cycle. Much of this business is public-private partnerships with flexible timing and representing a different risk profile than our typical development right. It is also worth noting that we are controlling this $3.5 billion development pipeline with a total investment of only $170 million as of quarter-end. This amount consists of approximately $130 million of land held for development, of which we expect to put about $115 million into production by year-end, and $40 million in development pursuit costs. Altogether, this increased timing flexibility and modest financial exposure reflects the more defensive risk management posture that we adopted several years ago in anticipation of a more challenging development environment. Turning to slide 12, as we have throughout this cycle, we continue to remain focused on mitigating a key risk of development, which is lagged funding risk by continuing to substantially match-fund development underway with long-term capital. By doing so, we are able to lock in much of the development profit by substantially reducing the amount of remaining capital that is exposed to future changes in our cost of capital. At the end of the second quarter, we were approximately 85% match-funded against development underway, which is in excess of the high end of our target range of being roughly 70% to 80% match-funded against outstanding development commitments. On slide 13, we show how we have remained focused on enhancing our balance sheet strength and flexibility by highlighting two important credit metrics, namely overall leverage and refinancing risk. Specifically, at the end of the second quarter, net debt to core EBITDAre remained low at 5.0 times and at the low end of our target range of about 5 to 6 times. In addition, by issuing longer-dated debt in recent years, we have increased the weighted average years to maturity of our total debt outstanding from 8.3 years to 10.2 years, which is one of the highest in the REIT sector. In doing so, we not only reduced our near-term refinancing risk over the next few years, but also put the company on stronger footing for the long term. And, with that, I'll turn it back to Tim for concluding remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Kevin. Just finishing up on slide 14 and some of the key takeaways for the quarter. Healthy economic growth is supporting apartment markets with revenue growth now stabilizing in the 2% to 3% range. Our revised outlook is ahead of our original plan, driven by better-than-expected fundamentals. Development deliveries and NOI are in line with our original plan. As the cycle ages, as Kevin just mentioned, we are increasingly turning our attention to risk management, particularly how we are managing the development portfolio, the balance sheet. And then, lastly, we are currently on pace to deliver better than sector average core FFO growth for the eighth consecutive year. And, with that, we'd like to open up the call for questions, Travis.
Operator:
Yes, sir. Our first question comes from Nick Joseph.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Tim, you mentioned risk management, and there have been media reports Avalon exploring a larger New York disposition transaction. What's your appetite for selling or JVing a portfolio of assets?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Nick, Tim. We are aware of some media reports out there. As it relates to the Manhattan portfolio of assets, I mean, we can't really comment on it. I guess, what I'd say is we often do explore either opportunistically or strategically disposition or portfolio-type agreements, either outright sales or JVs, and they are often subject to confidentiality. And as it relates to that specific deal, we'll – when it makes sense to comment on anything, we will. But as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the disposition market is – the transaction market is very healthy. We sold $300 million this quarter at sub-5% cap rate. Those aren't necessarily the lowest cap rate assets in the portfolio. So, I think, it is – as you look across kind of our opportunity set for capital, asset sales and debt are easily sort of screen the most attractive to us. So, it's just a matter of what form and we're trying to marry that against – just against our capital allocation objectives. As you know, we entered Denver and Southeast Florida recently, and are looking, to some extent, to reallocate some capital from the Northeast to those markets, and we've done a fair bit of sales in the suburban New York area as of late and we're looking at other opportunities as well, so.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And then, you've resized or reduced the development pipeline and leverage is at the low end of the targeted range. Should we expect similar levels for the remainder of this cycle or is there anything you're monitoring that make you more aggressive or conservative from here?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick. Tim, again. Yeah. Great question. As we mentioned, we have – as Kevin mentioned, we have brought it down a bit from an average of $1.4 billion in the year and starts about $900 million in the last two years. As many of you know, if you just look at kind of what's happening on the construction side, construction costs have been running in the mid-single digit or probably in the high – mid- to high-single digit escalation today, whereas rents are more in the 2% to 3% range. And if you just play that out over a couple of years, that could erode yields by, call it, 20 basis points a year. So as a result, I mean, a lot of this is bottom-up at some level. There's fewer deals that are going to make sense and therefore, we're likely to see some – that volume come down assuming we see the same kind of trends we have been seeing, which are construction costs outpacing rent growth, land markets have not yet adjusted yet. Something else we didn't mention, but we really haven't added the development right so far this year other than the Doral deal that we started in Southeast Florida. So, as you look at our bucket, it's one of the reasons why we want to have flexibility and optionality with our development right portfolio. If you look at that, that group of opportunities, there's probably one bucket that sort of clear the bar easily that we'll continue forward with and start. There's probably another bucket that maybe is just, it is barely clear in the bar or the hurdle and the third bucket where it's more of a stretch. Where it's more of a stretch, we'll probably hold off or renegotiate or potentially abandon. Where it's clearing the bar – just clearing the bar, it's probably could be a little bit more of a game time decision. So, I know it's a long-winded way of saying it kind of depends. There's not a simple answer but I would guess we see the same kind of trends in construction cost. You'll continue to see the total level of development volume sort of continue to drift down from this point forward.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Appreciate the color.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Hightower.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
I just want to pick up quickly on – next question on the Manhattan JV transaction – potential transaction there. So, maybe you've already answered this question, but as we think about the motivations for doing something like that, is it sort of equal weighted between source of funds for additional development? Is it to reduce your New York City exposure? Is it a mark-to-market on those assets that you think the public markets don't appreciate? Just help us understand some of the thinking behind that from a strategic perspective.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Rich, again, can't comment on anything specifically, but any time we're looking at doing something opportunistically, it's going to be a function of is it a good source of capital first, which disposition generally is an attractive source of capital, certainly more attractive than equity today. It's going to be a function of kind of where we want to allocate capital across our market footprint. And thirdly, based upon how we think about valuation in a particular market versus maybe some other opportunities that we may have to reallocate the capital. So, those are the kind of things that we're using as a screen to look for opportunities, particularly ones that are maybe a little bit more opportunistic in nature.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay. That's fine. Thanks, Tim. And then my second question here, so I think reducing turnover has been a – it's been sort of a theme the past couple quarters not just from Avalon, but also from your public competitors. Is there anything structural going on there? Is it asset specific, portfolio specific, market specific? And then if you think about what a normalized turnover rate might be, I mean, how much of that has impacted OpEx year-to-date, and what do you think sort of a normalized OpEx run rate is given a normalized turnover rate if you can help us think through that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rich. This is Sean. In terms of the first part of your question, I mean, turnover is down pretty broadly. I mean, if you look at our footprint on a quarterly basis year-over-year, as well the year-to-date numbers, turnover is down pretty material across all the markets with the exception of the Greater New York/New Jersey region, which is pretty flat. And the reductions are relatively meaningful, let's say greater than 300 basis points across all those markets that are down. And when you look at sort of the reasons for turnover, it doesn't really change a lot. I mean, relocation is up a little bit. Rent increase is down a little bit. So, just the overall volume of churn is down. And I think it's probably a function of a number of different factors including certainly what's happening in the single family business in terms of home sales and production and things like that being relatively constrained in part due to the availability of labor, cost of materials and things like that, in terms of actually producing new products as well as just inventory being down in terms of home sales. So, there's probably a number of different factors in there as it relates to turnover. But if you look at the cost side of it, redec is down which shows up in the maintenance category. But in terms of moving the needle, it's not moving the needle in a material way, I would say. So if you looked at overall OpEx growth, you may be talking about 10 basis points, 15 basis points that might relate to what's happening on turnover and redec and things of that sort. Probably the more important factor is we're thinking about it more on the occupancy side in terms of, reduced turnover, you don't have the vacant days associated with turning those homes that tends to support a higher occupancy, which is certainly what we experienced in the first half of the year where our outperformance in revenue was to a significant degree due to greater occupancy. So, I'm probably focused more on that side of the P&L as opposed to the OpEx side in terms of a material benefit.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. That's perfect. Thanks, Sean.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Drew Babin.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Hey. Good morning. There's a good deal of information in the presentation about employment growth and, obviously, you'd exceeded your expectations so far this year. I was hoping you could talk about whether the improved employment growth outlook is kind of a pass-through of what happened in the first half of the year or better expectations for the second half of the year. And I guess kind of bolting onto that, how has wage growth trended year-to-date relative to your expectations kind of outside of the Bay Area where it's obviously very strong?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I'm happy to talk about that, Drew. This is Sean. In terms of job growth, what I'd say is, across the footprint, the majority of the markets are producing jobs at a greater rate than what we expected. The exceptions are sort of in the Greater New England area. But it's a pretty modest number in terms of softness there in job growth and a little bit in Southern California. But our performance in New York, the Mid-Atlantic, Pacific Northwest, Northern California in terms of jobs has been healthy. And, certainly, we would expect that to bleed through into the second half of the year. As I mentioned on as it relates to the last question, the first half of the year, we benefited from greater occupancy that has allowed us to push rates a little bit harder, and we expect to benefit from that in the second half and let it bleed through across the footprint. So, if you're looking for the impact, we certainly realize it in terms of occupancy. We're realizing it in terms of rate growth. You'll see more probably on the rate growth side than occupancy in the second half of the year. As it relates to wage growth across the various markets, we have seen pretty healthy wage growth. I mentioned what's happening in Northern California, but we're seeing across some of the major markets north of 5% wage growth – not wage growth, but household, median household income of new residents – relative to new residents that moved in the same period last year. So, if you think about it from that perspective, I think we're somewhat of a proxy for our market and the profile of the customers within our buildings. So, it's been pretty healthy wage growth and has actually driven rent income ratios down close to 20%, whereas they peaked this cycle closer to 22% or so. So, wage growth has been healthy across the portfolio, probably most pronounced in the tech markets, but healthy just about everywhere.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Okay. And I guess if you could help kind of marry the comments about economic prosperity in the near term and kind of using the term late cycle and saying that, things have obviously decelerated from where they were a few years ago, but there's pick up in employment. Is that sort of saying that, yes, things are a little better than expectations, but employment growth is likely to kind of return more to trend levels over time? Wage growth is likely to return to trend over time. I guess how do you kind of marry the short term versus the long term in the way you've phrased it?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, I mean if you just listen to economists, I think the general consensus is that the combination of stimulus and the rollback of regulatory requirements is creating a bit of a stimulus effect here that may not be long-lasting. We think it's probably going to last for 2018 and maybe 2019. But in some sense, you may be pulling some demand forward, so I'm not sure that either the economists community or we believe at this point that it's just structural nature that's going to, sort of put us on meaningfully different trajectory sort of longer term, if you will. But certainly, kind of what's going on in the – and corporations are just starting to get the benefit of the tax cuts, right? And they're just – most companies, they're just starting to enter their planning and capital cycles right now. And so, you would expect to see some of that, some of the impact carry forward to 2019 based upon that alone.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Okay. That's all from me. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Juan Sanabria.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Just hoping you could comment a little bit on supply. You talked about some slippage in delivery, seeing 5% less deliveries than you expected for 2018 to start the year. But if you could just help us frame your views as you see 2019 now, which markets are up and which are down and how you're thinking about the relative growth in the portfolio as a result of that.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Juan, this is Sean. Happy to take that, and then others can chime in as needed. Yes, as we – Tim mentioned in his prepared remarks, supply, consistent with the last several years, is beginning to slip a little bit from one year to the next. So, it's in the kind of 5% to 6% range in terms of the deliveries that we anticipated for 2018 that are probably going to be pushed into 2019. And, it's spread across a variety of markets. It's probably most concentrated in Southern California, I'd say, where, based on what we see, upwards of 20%, 25% of the deliveries that were expected this year could be pushed into 2019. But there's some in Northern California, the Mid-Atlantic, et cetera, so it's sort of everywhere. And I expect that based on what we're seeing in terms of trends in the construction market, that as we get towards year-end, we'll see additional slippage in terms of deliveries. So, I think that sort of the macro way to think about this is last year deliveries were about 2.2% of inventory. Based on what we know today, for 2018, it's going to be about 2.3%. 2019 is forecast at 2.1%, but I'd say 2018 and 2019 are probably going to be pretty similar in terms of the volume of deliveries and you really have to double click through at the market or the regional level to find where the variations are. And so, as you look at 2019 relative to 2018, in terms of any meaningful changes, yeah, there's three markets where we're likely to see an increase in deliveries and that's in D.C. proper or the District itself, the East Bay and San Jose, all in the order of magnitude of 2,000 to 2,200 units – additional units in 2019 relative to 2018. And then the markets with a more meaningful reduction in deliveries currently are expected to be New York City which is pretty meaningful, it's a reduction of about 6,000 units as compared to deliveries that are somewhere in the 12,000 unit range this year. Northern New Jersey, couple thousand units. Baltimore about 2,500 units, which we expect to benefit from given some stuff we have under construction up there. We think that'll be good timing for us. And then in Orange County and San Diego, down about 3,000 units Orange County, about 2,500 units in San Diego. Orange County performance has been a little bit soft this year, so they should benefit that market next year. So, I mean those are the markets that given the current level of job creation and assume that that bleeds through into 2019, tagging along with some of the things that Tim talked about from a macroeconomic perspective, these markets with changes in supply, you'd expect to see either an uplift or potentially a modest softening all else being equal. So, that's probably how I'd describe that in terms of next year.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Great. And then just with regards to your developments, you brought down your uses, you talked about some delays or starts maybe a little bit later than you'd anticipated. It didn't look like any of your completions moved other than maybe Public Market in California. But do you see any risk from your development perspective on delivery delays or slippage given what we've just discussed?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Tim here. No, in fact, our updated outlook basically is aligned with our original budget. So we're basically tracking plan at this point with respect to deliveries, occupancies and rate as it relates to the development portfolio.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning. Just have a question around the guidance. So, you've beaten the second quarter by $0.04 which was attributed to better par
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. So, Austin, in terms of identified in terms of our outlook, we're expecting from a core FFO point of view a $0.04 increase in 2018 versus our initial outlook to $8.97 versus $8.93. And as we have in the table in the earnings release, as you double click through that, essentially on a net basis, $0.04 is really coming through the same-store and redevelopment portfolios with essentially of that $0.04 really kind of on a net basis $0.03 coming through from same-store revenue, if you will. And then, the other $0.01 coming through essentially accelerated occupancies in the redevelopment portfolio. And then, sort of as Tim pointed out at the opening that the adjustments in the capital markets and expectations in the overhead line item is kind of being awash. In terms of kind of the cadence of that, if you look at the balance of the year, in our implied guidance for core FFO in 3Q and what you might sort of back into for the fourth quarter, much of the sequential uplift in core FFO as you pace through the balance of the year is really going to be driven primarily from same-store NOI, if you will and, to a lesser degree, but still to a positive degree from the lease-up activity and development portfolio.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And, Austin, as it relates to thinking about how revenue growth bleeds through, as I indicated in the first half of the year, we outperformed our expectations overall in the neighborhood of 25 basis points or so. The majority of that was on the occupancy side, around 20 basis points; the other handful of basis points through rate and other rental revenue. As we moved through the second half of the year, as I mentioned earlier, we expect more of that performance to come through on the rate side than the occupancy side. We had budgeted to be at a higher level of occupancy in the second half versus the first half. So, that's how we think about seeing the components of performance shift in the same-store basket as we move through the balance of the year.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
So, does the revised guidance in the back half of the year assume the inflection that you talked about in July and then also for August and September renewals?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Okay. Appreciate that. And then, previously, in the Mid-Atlantic, you talked about that market was tracking a little bit softer early in the year. We saw an acceleration here. What do you attribute that acceleration to? Is it benefited from better demand or did you see supply get pushed out a bit in that market specifically?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Austin, it's Sean. It is on the demand side, job growth outlook for 2018 based on what we produced in the first half and sort of the expected pace in the second half given some of the macroeconomic things that Tim talked about. We're talking about – at the beginning of the year, we expect the job growth to be closer to 1.1% – roughly 1%. Right now, it's tracking at pace. It's probably closer to 1.6%. So, that's pretty meaningful increase. Supply has not changed materially, I would say, at this point. When you look at the delays in that market, we're talking insignificant number of units. It's like 800 units or so in D.C. that's been pushed out, really nothing in suburban Maryland and Virginia. There's a little bit in Baltimore, but we don't have a big same-store basket there. So, it's primarily on the demand side when you look at the Mid-Atlantic. And I'd say in terms of where we're seeing the best performance right now, is in the Northern Virginia submarket of the three major components of the metro area, so.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for the time.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Pawlowski.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Thanks. Tim, regarding dispositions and doing something more opportunistic, am I interpreting your comments right that if you did do something opportunistic that proceeds will be funneled towards development and acquisitions?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Perhaps. Perhaps. I mean, obviously, it's part of the whole capital allocation process but, it's – I mean, largely the fund. We don't really have any debt to retire. I could do it. I mean, debt rolling, but it's largely fund development and perhaps, to some extent, redeploy into potentially the – particularly the expansion markets of Southeast Florida and Denver. Some of that may be in development, by the way, as well as acquisitions.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Okay. Curious, the thought process just in terms of deploying capital in a very, very competitive private market. If construction cost keep outpacing rent growth by a wide margin, your cost of equity remains impaired and the private vehicles keep raising more money than God, I mean people are going in Denver and South Florida. My question is, do the odds of you guys doing a special dividend or share repurchases increase in 2019 and 2020, if you're having trouble deploying capital?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, John. It's Kevin. I mean we understand kind of where you're getting at sort of a hypothetical in the first instance about whether we transact opportunistically. And then another hypothetical in terms of what do we decide at that point in time based on future capital market and real estate conditions about the second choice and how to deploy that capital. That's a lot of speculation for something that hasn't yet happened. I guess to try to be responsive, we do think about all those questions. So, if cash shows up in hand and there's not an immediate compelling use, then certainly, issues such as a special dividend, buyback all get part of the management discussion. But as we talked about before, there are a number of different hurdles and complicating factors that relate to each of those things particularly as a tax-paying entity with obligations to make a dividend over time. So it's premature for us to try to answer that question in a concrete way or to kind of lay out the specificity what the framework would be, but we certainly look at all those things under the circumstances should they arise.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Good morning. On your development rights, slide 11 of your presentation, you have a bar of $400 million, which includes asset densification in the West Coast. I'm assuming that includes your joint venture with GGP in Seattle, but I was wondering if there were any other retail developments as part of this figure, and how many joint ventures you may have on densification effort?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Hi, John. It's Matt. I can speak to that one. Actually, no, the potential joint venture with GGP in Seattle is not currently in our development rights pipeline. We don't technically recognize a development right until it's cleared due diligence and cleared our investment community for kind of the initial screening. So, we've been working on that for a long time, and it is what I'd call a likely future development right, but that's not in there. So, in terms of how much of the current development rights pipeline is retail joint ventures, none of it. Again, we are talking to various folks. We do have a number of development rights which are partnerships with retail owners where ultimately we will own the residential and they will own the retail. We have a site in Woburn, Mass. It's in the development rights pipeline. It fits that description which is a partnership with EDENS. We have a number of development communities currently underway like our deal in Towson with RPAI. That would fit that description or the Emeryville Public Market site. But the only development joint venture – two joint ventures we have right now is one that's wrapping up, which is North Point in Cambridge.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
So, in this figure of asset densification, those are densification of efforts on your asset?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. There's a couple of assets that we own, that we've bought through Archstone, one of which is in Mountain View, which we've talked about a little bit in the past; one of which is in San Jose; and there's actually a third one in Redmond, which is not on the list yet, but which will join the development rights pipeline in the third quarter. These are older garden communities where – with surface parking where the jurisdictions recognize there's a need for more housing as part of just an overall housing shortage in those markets and are willing to work with us to try and modify the entitlements to add density usually through replacing parking or replacing surface parking with parking deck, in some cases, just reducing the parking ratio because times have changed and there's not quite as much demand for parking.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Got it, Okay. And then, a second question on development returns. This quarter, you had 170 basis point spread in devolvement yield between high-rise and garden developments. But I was wondering if you had seen a noticeable difference among development unlevered IRRs between high-rise, mid-rise, and garden projects based on your history of developing and recycling assets.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. It's an interesting question. Generally, I think we did – the last time we looked at that by product type, I think it was pretty consistent across the three baskets. High-rises will generally tend to trade at a lower cap rate and, in some cases, we developed high-rises in urban submarkets that were transitioning where we got in early like you think about Christie Place. We were very early there in the Bowery or our Riverview assets in Long Island City. So, sometimes that plays a part in it as well. I would say probably in terms of risk-adjusted returns, high-rises are riskier in our experience both on the cost side and just the timing. It takes a long time to put the asset into production. So, you might argue that if gardens are getting same IRRs on a risk-adjusted basis, it's probably even a little better but – and that's probably over the last 10 or 15 years. I don't know. I'm guessing. Maybe a third of our development in terms of capital has been high-rise, probably two-thirds has been wood frame.
John Piljung Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Guinee.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hello?
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Yes.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hello.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Yes. If I'm looking at page 17, your development rights, are you at liberty to talk about where the numbers make sense? I'm assuming you've got some low basis in some of your land positions or your development rights which helped the yield on cost, but where did the numbers pencil out and where don't they in this day and age?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Do you mean kind of geographically or by...
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Yeah, geographically. You're talking about putting a lot of this into play I think.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, it's kind of – Kevin went over on the slide. Some of these are going to take quite a while to play out and others would be ready in the next year or two. The ones where the economics are holding better are – tend to be the more suburban deals where the entitlement process takes longer. And as you point out in some of those cases those are land deals that are four or five years old and maybe there's been a little bit less cost inflation pressure. So you know some of the deals we have in suburban Boston or suburban New Jersey, those are deals that are less sensitive to changes in the cycle. And that's where you see frankly when you look at our development rights pipeline, it is a little overweight in the Northeast partially because of that. But in terms of the $3.5 billion that's there, it's – the allocation of what makes economic sense is probably consistent with just the total allocation that you see on that chart.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Great. And then second question, have you seen any signs that the merchant builders are perhaps laying off people or slowing down? Are they still locked and loaded and aggressively trying to build new product?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. We haven't seen – this is Matt again. We have not seen many signs of them slowing down yet. I would say I don't know if they're increasing capacity, but I would say they're still pretty full up. They still have pretty deep pipelines. And in fact, one of the ways we've tried to play that a little bit, as Tim mentioned, we are particularly in the expansion market working to – in addition to doing our own ground-up development, partnering with some folks that might have sites ready to go. And the Doral asset we started this past quarter is a good example of that where that's a deal that TCR – the local TCR office is the development sponsor. We're providing the capital. And then at the end of the day, we will buy out their position and wind up as a wholly-owned asset. But their take – they took the entitlement risk. They're taking the construction risk. We're taking the lease-up risk. And we like that kind of business. We haven't done a lot of them in the past, but particularly in these expansion markets where there are some deals ready to go, where the economics still do look good, that's a good way to get some volume there.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Okay. Thanks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. John, maybe just to add to that quickly, as the publics are pulled back, which is interesting – and I agree with Matt. My sense is the merchant guys haven't necessarily increased, but not evidentially pulled back at all, but then – I think the other trend you're seeing, you just had some new entrants that probably made up or offset something with the amount the publics have pulled back. So overall, we're seeing pretty level volume and supply. And that's kind of what's in our projections kind of over the next couple of years.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Great. Yeah. I think I'd probably add to that is the multifamily focused public guys have pulled back, but the multiple product type REITs...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
...maybe haven't.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Good point.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Dennis McGill.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
...taking my question, guys. Just want to tie together a couple things you noted with on the turnover side, turnover being down substantially and you mentioned that being really across the portfolio and then wage growth similarly accelerating across the portfolio. Both would be pretty notable tailwinds to the rent growth side and it's been fairly stable over the last year or so. When you guys look at that, is that simply just supply overwhelming both of those factors or have you just been more cautious on the renewals for more defensive purposes?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Dennis, it's Sean. Good point on the tailwind factors and all else being equal would result in better performance. And I think that's what's reflected in the revised outlook is we are seeing better performance in the first half, really driven by occupancy, a little bit of rate – and in the second half a little more on the rate side. So, it is leading through in terms of better performance. And so, really, you've got better job growth, reduced turnover, good wage growth, all those are positive benefits. Still meaningful amount of supply, but the supply was known. So, it is leading through for us in terms of better performance in the first half and what we're expecting in the second half, and that led to the revised outlook. So, if that's the heart of your question?
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Yeah. I think that makes sense. Essentially, there's a lag effect that you're seeing through the business. If we look at the blended rent growth in the second quarter, I think it was equal to or lower than a year ago in all the regions except for Northern California, but you've noted that flipped positively for the overall portfolio. Can you give us some color at the regional level as well as to how broad based that is as far as the reversals being positive year-over-year?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Sure. I'm happy to do a little bit of that. As I mentioned, I mean if you look at Q2 2018, it's 2.8%. Q2 of 2017 was 2.9% so kind of rounding here and there. It's pretty much similar. In my comments, I mention that July is running 3.25% which is about 50 bps greater than what we had expected and a meaningful portion I mentioned is Northern California. The rest of the markets when you look through it in terms of July, what we're experiencing is a modest lift in certain markets like the Mid-Atlantic, modest lift in Boston, Southern California is at par. New York is a little bit weaker. I don't have that number right off the top of my head. So, what I'd say is it's relatively broad based with the exception of a couple of regions but the order of magnitudes are different. The order of magnitude is more significant in Northern California and Boston as compared to the other markets. That describes it more generally. If you want specific data points so like going through all the markets, we can try to talk to you offline.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay, perfect. That's helpful for now, and then just one final one on the dispositions in the quarter and anything you might be marketing, can you just talk a little bit about the types of bidders that you're seeing and how those assets priced relative to your initial expectations?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Dennis. This is Matt. It has been a pretty deep field I would have to say, pretty robust. Pricing has exceeded our initial expectations probably by maybe 10 basis points on the cap rate from where we expected it to be, maybe a little more. We are marketing a couple of West Coast assets now, one of which was out of one of our fund vehicles where it exceeded by more than that. But it's been – we sold an asset to Blackstone's multifamily private REIT. We've sold to some private buyers that we've dealt with in the past. There have been some foreign capital buyers pursuing some of these assets that we haven't seen before necessarily on some of the larger assets that are in the mix. So, I'd say the field, if anything, is probably a little deeper than it was maybe a year or two ago.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Perfect. That's helpful. Thanks, Matt. Thank you, guys.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Wes Golladay.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hi, guys. I just want to go back to that comment about the accelerated rent growth. I just want to get your opinion on what is potential drivers of that? You talked about the improving demand, but I was also wondering about the impact of having less concessions in the market, is that a big factor at all?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Wes. This is Sean. I mean for the most part across our markets, for most of the major public REITs and major private players, concessions aren't used a lot on existing assets. They're more used in lease-up communities. And for the most part, that's really concentrated in New York, given some of the rent regulations there where lease-ups could offer anywhere from one to three months of concessions depending on the lease term to establish a relatively high legal rent, and then they build their rent increases off of that. But in terms of concessions, they're pretty de minimis overall, and the concessions are certainly down for us, and I suspect many others, which is helpful as it relates to revenue growth, but it's not a meaningful number relative to occupancy gains or rate gains overall. So, I wouldn't attribute it to that in a meaningful way except for maybe what you would be looking for in terms of performance in New York City specifically.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Yeah. Okay. I was looking at more so like maybe having some private developers being maybe more rational this year, not pressuring the public REITs on new and renewal leasing. And then maybe if I could parley that to another question, I guess, with supply moving out of peak leasing season, some of us moving to 2019, but do you see any markets where there would be heavy supply in the second half of the year, maybe in the lower demand season?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean the numbers don't move around a lot from quarter-to-quarter. When you look at it, it's a little bit heavier in Q3 as compared to Q2 across our footprint for 2018. Q4 is up a little bit from Q3, but for us, the one with lease expirations during those periods particularly in Q4 is down quite a bit. So, it doesn't have much of an impact on the rent roll and the revenue stream given it's 20% of lease expirations. What you've been through for the first three quarters kind of base 80% of the year. So, even if there's some additional softness in certain pockets, where there's heavier supply markets like the District (54:16) is an example or maybe parts of Downtown Brooklyn. It shouldn't have a meaningful impact on us in that period.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Richard Hill.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey. You got Ron Kamdem on the line for Richard. Just going back to the expansion markets, could you just – how should we think about when you're looking at the deals that whether at Denver or Southern Florida, can you just provide some color of some of the deals you may be looking at? What are the cap rates? Is it more deals than you thought, less deals than you thought, so on and so forth?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Ron. This is Matt. We are certainly looking at both acquisitions in the expansion markets, future development and then as I mentioned also in some cases looking at development that others might have ready to go where we could capitalize it. It's been very active, and if anything, I would say cap rates are probably down a little bit in both of those markets. What we're finding in Denver, we're probably more interested right now in some of the assets that are a little bit more suburban where kind of like in our portfolio in our other markets, there's a little bit less supply and the kind of the risk adjusted return at this particular moment looks more attractive. In the long run, we'll look to have a diversified portfolio in both of those markets. But right now, stuff that is kind of high profile, sexy, downtown or in a walkable type Denver location is probably 4.25% to maybe a 4.50% cap. But in any cases, the assets coming out of lease-up are not really stabilized yet or it may be hard to tell because the lease-up pace may not be what really would sustain the rents that they're getting. So, our view on what that cap rate truly is might be a little lower than some other market participants. In the more suburban locations in Denver, it's probably more or like high 4s cap rates, and in Southeast Florida probably similar. A little bit less in the market, not as much trades in Southeast Florida as in Denver but still an active market and kind of similarly there, we're being somewhat focused in terms of select submarkets those that are less exposed to supply right now. On the development side, we think the yields there are probably comparable to in our markets. And if we do a deal like this deal we're doing in Doral, where we're partnering with a local developer, they're taking the construction risk. For us we're solving for yield there that's kind of halfway between development and acquisition yield because from a risk point of view, that's kind of an appropriate allocation of the risk.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. That's helpful. And if I could just go back to the Mid-Atlantic region, first, you talked about a little bit on the supply side, but maybe if you can touch on just the jobs outlook, not just this year, but into 2019 and 2020, that would be great?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hi, Ron. It's Sean. I mean, the data we have best available right now really reflects what's happened in the first half and projected for the second half, given the effect of stimulus and things like that that Tim addressed earlier, which is job growth being sort of in the 1.6% range for the full-year 2018. That's compared to the beginning of the year which was 1.1%. How long that plays out in terms of stimulus through tax cuts, regulatory reform, blah, blah, blah, all the various factors out there, it's hard to play out. There's certainly a lag effect but it spills over into 2019, but a bit too premature to speculate on what specific job growth would be in either 2019 or 2020 at this point.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey. This is Matt. I guess the one thing I would add to that is, as it relates to the D.C. Metro specifically, certainly, the recent budget deal should lead to an increase in both procurement which is generally a pretty big driver of the D.C. Metro economy, I'm not sure we've seen that impact yet, but there's certainly a lot of talk now. There could be another government shutdown; that could change. But on the current phase we are at, there does appear to be from what we've read kind of a backlog of spending in contracts to be let that could provide a little juice for Northern Virginia and D.C., although obviously the devil's in the details.
Ronald Kamdem - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. Helpful. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Daniel Santos (58:58)
Unknown Speaker:
Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just two quick ones from me. I was wondering – I'm sorry if you've answered this question already. If you could give us some background on the Miami development, how you chose the site and the partner? And then I was wondering if you could give us an update specifically on Boston supply?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. I can speak about the Doral deal and then, I don't know, Sean, you may want to talk about Boston supply a little bit. Again, as I mentioned, we've been looking at sites that are ready to go, where somebody else – a local developer really starts with a sponsor, the quality of the sponsor, and we've known the folks at TCR for many years and obviously share a common heritage if you go back a long, long time. So, have a lot of respect for what they do. This is a site that's in Doral, which is one of the fastest-growing submarkets of suburban Miami. There is a grocery-anchored shopping center, which is part of the project, which is developed by another developer, which will be right at the front door. So, it's got some walkability. It's a seven-story, eight-story mid-rise, wrap product with structured parking. And it's a submarket that we like long term, and a sponsor that we think highly of, and that is, again, we'll be looking to do more of that kind of business. And it's different than what we've done in the past, and it's different also in the sense that it doesn't really show up in our pipeline until the deal is ready to go because we're not funding those pursuit costs early. We're not taking that risk. So, we've been working on it for probably six months, but we didn't commit to in close until it was all ready to go. There's a third-party general contractor, but again the local developer is providing the completion guarantees to us.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. As it relates to supply, Daniel, I'm happy to take that as it relates to Boston. So, for 2018, supply currently is expected to be about where we thought it would be when we started the year, which is around 6,200, 6,300 units, something like that. It's down about 20% from what was delivered last year. A good percentage of that reduction and deliveries is in sort of the urban markets of Boston, a little bit in the suburbs. As it relates to the outlook for 2019, supply should be running based from what we see today at a pretty similar level to 2018 again around 6,200, 6,300 units. So relatively stable supply outlook in Boston kind of moving from submarket to submarket, but in terms of total deliveries down in 2018 relative to last year, it looks pretty steady for the next 12 to 18 months in terms of the pace of deliveries.
Unknown Speaker:
Got it. That's helpful.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Anderson.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA LLC:
Hey. Good afternoon, now. Tim, early on in the call, you talked a little bit about what might be a short-term economic stimulus from all the things that have gone on maybe perhaps into 2019 or through 2019. With that in mind, do you feel – if this is an inflection point in terms of fundamentals for your business, do you feel a little bit less sort of sanguine towards it because of that short-term perspective you have? And maybe it's prompting you guys to do things before the music stops, or are you equally as optimistic about things relative to past cycles that you've seen as a manager of this company?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rich. I think that's a good question. I think you captured it, I think you captured it well. I guess, we'd say we're less sanguine at this point sort of as late in the cycle as we think we are. I mean you're starting to see areas in the country where there isn't much slack. If you look at the labor markets, it can be contingent upon labor force participation as when you're seeing unemployment at 4% and then for college grads, it's almost 0%, I mean, it's literally in the low 2s. So, there's not much slack and the labor markets continue to sort of drive household formation. I think there is some opportunity still as it relates to household formation as the Millennials age. The most recent print on household formation was as strong as we've seen in a while. I think it's – you got to take that with a grain of salt that kind of moves all around, but I think it came in at 1.7% on a year-on-year basis, as strong as we've seen. I think that is a bit of – the number of young adults that are living at home as you would expect to go down as the leading edge of that age cohort starts to migrate towards their mid-30s and late-30s. So, when you think about some of the inflationary pressures, you look at our business, the construction cost pressures are pretty acute. I don't see them necessarily abating because you've got – I mean, both the labor side and the material side, they're both not being helped by policy right now as it relates to tariffs and potentially immigration and the impact on skilled labor. So, I think there's a lot of reasons to be cautious as it relates to being aggressive in terms of deploying capital in this market and we probably are a bit more cautious than we would be in other points that may be showing some inflection.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA LLC:
And would you say that some amount of your kind of declining development or, say, elevated development risk management process is tied to that shorter-term economic perspective as well beyond the construction cost issue or maybe it's all just related to each other?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think it's related. I think it's something that's been going on really for the last two to three years. I mean, we were much more willing probably through about 2015 to consider taking land inventory on the balance sheet that we felt we could get in production over the next year. Today I'd say we're not that willing, and we're pretty surgical about it. We had one deal in LA that we're willing to do that with because we felt like maybe that market had a little bit more legs than maybe some of our other regions and fundamentally, we don't think land markets have adjusted yet. So, yeah.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA LLC:
Okay. Good enough. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. Very good.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Tayo Okusanya.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yes. Good afternoon. I hope you haven't addressed this yet, but I got onto the call late. Have you talked at all about just views on Costa-Hawkins, and kind of progress being made in regards to that in California?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Tayo, we haven't talked about it on the call. I mean, do you have specific questions around it in terms of...
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yeah. Just kind of how you're thinking about some of the momentum behind it, about possibly being on the ballot in November, and kind of what are you hearing locally from lobbyists about that, and what that potential implications could be?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I'm happy to address that. People have been asking about that through other means as well, but particularly around the likelihood of it passing and things of that sort. But, I mean, trying to give you a specific probability about it passing would be pure speculation on my part and anyone else I think that would be doing out there. In fact, there are polls out there that offer a wide range of answers. What I'd say is, based on what we know, that if you simply ask voters in the State of California if they would support rent controls as it relates to controlling housing costs in the state more than a majority would likely say yes. Based on what we know to the extent that you educate voters about what a repeal of Costa-Hawkins specifically means, the outcome could be quite different. There is a number of issues associated with Costa-Hawkins that voters have been educated about, including the impact on homeowners which represents about 60% of likely voters and putting single-family homes at risk regarding rent restrictions and potential reductions in the value of their home if the kind of single-family rental market and those buyers, the investor buyer starts to go away because of concern about rent restrictions as an example. The fiscal impacts, the non-partisan LAO issued a report recently talking that a repeal could be detrimental to local government funding, particularly in terms of lost revenue from property taxes associated with single-family and cost of administration and all kinds of other things like that. Other issues that are out there relate to the conversion of rentals to for-sale product, which happened in San Francisco after the adoption of rent control, and there is a number of studies out there related to that topic. So, there's a lot of different issues that people need to understand as it relates to what Costa-Hawkins means, what protections exist today that would potentially go away with a repeal. So, what I'd say is the messages are being delivered to voters and probably will be much more so over the next few months here in terms of what the repeal means. And those are the issues that will ultimately drive potential outcome when we get to election day.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. All right. But, again, if it does happen, have you guys done any kind of analysis around what kind of impact it could potentially have on your portfolio?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, I mean, it's very much speculative in terms of what local jurisdictions will do. All we know is based on what's in place today for us, one asset would be impacted by rent control that currently isn't today. Other than that, it's trying to handicap every jurisdiction and which way they're going to vote in terms of putting a rent control measure on the ballot. Is that done through some kind of voter referendum or other means? So, that's all purely speculation. It's really hard to comment or quantify at this point.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got that. Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
And your final question comes from John Pawlowski.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Thanks. Sean, I apologize if I missed some of these components. Could you just quickly run through 2Q new and renewal growth rates as well as early 3Q new renewal and occupancy?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, John. Why don't I give you the Q2 numbers at the regional level, a lot of the other stuff, that's a fair amount of detail, so why don't I have Jason follow-up with you on that. I mean the Q2 blended rates were included in the supplemental as you may know by market and a royalty, you can see that. But as it relates to the difference between move-in, renewal and blended for the quarter, I could say New England move-in – when I do move-ins it...
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Total portfolio would be fine. Total portfolio.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, total portfolio for Q2 is included in the supplemental which is 2.8% blended, 3.9% on renewals, and 1.4% on move-ins if that's what you're looking for specifically. And then July, I mentioned 3.25% blended which is roughly 4% on renewals and about 2.5% on move-ins.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
And occupancy today?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Occupancy today is sort of running in the low 96% range.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
All right. Thanks a lot.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
I would like to turn the call back over to Tim Naughton.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Travis, and thank all of you for being on the call today. I hope you all enjoy the rest of your summer, and we'll see you some time in the fall. Take care.
Operator:
Thank you.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities First Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may now begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Cassie. And welcome to AvalonBay Communities first quarter 2018 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin, and I will provide some management commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing an overview of the macro environment and the impact on fundamentals, some color on our operating results this quarter, and lastly, some thoughts related to development and funding activity. Starting now on the slide 4, highlights for the quarter include core FFO growth of 4.3%. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.4%, or 2.3% when you include redevelopment. We completed $300 million new development this quarter at an average initial projected yield of 6.5%, which is helping drive earnings and NAV growth per share. And lastly, we raised $300 million in external capital this quarter through a 30-year unsecured debt issuance with an effective rate of just under 4% for the first 10 years. This is the third time we've tapped the 30-year market over the last two years for almost $1 billion in total issuance. And as a result, we've extended our average maturity of outstanding debt to over 10 years. Turning now to slide 5, just talk about the economy for a moment. The housing and apartment markets are benefiting from a healthy economy, which appears to be gaining momentum early in 2018, and that shows few signs of slowing down eight years into the current expansion. GDP is growing at a rate of close to 3% and we're seeing sustained job growth of roughly 200,000 per month. Over the last couple of years, a tightening labor market has pushed wage growth to its cyclical high, and household formation appears to be gaining momentum after growing modestly through much of this cycle. Turning to slide 6, indications are that the expansions should continue into the foreseeable future, as consumers and businesses are feeling good about their prospects. The emerging consensus among economists is that this expansion will ultimately become the longest in our lifetime. There's plenty to support this thesis, including consumer and corporate balance sheets that are very strong, and increasingly both the consumer and businesses are putting dry powder to work in the form of higher consumption, greater capital investment and increased hiring. So the economy seems poised to maintain its momentum for the next couple of years, which should continue to support healthy demand in the apartment markets. I want to turn now to slide 7 and let's take a look at the supply side. As we discussed previously, supply is elevated in our markets versus historical averages, but does appear to be approaching a cyclical peak this year. Over the next few quarters, we expect new deliveries in our markets to reach right around 25,000 per quarter, before drifting down to just under 20,000 per quarter later next year. And despite an uptick in multi-family starts nationally over the last quarter, our starts have been relatively stable in our markets over the last few months, due to increases in land and construction costs combined with higher interest rates. Construction costs, in particular, are now growing at a rate well above rents, in the mid- to high-single-digit range, which is putting pressure on the economics of new development. To be clear, we don't anticipate a significant decline in new supply over the next two to three years, but rather a leveling off and modest decline in new deliveries across our footprint, which should help markets stay roughly a balance late in the cycle. So, overall, the macro environment and new supply trends points to a relatively stable near-term outlook for the sector and for our markets, with rent growth settling in the 2% to 3% range, a level below the average so far of the cycle because of the long-term trend. I'll now turn it over to Sean, who will touch on some of the operating trends we're seeing in our markets.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 8. While we've experienced healthy demand this entire cycle, the introduction of elevated levels of supply, which Tim highlighted on the previous slide, has led to several quarters of below-trend rent growth in our markets. And if you turn to slide 9, in terms of regional performance, the Metro New York, New Jersey and Mid-Atlantic regions continue to be the weakest performers, with effective rent growth that's flat to modestly positive. The Mid-Atlantic continues to be plagued with heavy supply, which is expected to continue through 2019. And then New York, New Jersey region, the city continues to be very weak, but supply is expected to peak late this year and then fall off considerably in 2019. In Northern California, we continue to see signs of improved performance, particularly in San Jose, where deliveries are expected to be down about 1,500 units this year as compared to 2017. The healthiest region in the portfolio is Southern California, which is currently producing effective rent growth of roughly 4% per year. Given deliveries are expected to decline from the 2% range this year to just above 1% next year, the outlook for Southern California is pretty healthy through 2019. And turning to the Pacific Northwest, which is our strongest market for the past couple years, the combination of moderating job growth and elevated supply, which is expected to be roughly 4.5% of inventory this year, has resulted in a continued deceleration in effective rent growth. Year-over-year in March, effective rent growth was down to roughly 2% in Seattle. Turning to slide 10, our same-store portfolio produced 2.4% rental revenue growth in Q1, which consisted of a 2.5% increase in rental rate and 10-basis point decline in occupancy. Our Q1 revenue growth was about 60 basis points above the effective rent growth in our markets and we expect relatively stable rental revenue growth each quarter this year. Shifting to slide 11, as opposed to the relatively stable trend in same-store rental revenue growth, same-store operating expense growth is expected to be front-loaded this year and pretty choppy from quarter-to-quarter. While Q1 operating expense growth was slightly lower than budget, we expected it to be heavy and driven by three categories. First, property taxes, which is primarily related to successful property tax appeals in Southern California during Q1 2017, and then increase in assessments and rate in the Pacific Northwest. Second, an increase in onsite wages and benefits costs. In addition to normal merit adjustments, we had more occupied positions in Q1 as compared to last year, which was partially offset by reduced temporary help in repairs and maintenance. Also, the increase in benefit costs was expected to peak on a year-over-year basis in Q1. And then, third, increased insurance premiums and the net change in claims activity, which can be volatile from quarter-to-quarter. Turning to slide 12 to address development, our Q1 deliveries and the NOI generated from our development portfolio were both pretty much in line with budget. Looking forward, we expect the volume of deliveries in Q2 to be roughly in line with our original plan. Now, I'll turn it over to Kevin to talk about our funding capacity and the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Sean. On slide 13, we show how we have reduced development starts to a level that we believe we can fund on a roughly leverage neutral basis through a combination of annual growth in EBITDA leveraged to five times, cash flow from operations and retain capital from disposition activity, and without needing to issue common equity. Specifically, as you could see on the left-hand side of the slide, our development starts for 2017 and 2018 are expected to average about $900 million per year, about $500 million less than the average start volume of $1.4 billion per year in the preceding four-year period. On the right-side of the slide, we illustrate how the combination of EBITDA growth leveraged at five times, cash from operations, and dispositions currently enables us to fund a little over $1 billion in development spend and about $200 million of redevelopment spend on a roughly leverage neutral basis. Thus, by reducing development starts in this way, we reduce our equity funding needs and have tailored our development activities to the current environment. In doing so, we are following an approach we applied in the 1999 to 2007 timeframe when we generally funded the equity need for development by recycling capital through asset sales. Additionally, on slide 14, and as we've discussed before, another way in which we mitigate risks from development is by substantially match-funding long-term capital with development that is underway. This allows us to lock-in development profit and substantially reduces the amount of remaining capital that is exposed to future changes in our cost of capital. As you could see on the left-side of the slide, we're approximately 80% match-funded against development underway at the end of the first quarter of 2018, consistent with our objective of being roughly 70% to 80% match-funded against this book of business. On the right-side of the slide, you can see how we control the land value at risk on the balance sheet by limiting the amount of land that we own for development. Over the past two years, we have kept our land inventory at multi-decade low levels. Of this land held for development, nearly all of it is associated with projects that are expected to start construction within the next six months. On slide 15, we show several key credit metrics and how they compare to the multi-family sector average as of year-end 2017. As you can see, our credit metrics remain strong and provide AvalonBay with continued financial flexibility. Specifically, at year-end, net debt to core EBITDA was low at 5.0 times, interest coverage was high at 6.9 times, and the weighted average years to maturity on our fixed rate debt remained high at 9.1 years. Finally, as a result of our balance sheet management efforts over the past few years, we've been able to create a debt maturity schedule that enhances our financial flexibility by significantly reducing the capital needed to refinance existing debt over the next decade. In particular, we have substantially addressed our near-term debt maturities, and by having nearly 30% of our debt mature beyond 2027, average debt maturities over the next decade represent only $550 million per year, which is less than our current amount of dividends and only 2% of our total enterprise value. With that, I'll turn it back to Tim for concluding remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thanks, Kevin. Yeah. So, in summary, Q1 was a solid quarter with performance in line with expectations. We expect fundamentals to stabilize over the next two to three years, leading to rent growth we believe in the 2% to 3% range. New development continues to contribute to earnings and NAV growth in a meaningful way. And then, lastly, I would say a strong balance sheet and credit profile, combined with a disciplined approach in new development, provides us plenty of flexibility to continue to pursue our growth strategy while navigating the latter stages of the current economic expansion. And with that, Cassie, we'd be glad to open up the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. And we'll go first to Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. How is April in the forward renewals trending relative to original expectations, and if you maintained the outperformance that you had in the first quarter?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick, it's Sean. In terms of April, we're basically seeing the seasonal trends that we would have expected in terms of the lift in rate. So, to give you some perspective, on Q1 it moved up nicely through the quarter. So, January blended rent change was about 60 basis points. It moved up to about 150 basis points in February, about 210 basis points in March and we're trending right now about 206 basis points in April and seeing steady improvement across the majority of the markets. In terms of renewal offers, renewal offers are going out around 5%. So I'd say generally where we are as we look at Q2 is basically in line with what we expected across the footprint, there'll still be some variations from market-to-market, and probably the two I'd point to are the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northwest being a little bit softer than we would have anticipated. And the others are either flat to slightly up as compared to what we anticipated. So, net-net, it's in the range.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And then just wondered if there's any progress or updates on the expansion into Denver and Southeast Florida.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. Hey, Nick. It's Matt. We are continuing to look hard at those markets and there are assets for sale. We don't have anything under contract at this point, but we're making offers and we're also talking to some folks who have deals ready to go, where we might be able to provide capital in some kind of a structure type transaction. So, yeah, hopefully, we'll have more to report on that later in the year, but as of right now, nothing new.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Juan Sanabria with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Thanks for the time. Just on the same-store revenue trends where you're expecting it generally flat, is there any sort of level of conservatism or downside built into that? Because your previous expectation was for a modest uptick in the second and third quarter, and I would think you have a higher kind of earning now from the rents, deals you struck in the order. So, just curious about how we should be thinking about same-store revenue over the course of the year and what's built into that upside or downside?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Juan. This is Sean. I mean, we only provide guidance, which we did back in January. We sort of called it bull's eye, as you might say. So I wouldn't say there's necessarily conservatism built in. It's what we expected for the year. And in terms of any shift in that, we'll address that certainly mid-year when we complete a full reforecast when we're sure about probably half of the leasing season and that's the best time to provide an update.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Juan. This is Tim. Maybe just to add to that a little bit. Same-store revenue I think we projected pretty flat, but historically what we see is there is a seasonal variation in terms of rent change, which is different obviously than same-store revenue growth. So, as Sean mentioned, we are seeing the normal seasonal lift in light-term rent change, but that was anticipated in the budget.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Great. And just a quick one for me. If you could go through the new and renewal rates for the first quarter leasing across your major geographic areas, not the MSAs, if you wouldn't mind?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Juan, why don't we take that to you offline. That's a fair amount of data, three data points across six markets, that's a fair amount. So why don't we take that offline and we'll get that to you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And, Juan, you probably did see, we did add this quarter the blended rent change by the six regions in total. So we can break those out between new movements and renewals offline for you.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Great. And then just, while I have the floor, on Washington, D.C., what are you seeing there? Is that market do you think continuing to decelerate or do you think we're troughing here? What are your expectations going forward? Has there been any strengthening in the job market with higher defense spending or any anecdotes you could share?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Juan. This is Sean again. I mean nothing material to report other than D.C. is performing as I indicated. The D.C. metro area, which includes the district, suburban Virginia and suburban Maryland – or Northern Virginia I should say. Slightly weaker than expected. I'd say the district is weak and we expected it to be weak based on the volume of supply being delivered in the district, which is heavier than what you're seeing in either Northern Virginia or in suburban Maryland, as a percentage of stock. So I'm not sure we're going to see anything different as we move through their prime leasing season, unless we start to see a material change in job growth in the district itself and are bleeding out into some of the outer suburbs. But for D.C. this year, we're talking about deliveries that are north of 5% of inventory, about the same level in 2019, it's about 6,000 units a year. It's concentrated in certain pockets, but unless we see a meaningful uptick in job growth, I don't think we're going to see improved performance in D.C. It's going to continue to be pretty weak.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Hey. Good afternoon, everyone. Just want to go back to the quarterly breakdown of the operating expenses, which obviously you've put some pretty good detail in here. Is that really just driven by sort of year-over-year comparisons and maybe timing of some R&M spend? I was just curious if you could provide some color on that trajectory.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Vincent, it's Sean. Yeah. I mean, first, as we indicated in the slide and in my prepared remarks, we expected Q1 expense growth to be elevated. It actually came in lower than we anticipated. But the main drivers, as indicated, are really the tough comp and property taxes, given very successful appeals in Southern and Northern California, but particularly Southern California in Q1 of 2017 created a pretty tough comp there. Utilities, we've had some pretty good winters the last couple of years in 2016, 2017. Obviously, it was a pretty extended cold winter this year. We had expected a more normal winter and budgeted accordingly, but that reflected an increase in utilities. And then certainly we expected the increases in insurance based on what we knew our premiums are going to be and volatility and claims activity, and then I mentioned the payroll. So I'd say, in terms of the drivers, it's the same things that I mentioned, the taxes, the payroll piece, utilities, insurance, and expected Q1 to be high and then start to level off as we move through the year.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Yeah. I think the question was more on the future quarters just being so much lower than the first quarter and what's really causing the big decline, particularly in the third and fourth quarters?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, some of the things that I mentioned, so on property taxes we had significant appeals that hit the books in Q1 of 2017, so it was just a comp issue. That's not going to be a recurring issue in terms of each of the quarters of 2018, given those appeals were booked in Q1 of 2017 that created heavy pressure in this quarter. On payroll, as an example, we expected Q1 to be the peak for benefits. It's up about 15% year-over-year in Q1, but then it levels off as you move through the year. So, without going through every single category there are a number of topics like that that we're peaking in Q1 that will not recur in subsequent quarters that will take the year-over-year growth rate for all of OpEx down.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And so, Sean, like for benefits, it actually goes down below average like as we get into Q3 and Q4, so payroll actually comes down below sort of an average run rate.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Correct.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So I think there's some of that happening, Vincent, where there's little bit of leveling off of the impact as you move through the year.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. All right. Thanks. And just maybe one more just in terms of Manhattan and New York in general, which was said as pretty tough still. Can you just comment on concession trends there?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. As it relates to concessions, I mean, typically what you'd find in New York is heavy concessions on lease-ups, given the rent stabilization there and everybody trying to get the highest legal rent possible. In terms of concessions in our portfolio, and we're pretty consistent with most operators that are operating stabilized assets, we don't use a lot of concessions. I mean, average dollar concession per move in across the New York metro area for us is $40 in Q1. So it's pretty immaterial. Everybody pretty much prices on an effective rent basis as opposed to using concessions and lease-ups. So, that's not unusual.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. Thanks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Hey. Good afternoon, guys. Sorry. I'm looking at the development rights pipeline on page 15 of the supplemental. Can you remind us of the history there of how the different concentrations in the regions came together. How much of that was attributable to Archstone and then other transactions since then? Just how that all came together and what the strategic perspective there is?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. Rich, it's Matt. At this point, the development rights pipeline is, I don't think there are any Archstone development rights left in there at this point. We had added a few back in early 2013 when we closed that transaction, but we've moved most of those through the pipeline. There are a couple of deals that were Archstone assets we acquired where we have identified an opportunity to add density down the road. And so those are in there as development rights. Those are not conventional development rights in the sense that it's not land. We're buying from a third party on any kind of fixed timeframe. So we think those are great deals. These are jurisdictions in Mountain View and San Jose that understand the need for more housing, and so are supportive of us adding density, as long as we're not taking that in the existing assets. So there's a little bit of that, but it's honestly mostly bottom-up and these are mostly kind of one-off deals that our local teams have sourced. And they kind of go through a series of screens here in terms of the economics and the risk relative to the value creation. So you see it. It does tend to be concentrated a little more heavily in the New York region, part of that's because we have multiple offices there. So we have a lot of bodies and it does play to some of our competitive advantages in the suburbs, if you look in places like New Jersey and Long Island that are highly supply-constrained where we have the ability to get entitlements, so those tend to be very accretive deals. But there isn't necessarily any particular top-down driver of that.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, maybe just to add to that, as Matt mentioned, at this point in the cycle, we normally would see a higher concentration in Northeast, so it just tends to be more stable and deals tend to underwrite kind of throughout the cycle. In California, we probably have more than we normally would expect to have at this point in the cycle, but as Matt mentioned, they're not really sort of normal kind of market rate land deals and some cases are intensifying existing assets. So I think there's three public-private deals which are negotiated type deals and there's probably at least one other that's kind of more of a venture deal that's on a negotiated basis. So, obviously, those markets been more volatile in past. You got to be much more sensitive to market timing from a development standpoint and, if anything, it's probably a little higher than normal but for the reasons I mentioned.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. I appreciate the perspective there, guys. My second question here concerns Northern California. It seems like there's a – I don't want to call it an inflection point maybe, but an uptick maybe a little bit better than at least we were expecting as of a few months ago, just in terms of rent trends across the board. I know you've highlighted San Jose specifically with supply falling. But how quickly can that market change over the course of this year? And then how do you think about maybe some offsetting sort of elements where you've got VC funding in the area is up year-over-year, but you've got mature tech, which in some pockets is suffering. How do you think about the impact there on job growth and just the forward outlook?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, it's Sean. I mean it's good question, probably not one that's, yeah, easy to answer. It's kind of a mixed bag of things there. But I mean there are specific pockets where given supply is abating that's certainly helping. And in a market like Northern California, you're still seeing pretty solid income growth. So even though job growth may not be as healthy as it was over the past couple of years, the jobs that are being created for the most part, particularly in the tech and information systems categories that you can go through, wage growth there is very strong. So it does support plenty of rent growth possibilities, let's just say. So to the extent that you see a less competitive environment from supply, things can move relatively quickly in that market. We've seen it both to the up and down over the course of this cycle. So I'm not expecting it to accelerate to what it was maybe two or three years ago, just given the volume of supply that remains in that market, but it's probably healthier than it was as you were at the end of 2016, 2017, going into 2017, where you sort of had floodgate open in terms of new supply and the impact that it started to have on rent growth and stabilized assets. So, Tim, do you have any thoughts on that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rich. Essentially, if you look over the last six months, the strongest job growth has been in the technology market, Northern California, Seattle and Denver. And essentially, when you look at what's happening on the office absorption side, the tech markets real-time are outperforming as well. I mean, you're probably seeing that from some of the public companies that are releasing earnings lately. So, at least in terms from a corporate standpoint, it seems like there's probably more confidence and more optimism of taking down space or hiring. So that won't flip necessarily overnight, but as Sean mentioned they are pretty volatile markets and can be a function sometimes what's happening in the Nasdaq. Sort of the capital punchbowl sometimes gets taken away quickly from upstart companies in these markets. But, right now, there's still the strongest demand that we're seeing.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. Great. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good afternoon. Just want to touch a little on construction costs as we continue to hear about them increasing. So I'm curious, one, what have you seen with costs over the last three to six months and do you expect going forward? Two, how does it impact I guess your thoughts on new starts maybe by even region or submarket? And then, third, what are the broader implications for supply as you look out over the next couple of years.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Austin. This is Matt. As Tim mentioned in his opening remarks, hard costs are certainly growing faster than rents in all of our markets at this point. And so it is having an impact. What we're finding that is one reason. We're finding that kind of the things at the lower density suburban product is the stuff that's still underwriting better. And if you look at our starts this year, what we're planning, three of them are wood-frame garden deals. And while there is cost pressure there, it's maybe not as severe, and we do a lot of that business and we're able to bundle our buying power. And so those numbers have still been able to underwrite, tend to be in sub-markets with less supply in the first place, which also helps. Four of our planned eight starts this year are mid-rise kind of wrap deals, above-grade parking with wood-frame, and that's costs there are probably growing 4%, 5%, 6%, maybe a little more still in California and Seattle. And consequently, that's where less of our pipeline is because those deals are just having a harder time underwriting. And then we have maybe one high-rise we might start this year but in Baltimore, which is not a market that's seen the kind of cost pressures. A lot of it is still – I mean you see a lot of stuff about commodities and certainly steel and lumber tariffs don't help, but ultimately the main driver is labor availability and subcontractor margins. And in most of these markets, the subcontractors are still as busy as they want to be. So, for them to return the call, it's going to cost you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. So, maybe just to add to Matt. I think it's probably in the 6% to 7% range, but it's probably a range from 3% or 4% on the low end to, on a year-over-year basis over the last three to six months, to high-single-digit probably around 9% on the West Coast. The urban stuff, New York is tough to underwrite, the Bay Area is tough, and it's one of the reasons we haven't put new land under contract there really for the last three years. It's all been either public-private type stuff or densification opportunities. But I think it could last for a little while. As Matt said, it's a skilled labor issue. When you're kind of late in the cycle, we tend to have these commodity booms as we get late in the cycle and it's happening globally right now as we're seeing kind of mature economies growing basically the rate we are at 3%. I think our expectation has to be over the next year or two the construction costs are going to continue to outpace rent growth. So it's going to continue to, we think, regulate supply.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Right. So, as I said, so ultimately you think supply comes down versus return expectations start to come down?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
In my prepared remarks, I said modestly, it's been flat in our markets over the last three or four months. Yeah, essentially, when you look at the public guys, our expectations are for supply to come down as it relates to our business line. It's hard to know with the merchant holders. Ultimately it's going to turn on capital. And capital is probably a little more free right now than it was six months ago, but that can't change, that can't change. As we mentioned in some other calls, there have been some banks that have sort of red line multi-family, but on the other hand there have been sort of non-bank lenders that have seemed to materialize to fill the void. And sort of how long they kind of keep the party going I think is going to be the test.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for taking the question.
Operator:
We'll go next to Drew Babin with Baird.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Hey. Good afternoon. First question, going through the development page in the supplemental, it looks like not a lot changed in terms of timing on most of the projects. But I did notice that Avalon public market at Emeryville was delayed one quarter in terms of first occupancy as well as stabilization. I was just wondering if that's anything that might tangibly impact earnings or whether that's just a matter of a few weeks, or if you could give some color on that, that'd be helpful?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Drew. It's Matt. On average, we're kind of where we expected to be. That one deal, which was not really expected to open until relatively late in here at any rate, we did push back the initial occupancy I think from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. So we weren't planning a lot of occupancy there at any rate this year. But you may have noticed also several of the other deals that are finishing this year, we actually pulled forward the completion date. So we will wind up getting a few more apartments than we expected in the second quarter, third quarter. So we think that probably offsets any of the earnings impact of that deal and generally, as Sean mentioned, things are tracking as we expected on average.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Okay. That's good to know. And I guess a more general question. You talk about an improving employment situation and better wage growth nationally. I guess, my question is, are you seeing the same kind of impact from your suburban markets that you're seeing in some of the urban centers where you maybe get some of your higher barrier-to-entry suburban markets, where some of that demand kind of gets squeezed through and really causes some good rent growth? I was just wondering if you had any case studies or examples of where that might be happening.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Drew, just to make sure I understand the nature of the question in terms of relative performance, the spread between suburban and urban is still relatively wide. If you look at effective rent growth year-over-year, if you look at it for actually metrics, as an example, the spread is about 180 basis points right now, where suburban assets are outperforming urban. But every market is a little bit different and it depends on whether you're at a high price point in a suburban environment versus a more moderate price point, and the same thing in the urban environment. So those spreads do change from market-to-market, and depending on how you're positioning the asset. But in general, across our footprint, suburban assets continue to outperform relative to urban assets, which is mainly a function of two things. One, just absolute price point being cheaper in the suburbs, but then two, is the volume of deliveries in the urban end markets are roughly twice the volume of the suburban environment in our markets at this point. So...
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Drew, I'd just add to that. One place, we are seeing it, as Sean mentioned, we're certainly seeing it in our stabilized portfolio. On the lease-ups, that's probably where we're also seeing it. On average, the lease-ups are running about $20 ahead of pro form on rent compared to what we underwrote. But if you double click through that, they're running probably ahead in the suburban assets and maybe a little behind in the urban assets. So, that's where we're seeing some of these suburban assets. And some bonds that we completed recently like Great Neck, which we completed last year, or Rockville Center Phase II, where we did quite a bit better than we anticipated. So, that's maybe where we're seeing it more.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Great. Thank you. That's all for me.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey guys. Quick question for me. Look, I'm sort of thinking back on your foray into the Denver market a couple months ago, and I'm wondering if there's any markets that you're not in right now where you're seeing sufficient migrations to those markets where maybe the development yields are a little bit more creative. So, said another way, are there any markets that you're keeping your eye on that maybe you're not in right now or are you comfortable with where you are in the so-called late cycle?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Rich. Tim here. I'd say we're comfortable with where we're at with the addition of those markets. That doesn't mean that there aren't other markets, particularly in the Sunbelt, where development isn't accretive. But one of the things we struggle with in some of those markets though is, can we gain sort of a competitive advantage relatively quickly and sort of leverage some of our key sort of core competencies. And it's harder to make that argument certainly in Dallas and Atlanta where there's a lot of really super talented merchant builders in those markets and even a REIT or two that we can go in there and create sort of a winning position, where we felt like we have that opportunity potentially in Denver and Southeast Florida for a number of different reasons but...
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
But we feel pretty good with where we're at right now in terms of the revised footprint.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. Got it. That's helpful. That's it for me. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Pawlowski with Green Street Advisors.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Thanks. Matt, of the $1.2 billion in capital costs yet to be spent on the current pipeline, how much of this cost is exposed to rising construction expenses versus what's been locked-in?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Really almost none of it. When we started deal and we have what we call a Class 3 budget, at that point we've already bought out probably between 60% and 70% of the major trades. And then, the remaining piece generally gets bought out in the first 90 to 120 days of the deal. So the reality of it is everything that's under development, it's on that schedule. It's already basically bought out now. Occasionally, you may have a situation where a subcontractor can't perform at that number because they didn't understand their labor cost structure or whatever and they may go under and then we may have to replace them and we have contingencies for that. But our history has been pretty impressive over a long period of time on our ability to deliver on budget. So we don't really view that as where the risk is. The risk is probably more in the deals that we have not yet started and whether they will actually – when we go to start them, where the costs will be, where we think they are today.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Okay. Makes sense. Second question is around Costa-Hawkins, Tim. I know it's nearly impossible to underwrite what the impact is going to be. And if it does even a repeal passes, nothing may change on the ground overnight. But from a portfolio management perspective, I guess as a REIT, how do you manage the risk of Costa-Hawkins over the next couple of years in terms of your California concentration and long-term growth you'd underwrite in California?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. John, it's Sean. Maybe I'll make a couple of comments and then, yeah, Tim can certainly chime in. But as you indicated, given the nature of the issue, which is basically repealing something that limits the ability of local jurisdiction to enact rent control, doesn't necessarily tell you what will actually happen. So it's very difficult to predict. From a portfolio standpoint, what I'd say is we certainly know which jurisdictions could be more likely to enact rent control on post-1995 buildings, given their sort of public policy efforts to-date in this land, so the councils and all the other things that we know about all the local jurisdictions. Whether that actually happens or not, who knows, you can make bets jurisdiction by jurisdiction. So, to the extent that we're thinking about our portfolio, to the extent this was repealed, we certainly would be thinking about those jurisdictions first in terms of what our exposure might be. I'd say most of those are in Northern California as opposed to Southern California. There are a few in Southern California that you'd probably be watching. But there's also other things that you might consider doing in terms of what it might do to the housing shortage that already exists. It's only going to make it worse to the extent that rent control is enacted. You may be looking at some of those deals that you have maps on and converting some of them to condos in some of those jurisdictions we think the risk is high and/or other potential opportunities. So we'll see where it goes. There's a lot more to come on this topic. But I mean there's no question that rent control has proven to be bad public policy where it's been adopted. And in this case, our expectations only would exacerbate the housing shortage in California to the extent Costa-Hawkins was repealed and rent control was adopted fairly widespread across the state. We don't think that's likely in terms of widespread adoption, but it's something we certainly want to be mindful of in terms of strategy. But, Tim, I don't know if you have...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And John, it also is a function, as you know, what form is it adopted in. I mean, to the extent it has a vacancy decontrol feature, that's not as harmful. And in fact, you might argue that it could enhance the value of the asset depending upon whether it chills (43:08) new construction. Certainly, we've seen that in some of the submarkets we do business in, whether it's San Francisco or Santa Monica or some others. But, I guess I'd also say, I mean, it is a risk of our markets. I mean, we are in sort of the high cost of living blue states where every once in a while these things are going to rear their head. And no matter how well intended they are, as Sean mentioned, they are bad public policy and hope sort of the outcomes of that ultimately sort of get sort of course-corrected over time, because ultimately these economies need good market rate rental housing in order to continue to serve the kind of talent that they need to continue to grow. And if it's a contracting economy, that's probably worse than a growing economy with higher cost of housing, so.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Yeah. That all makes plenty of sense. Thanks for that. Then, in short, if the repeal does pass, do you think it's likely that you'd take your 40% of NOI concentration in California much lower?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Way too early to say on that. Again, for the reasons I mentioned, again if we think the form is going to have some notion of vacancy decontrol passed by local jurisdiction, that's very different than something where it's a real taking value, which may impact a lot of our portfolio decision, including converting some to condominium, as Sean mentioned, a lot of our portfolio is mapped in California. So we do have some flexibility and some options. So, that alone, to the extent we started that would probably take down our concentration.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And John, keep in mind, I think where I think you'd be most concerned in terms of the enactment of rent control is probably Northern California, given the activity in the last several years as compared to Southern California, there are a couple of places in Southern California that are kind of hotspots you'd have to watch, particularly in the L.A. market side. But we're probably dealing really with half of that 40% in our case, more like 20% you'd be concerned about the specific jurisdictions where it could be problematic. But it very likely could result in just fewer deliveries overall. So it could be very attractive. I mean, if you look at what's happened already just in response to JJJ in LA, the volume of applications is down pretty dramatically and people can't seem to get anything done in LA right now as a result of it.
John Richard Pawlowski - Green Street Advisors LLC:
Great. Thanks. Appreciate it.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Hi. Thank you, guys. Appreciate the supply outlook that you provided on slide 7 on the amount of work that you guys do to get there. If I look at the 2018 bars, they seem to be accelerating both in absolute terms as well as the year-over-year pressure versus 2017. And I don't know if that's splitting it too closely, but seeing that type of trajectory and then same-store revenue being roughly stable through the year. Can you just maybe connect the two and if you think there's something else that's going to be offsetting the supply to hold growth where it is?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Dennis, maybe I'll start and others can chime in. I think it's a fair point you're making. I think our guess is some of the Q3, Q4 will get delayed into 2019, and probably why I said in my prepared remarks sort of really leveling off and maybe a modest decline in 2019. Our expectation is that they are basically I think around 2.3% additional supply in 2018 and 1.8% in 2019. But we suspect that that will continue to sort of shift out and level off as we've seen over the last the last couple of years. But these are our best estimates based upon what we know today. But, as we mentioned in past, you saw last year with us we had more delays I think than we've had in the history of the company and a lot just comes down to, as Matt mentioned, just the availability of skilled labor, subcontractors defaulting on their obligations at a rate more than they have in the past. So I think that explains it in part. But we're also seeing stronger wage growth. So, while job growth may be relatively level, wage growth is stronger. That just provides more wallet share for housing. And then, lastly on top of that, we think household formation is growing faster than new construction, if you look at the total housing market, which has some ancillary benefit to the rental sector.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Okay. That makes sense. And to the degree some of that gets kicked into 2019 and call 2019 sort of flattish to down a little bit, which markets would sit most extreme versus that up or down?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Dennis, this is Sean. I'll provide a little bit of color on that and maybe expand on what Tim said. In terms of our footprint, 2017 deliveries were 2.1% of inventory. 2018, as Tim said, is projected to be 2.3%, but given delays and such, it's probably going to end up being about the same as 2017. And what really matters in terms of revenue performance is where that supply is concentrated. So it helps for us, as an example, on 2018 supply is actually down about 100 basis points in the New England market as compared to 2017, even though it might be up heavily in Seattle, which is only 5% to 6% of our portfolio. So the mix of it matters quite a bit. In terms of our overall projections, we have projected rent change to be down about 20 basis points relative to 2017 levels for the full-year 2018. So there is some deceleration in there, but market mix certainly helps us. When you look forward to 2019, to give you some sense of the expected change based on what we know today, the markets that would have the most material reduction in deliveries are in the New York, New Jersey region, including the city, which is expected to decline from around 13,000 units being delivered this year to about 6,700 next year, and Northern New Jersey, which goes from about 9,000 to about 7,000 deliveries. And then in Southern California, where we're talking about roughly 2% of inventory being delivered this year, it drops down to about 1.25% in 2019, which is spread across all three major markets in Southern California. LA goes from 14,000 to 10,000 deliveries, Orange County from 6,000 to 3,000 deliveries, San Diego from 5,000 to 3,000 deliveries, so it's pretty widespread in Southern California. Those are the two markets where you see the most material reduction in deliveries. New England is down 30 basis points. And then the only region that you still remain concerned about, really two regions of the Mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest, which are still going to be in absolute numbers pretty high in 2019, about 2.7% in Mid-Atlantic and still roughly 4% in the Pacific Northwest. The other markets are starting to look better. Those two will continue to have some challenges through 2019 in terms of deliveries though.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Very helpful. Thanks. And then just one last one on DC. You mentioned that's another area in the Mid-Atlantic in general that's going to be elevated again next year, and yet that's a market that's just had low growth for quite some time. So what's your perspective on why the supply keeps coming there, even though the fundamentals have been softer than other areas? Construction cost is I'm sure an issue there like elsewhere, capital probably similar as elsewhere. What's causing that to drag on so long?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Dennis, it's simply there's been a lot of profit to be a multi-family builder and it continues. I mean the deal we completed this quarter, NoMa a good example of that, it's been one of our better lease-ups. But we built that for about $340 a door, $350 a door, and it's probably worth north of $500 a door. So, merchant builders continue to make money. It's been a good trading market. Cap rates continue to be in the 4s. We have an asset on the market right now, a 12-, 15-year-old asset, Matt, where it's got probably as much interest as any asset that we're selling this year. So it's been a good trading market. And if you talk to the office guys, they'll say exactly the same thing. Tough fundamentals but, boy, there's still value there on the trade.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, guys.
Operator:
We'll go to Alexandra (sic) [Alexander] Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Hey. Thank you. Good afternoon. Just two quick ones for me. First, obviously, appreciate the comments on what's going on in California. Can you just talk about your thoughts, Tim, on New York with rent control, clearly the Senate fight here, a lot of it was to try and rally and change the rent control laws here in New York. So can you just give your view and if this affects newer construction or this is really only for the sort of legacy buildings that already have rent control as part of it?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Alex, that's a good question and probably a long-winded answer. Why don't we try to call you offline on that one in terms of the nuances associated with that because it's a pretty nuanced issue, if that's all right with you?
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. That works. And then the second question is, you talked about elevated supply for the next several years and, obviously, in the pipeline your development yields have come down as costs have gone up, et cetera. Just based on where your yield you're delivering in the sort of high-5s and you're trading in the sort of mid implied 5% cap range. Do you guys think about reducing the pipeline even more? You've already scaled it back about a third. Do you think about scaling it back even more, just based on your comments that you expect elevated supply for the next two to three years?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Alex, it's Tim. We might. It's hopefully going to turn on the economics of those deals as they get prepared for starts. But maybe just to put a little bit more numbers on it, I mean we're delivering today call it in the 6% to 6.5% range and I would tell you those assets are probably worth in the probably no higher than a 4.5% cap what we're delivering versus we're probably trading in the 5.5% range on a portfolio that maybe is more like a 4.75% kind of portfolio. So, today, it makes sense to do some development, but not as much as we've done in the past. And as Kevin mentioned, it's down 30%, 40% from kind of the 2013 to 2016 peak. But to the extent we continue to see more deterioration both in the yields and potentially in our stock price, you start to have different kind of capital allocation options that become more attractive. So I think it's certainly – that's potential that the $900 million could become $700 million or $600 million, depending upon which deals still make sense as cost of capital and market conditions in year one. (54:44)
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thank you, Tim.
Operator:
Okay. And we'll go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi. Yes. Just one quick one for me. Are you seeing any differences in behavior around tenants looking at your AVA, eaves, and AvalonBay assets? Just in regards to sensitivity to rent increases, so how aggressively they're looking for concessions when they're thinking of moving in?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And D.C. specifically you're talking about, Tayo?
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Not in D.C., just kind of across all the markets, if you're just kind of seeing anything really different across the three product types with regard to consumer behavior?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I would say, by product type, it's more a function of the local dynamics of supply and demand in that environment and how strained people might be. In terms of if you look at rent to income ratios and things like that, they're not all that different. To be honest, this is across the markets and the brands. It's really a function of what's happening in that local environment and how quickly rents are growing relative to incomes. And right now, we've seen pretty good growth in incomes across all segments if you want to describe it that way. And so, so far, I mean no material difference across the brands.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. What about specifically in oversupplied markets?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I'm sorry. Say it again.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
What about specifically in oversupplied markets, as you were insinuating before anything different...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Not necessarily pressure from I can't afford that. I think that's sort of a constant across the brands. It's more a function of what can they get down the street. So, if there's plenty of supply, in the submarket, if we happen to have a high-end asset in that submarket, we certainly need to be very thoughtful about how we handle renewal offers and pricing in a very competitive environment as compared to one where it's not quite as competitive. So, that certainly comes into play. It's still less competitive in the suburban environment, as I mentioned earlier, relative to the urban submarkets, but that's really what it comes down to.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. All right. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
It appears there are no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back to Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. Thanks, Cassie. And thanks everybody for being on today. And we look forward to seeing many of you in, I guess, about six weeks in NAREIT. Take care.
Operator:
This does conclude today's call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Vice President, Investor Relations Timothy Naughton - Chairman and CEO Sean Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Matthew Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer Kevin O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Nick Joseph - Citi Rich Hightower - Evercore ISI Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets Dennis McGill - Zelman & Associates Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Drew Babin - Robert W. Baird Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors Rich Hill - Morgan Stanley John Kim - BMO Capital Markets Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' Fourth Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, today’s call is being recorded and now it’s my pleasure to turn the conference over to Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead sir.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you. Laurie, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2017 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, the press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. This attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Great. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our fourth quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. Sean, Kevin and I will provide management commentary in the slides we've posted last evening and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will focus on providing summary of the fourth quarter as well as full year results, and then a discussion of our outlook for 2018. Now let’s start now on the slide 4. Highlights for the quarter and the year include the core FFO growth of just over 6% in Q4 and 5.3% for the full year. Same-store revenue growth came in at 2.2% in the fourth quarter or 2.3% when you include redevelopment. And for the full year came in at 2.5% or 2.6%, much to include redevelopment. We completed a record $1.9 billion in new developments this year and started another $800 million. And lastly we raised about $2.6 billion in an external capital, principally through debt and asset sales at an average initial cost of 3.6%. Turning to slide 5, the $1.9 billion of development completed this past year, created roughly $600 million in value. The average projected yield, which is based upon current rent roles and estimated 2018 expenses at 6.1%, well above prevailing cap rates for this basket of assets, many of which are located in low cap rate urban and infill submarkets. Turning to the slide 6, in terms of portfolio management, we acquired three communities and sold six others this past year. The acquisitions were focused on expansion and under allocated markets including the purchase of our first asset in the Southeast Florida market in Boca Raton. 2017 dispositions were focused in the Northeast and we will continue to recycle capital into new development opportunities. Turning now to slide 7, we made progress in other important parts of the business this past year as well, including customer satisfaction where we ranked number one nationally among apartment REITs for online reputation for the third consecutive year, associate engagement, where we're named to Glassdoor's top 100 places to work, and number one among all real estate investment companies in the U.S. And in the area of corporate responsibility where our multiyear focus on environmental, social and governance issues has earned this recognition in the U.S. and globally as leaders in this area. Let’s now turn to slide 8. Our previous development platform has contributed to healthy outperformance in cash flow growth this cycle. Over the last seven years on an annual compounded basis, we’ve outperformed the sector in core FFO growth per share by 300 basis points which equates or translates into 4,000 basis points on a cumulative basis during that time. Similarly over the last nine years, dividend growth per share has outperformed the sector by 320 basis points on an annual compounded basis, which also equates into about 4,000 basis points cumulatively during that nine year period. Let’s turn to slide nine, and our outlook for 2018. Some of the highlights for outlook include core FFO growth of 3.6%, driven part by same-store NOI growth of 2% and development starts of $900 million and completions of $700 million at share. NOI of development communities is expected to be roughly $52 million at the midpoint, down from $59 million in 2017, as unit deliveries will be down significantly this year. Turn to slide 10, which summarizes the major components of our core FFO growth. At 3.6%, core FFO growth is expected to be down about 170 basis points from 2017 with internal growth from the stabilized portfolio contributing about 50 basis points or roughly one third of that decline and external growth from stabilizing investment in lease-up activity, net of capital cost contributing the other 120 basis points or roughly two thirds of that decline. Again a drop off in unit deliveries in ’18 is driving much of that reduction. I want to turn now to some of the key assumptions and drivers for outlook this year. Starting on slide 11, and I won’t go into a lot of details here, but as we do, as we enter 2018, it's with good momentum and the expectation of stronger economic growth. We expect to see stronger GDP growth this year with the economy is benefitting from synchronized global expansion and simulative affects of tax reform. In the corporate sector, higher profits, the repatriation of cash and accelerated cost recovery schedules should translate into healthy increases in capital investment. For the consumer, rising confidence combined with better wage growth and record wealth should stimulate consumption in 2018. So U.S. economic growth is expected to be driven by both the business community and the consumer this year. The biggest risk, perhaps to the economic outlook may come from any unintended consequences related to Fed tightening another policy. Slides 12 to 14 drilldown on these economic themes in a bit more detail, I'll skip over them to slide 15 to briefly address demographics in the housing market. So on slide 15, you can see the demographic trends should continue to support apartment demand for the next several years. The key target age cohort, those aged 25 to 34, it doesn’t peak until 2024, another six years. And delays in family formation, subcutaneous report rental demand, these trends maybe offset apart by stronger consumer confidence, and the fact that the leading edge of the millennials are now entering some of their prime home buying years. As a result, we do expect housing demand need more balance after several years of strongly favoring rental, and perhaps even favor for sale in single family at the margin in 2018. These trends can be seen on the next slide, slide 16 where it's clear that the per sale expansion has momentum without the increases in demand, production and pricing. Meanwhile, multi-family has seen rent growth decelerated recently to 2%, 2.5%, 3%, and starts flatten or actually fall over the last few quarters. As the few charts on the bottom indicate, it does appear that capital to some extent is imposing some discipline on the market as financing new construction to become challenging or more challenging over the last few quarters. This should translate into fewer deliveries in ’19 providing the apartment sector with some relief on the supply side next year. I’m now going to hand it over to Sean who will discuss demand and supply fundamentals and our markets and our portfolio outlook for ’18. Sean?
Sean Breslin:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 17, to provide some insight on demand. We expect to see modestly lower job growth across the U.S. and in most of our markets during the year, which is being constrained by an economy that’s basically of employment. On a positive note, given demand for workers remains at cyclical highs approaching roughly 6 million opened positions across the country at year-end 2017 rent growth is expected to continue to accelerate throughout the year. Moving to slide 18, we expect new deliveries across our footprint to be relatively consistent with what we experienced in 2017. The slide indicates that modest increase in supply in 2018, but similar to the past few years we expect high labour markets, training municipalities and other factors to result in some deliveries being pushed into 2019. In terms of the regions, deliveries are projected to increase in both Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. Pacific California is the first time in cycle deliveries have exceeded 2%. And for the Pacific Northwest deliveries will be equalled to roughly 4% of stock for the second consecutive year, which is beginning to put down work pressure on rent growth. With the exception of New England, which reflects to reduce deliveries in the Boston market, the volume of deliveries in our other regions is expected to be pretty comparable to 2017. And moving to slide 19, supply continues to be most pronounced in the urban submarkets, a trend we expect to continue through 2019. For 2018, the increase in supply across our markets is mainly a result of the expected increase in deliveries in urban submarkets. Supply in suburban submarkets is projected to be 1.8% of inventory relatively consistent with 2017, while urban submarkets pick up from 2.9% to 3.5%. Turning to side 20, we expect same-store rental revenue growth to be between 1.5% and 2.75% resulting in a midpoint of 2.1% or 40 basis points below the 2.5% revenue growth, we generated during 2017. Both regions are expected to decelerate in 2018, with the most material reduction expected in the Pacific Northwest, is the combination of slower employment growth and an increase in deliveries takes the toll on performance. On a positive note, we’re starting to see a modest improvement in fundamentals in Northern California, particularly in San Jose as deliveries begin to taper off, so there could be up some upside to that region during 2018. Moving to slide 21, we expect same-store revenue growth rates to remain relatively stable throughout 2018 consistent with the levelling off trend we started to experience in the second half of 2017. And now turning to slide 22 to address development, we completed a record of $1.9 billion last year, which represented about 3,800 apartment homes across our markets. For 2018, while we have about $3 billion in development underway, which includes roughly 6,500 homes, only 1,800 homes are schedule to be delivered during the year. The reduced volume of deliveries, which is 50% to 60% of what we produced in the past couple of the years is a function of the mix of business underway and the expected construction duration at the time we started those jobs. As Tim mentioned earlier, the reduced volume of deliveries translates into a 120-basis-points reduction and the contribution to our core FFO growth rate from external growth activities. Looking forward to 2019, we expect deliveries to be more in line with 2017 volume. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Kevin to talk a little bit more about development underway and the balance sheet. Kevin?
Kevin O'Shea:
Great. Thanks, Sean. Looking at ongoing development activity from a volume and balance sheet perspective on slide 23, while new development in certain supply constraint markets were continued to generate attractive profit margins, development elsewhere had become more challenged. As a result, development starts have declined from around $1.2 billion per year for much of this cycle to less than $1 billion per year in 2017 and as projected in 2018. Consequently the total amount of development way has declined from its peak in 2016 and is expected to remain relatively stable at around $3 billion or about 10% of our total enterprise value. As we pursue development more selectively in our markets, we remain focused on carefully managing our risk on such ways by limiting the amount of land that we owned for development. As you can see on slide 24, over the past 2 years we have kept our land inventory below $100 million. At $68 million at year end 2017, our current land inventory is at the lowest level in over a decade and represents a mere 20 basis points of our total [indiscernible]. In addition, as we've discussed before, another way in which manage risk from ongoing development is by substantially match funding long-term capital with development underway. This allows us to lock-in development profit and substantially reduce development funding risk. As you can see on slide 25, we were approximately 75% match funded against development underway at year end 2017, consistent with our objective of being roughly 70% to 80% match funded against this book of business. To further reduce risk on development profits, we also put in place 10-year treasury hedges totaling $300 million of the blended 2.4% swap rate as compared to a 10-year yield of approximately 2.7% today. We intend to apply these hedges to newly issued debt in 2018. On slide 26, we show our liquidity and several key credit metrics as of year-end 2017. These remain strong and reflect our continued financial flexibility. Specifically at year end, we enjoyed excess liquidity of about $200 million relative to the capital that is remaining to be invested in development. In addition, net-debt-to EBITDA remains low at 5.0 times, interest coverage remains high at 6.9 times and our unencumbered NOI ratio with an all time high of 89%, reflecting the benefit of our having payoff significant amount of secured debt in 2017. As shown on slide 27, our balance sheet management efforts over the past few years have produced a remarkably well laddered debt maturity schedule that will serve the company well in the coming years, specifically via substantially addressed our near term debt maturities and we've also been able to stagger debt maturities efficiently over the next 10 years. So the debt maturing in a single year does not exceed the amount of our dividend based on a reasonable growth rate. In addition, approximately $1.9 billion over 25% of our overall debt has a final maturity date that is more than 10 years from year end 2017. As a result, we had a weighted average year's debt maturity on our debt portfolio of 9.9 years versus the sector average of 6.4 years. We believe this underscores our differentiated balance sheet flexibility as we move through the remainder of the cycle. And with that, I will turn it back to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
Well, thanks Kevin. Just a few concluding remarks before opening up for Q&A. So overall 2017 was a productive year. We completed almost $2 billion in new development, the most ever, generating $600 million in net asset value. We reduced near-term maturities and enhanced financial flexibility as Kevin just mentioned. And for the seventh consecutive year, we delivered above average sector growth in core FFO per share. In 2018 we expect to see stronger economic growth and healthy rental demand, but apartment fundamentals are likely to moderate as new deliveries are expected to reach this cyclical peak. Same-store revenue growth is expected to be down by about 40 basis points, as Sean mentioned, some 2017 to the low 2% range. And development should continue to contribute meaningfully to FFO growth although at a lesser rate in the last couple of years. And lastly, we’ll manage liquidity in the balance sheet to pursue this growth and our risk measured way as we move into the later years of the current cycle. And with that, Laurie, we’ll be happy to open the call for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we’ll go first to Nick Joseph at Citi. Please go ahead.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Maybe starting with development, you mentioned a low land inventory and development as a percentage of enterprise value towards the cycle low, I know in 2018 starts are expected to increase a little relative to last year. But what would you need to see the meaningful growth of development pipeline or should we expect to remain around this level for the remainder of the cycle?
Timothy Naughton:
Hey, Nick, I’ll start with that. This is Tim. If you look at our volume over really '17 or projecting for '18, it’s in the $800 million to $900 million range in terms of starts. That’s down a little bit more than 30% from the '13 to '16 time period. And what we’re really looking to do is right size it relative to what we can fund without the benefit of the equity markets, just given the state of - just yield stocks right now, and perhaps maybe being out of favour over the near-term. But we are looking to state -- we think we can fund that amount on a leverage neutral basis just remove the free cash flow debt and reasonable level of asset sales. So we do expect it to be in the $800 million to $1 billion range over the next, and call it three years. We’re continuing to focus on use of options just give us flexibility. And if you look at almost $4 billion of development right pipeline, we only got about $40 million tight up and pursued costs beyond the land costs. So we’re really controlling, but its $4 billion with $40 million investment. So it’s - I think, it’s in a remarkable position where we are in the cycle in terms of the flexibility that gives us to continue to pursue with still accretive growth for the company at least for the near-term. So the bottom line, I think, it would take the equity markets to open up and have a view that perhaps a cycle has a lot longer to run in just next two years to three years.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. And then just on Seattle, you’re projecting to be one of your strongest markets, but also decelerating the most this year relative to last year. Just want to get some more colour on that and if you expect Seattle to have more software in there if you think it could decelerate for a different care when do you kind of look out over the next few years?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Nick, this is Sean. I’m happy to talk about that. In terms of Seattle, it’s been close to high flier market for a several years now as supply has been increasing, so as job growth and it set blistering pace of job growth for the last several years. But that has expected to continue to slow in the 2018 - 2017 is around 25,000 jobs, is projected to produce closer to 30,000 jobs in 2018, and at the same time though we’re talking about supply increasing from roughly 3.5% of inventory of to sort of in the mid-4s. So you are going from 9,000 units to almost 12 and it's pretty widespread across those markets or sub markets within Seattle, except maybe the North end. So, we're starting to see signs of deceleration there already market rents across the markets as well as what we're seeing in our portfolio indicate the deceleration, I would say sign of the cliff, but based on what we've seen, we would expect this to slowly decelerate throughout 2018 absent some major pull back in terms of employment there, so based on the forecast that we have for employment that’s where comfortable to us.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. And then, I know you won’t give '19 guidance obviously, but would you expect just given the amount of supply still kind of in the pipeline for that market, and actually see job growth meaningfully increase. Is that the market most at risk across your portfolio of kind of downside potential for this year?
Sean Breslin:
For this year, in terms of our portfolio, keep in mind, Seattle’s only around 5% of the portfolio, so it's not going to move the needle in a meaningful way. In terms of the nature of the deceleration of the magnitude of it, certainly that’s what expecting is the most deceleration from Seattle. We think we projected that reasonably appropriately, but as I indicated, it could fairly follow up more of job growth came in and much weaker. The supply is pretty much big based on what we know. And as you look in the 2019, it’s still pretty elevated at roughly 3.5% of supply. So our expectation is we’ll continue to decelerate in 2018 and if you see job growth in 2019, similar to what’s projected for 2018 with a level of supply will continue to soften in 2019 as well.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah.
Operator:
We’ll move next to Rich Hightower at Evercore ISI.
Rich Hightower:
Hey, good afternoon, guys. Couple questions here, to follow-up on the supply question, this would apply to Seattle or any market, but I just want a quick clarification on Avalon’s methodology and how you guys forecast supply. On our side, we look at actually metrics or whatever, and we've got delivery dates according to their data, but that might not be perfectly reflective of what is competitive at any given point in time. Can you guys just clarify how you guys think about projects that are in lease-up that maybe aren’t fully delivered per definition and then how that is reflected in your internal forecast just to we understand the differences?
Sean Breslin:
Hey sure, Rich, this is John. I am happy to start and if Mat has anything to add, you can do that as well. But we're pretty thorough in terms of our assessment and handicapping of supply each one of our regions, markets and at the sub market level. And we really come at it from two different approaches, first is the little more of macro, if you want to describe it that way, which is for all the data that we can from active metrics, regional resources, such as that to identify what they have laid out in terms of which specific projects, where they are expected delivery duration et cetera. In addition to that, we also go to some regional sources like delta here in the D.C. market as an example, [indiscernible] advisor, I think it is in Seattle, in terms of their assessment to local market. So we're getting all the input from the third-parties that we can to identify communities. And then in addition of that, we have sort of a ground up aggressively with process if you want to call it that way, which involves both our development and our RS teams. The development teams provide a pipeline to our market research function listing every single community within their region that’s in different stages of detailed planning or the construction process. So they’re picking up everything when first pipeline application as an example to building permit et cetera, and they lay that out and handicap it in terms of nature of the product type in the submarket in terms of what they expected construction duration would be, and then based on the local municipality, how they expect to deliver those units if it’s by four, if it’s by building in the case of guarding deal somewhere et cetera, et cetera. Then the final path in the grassroots process is it standard over the operating team and they, in particular look at the expected delivery schedule of near-term deliveries because that’s either who they’re competing with today for customers or the advertising has kicked in because they’re going to start preleasing within some reasonable period of time, 90 days to 120 days as an example. So the grassroots effort is a combination of development and operations the macro view is all third-party advisors and then our market research team assesses all of that, put this together for us, and then based on historical error rates in terms of people projecting x% of deliveries in a certain market, we know what they’ve actually done in the past in terms of market deliveries, we may handicap that a little bit. And particularly this cycle has been important where deliveries have been delayed across our footprint due to labour challenges, local municipality and their constraints et cetera. So we’ve a long way to answer, but it’s a pretty thorough process.
Rich Hightower:
Yeah, Sean, that’s a great answer. Thanks for the color there. Also on the topic of development, so I know that as of the date that a project begins for you guys, your yields are pretty closely locked in at that moment in time, but if you think about the forward development pipeline maybe projects that haven’t started and especially in markets where maybe you haven’t seen a lot of rent growth over the last few years while development costs keep going up in those markets, how do you think about yields trending prospectively on some of those projects? And then conversely how do you see market cap rates trending in those same markets now that we really see evidence of Fed tightening and rising rates in general?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hi, Rich, it’s Matt. I guess I can try and answer that one. You’re right, when we start a deal we are always talking about today’s rents, today’s expenses, today’s costs, and then we don’t remark the deal until we got usually about 20% to 25% leased. And in general, on the deals that are in lease up and the deals that have completed, the rents have continued to be per forma at least, not by as much right now as they were early in the cycle, but they still leading by per forma a little bit. On the deals that have not yet started entering the development price pipeline, we are up - we do update those kind of an ongoing basis, we think that whole basket today is probably around the mid 60s, yield wise. But you’re right, in some markets there will be downward pressure and some occasionally -- that’s why we see us remove deals from the pipeline from time-to-time with right to deal off. But as Tim mentioned, the fact that we’re controlling that $4 billion of business with only $68 million gross of land owned and those were all short-term starts where we have a pretty good visibility and so what the ultimate economics are going to be. The other $3.4 billion of that pipeline is controlled through kind of longer-term options where we only got $40 million invested cumulatively in all of that. That does give us the ability if the economics erode to the point that it’s no longer attractive. We would have another conversion with the land seller or we try and redesign the product, if we have that ability to do that or in some cases it may be watching away, so not all that $3.8 billion is going to make.
Rich Hightower:
Right, that makes sense. And then my question on market cap rates just in the context of interest rates going up generally?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, I mean you would have thought between interest rates going up and frankly every short-term NOI growth prospects coming down, if that might have had an impact on cap rates, but so far we haven’t seen it. It will be interesting to see here. Now certainly deal volume last year in the first half was down, in the second half, it picked up quite a bit and was almost on par with the second half of '16. So and the deals we saw recently probably exceeded our expectations in terms of cap rates. There are certainly a lot of capitals to looking to buy assets, there are sellers, I think it's going to be very active first half for transaction volumes, so we’ll have a lot more data then, but as we sit here today we have not seen that.
Rich Hightower:
Okay, thanks for that.
Operator:
Moving next to Nick Yulico at UBS.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, good afternoon, this is [indiscernible] on for Nick. So just looking at your same-store revenue growth projection, few geographies are expected to have growth under 2%. So what would it take for you to get more positive across these markets and perhaps New York and D.C. in particular and the trends that you are seeing in these markets thus far in 2018?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, it's a pretty simple answer, which is better job growth. Supply is pretty much big, so you know what the supply side looks like, so now it’s a function of demand. So in general, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we're expecting job growth to follow-up in most of our regions, but to the extent that reverse itself when we started to see greater job growth across these markets, which would involve increase the labor force participation rates, greater immigration and something else to allow that since we're pretty much of full employment today. That would start the total rent growth a little bit better.
Unidentified Analyst :
Okay. Thank you. And so again you've only recently announced your plan to enter Denver in the South Florida market, you've already made an acquisition in each. So bigger picture, how are you thinking about planning to grow your footprint in these areas and what opportunities do you perhaps in the more immediate term call it next year or so?
Matthew Birenbaum:
George, this is Mat. We -- ultimately overtime, we do expect to grow our presence in those markets through acquisitions and development. And as we mentioned, I think, on the last call, we may also wind up providing capital and partnering with other local developers who may have deals that are closer to ready to starting, then organic development, we would be sourcing kind of from day one as a way to kind of bridge that gap. So, and we do think there is opportunity; certainly there is opportunities to buy assets in both of those markets. There is a lot of newly build product which merchant builders have delivered that's available free and clear of debt, where we can fund that through 1031 exchanges. So a very tax efficient way for us to move capital, rotate capital out of some of our legacy markets into those expansion markets, so certainly we are looking to buy this year in those markets. And then we are also looking both for development sites and potentially development partnerships. And I would expect to see we may have some of that business here in the next 12 to 18 months.
Unidentified Analyst :
All right. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And we will go next to Juan Sanabria at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead sir.
Juan Sanbria:
Thanks for the time. Just on the supply side, I guess what’s your level of conviction that 19 deliveries were in fact began and specifically the Northern California, I see you guys are forecasting an increase. Is there a particular market that’s driving that to be an outlier, and if you could just comment on the construction money, because in the presentation you commented on bank and non-bank lenders kind of listening those standards?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Juan, this is Sean. I’m happy to chat about that and then Kevin maybe also wanted to try that on the banking side. But as it relates to the level of conviction of supply in 2019, we’re projecting that now at 1.7% of inventory, which is a decline of around 30,000 units or so across our footprint relative to 2018. Yeah, that’s based on the process that I described earlier on the call. So most of what would be delivered in '19 is pretty well known now given the construction cycle that occurs across our markets. This really a chance that call it putting the wrap job across the footprint, could start here in the first quarter this year that are not known in terms they would not have been picked up. And our pipeline as it relates to pipeline application process or building process building pulled or something like that, that was missed basically. But I said margin of areas probably pretty low, so directionally, it's certainly correct whether it comes out of 17 or 18 or 15, who knows. But I’d say it’s directionally appropriate order of magnitude yet to be seeing. And then as it relates to Northern California, if you look at it, we’re already starting to see deceleration and deliveries in San Jose. We delivered around 5,000 units there in 2017. And that’s declined to about 3,500 in 2018 and sort of level off there in 2019, in terms of the east bay's '18-'19 pretty level about 3,500 units. San Francisco is actually expected to increase a little bit, which is consistent with what I mentioned earlier in terms of most of the increases in supply that we see across our footprint are result of supply being delivered in the urban submarkets. So we would expect that to be the case in San Francisco, the consistent with the broader theme. So like I see some release in San Jose, pretty consistent in east bay than little bit of comp off in San Francisco in 2019. And then on the banking side, just anecdotally and Kevin can make comments as well. We’re still having conversions with many of our private peers at ULI and other events that Matt myself or Tim attend and it's certainly still some stress in the system in terms of construction lending; one from a pricing standpoint given what’s happening at the short end of the curve, can have boosting pricing overall. But then also as Matt was alluding to deceleration and wide growth, higher costs, the squeezing margins. So it's certainly pressure there in terms of loan to cost as well as spread in terms of overall assets side. Kevin, any thoughts on that?
Kevin O'Shea:
Well, I mean, I think, what we’ve heard is and it’s consistent with what you described Sean, first of all, as you know, we don’t use construction financing in our business. But from our interactions with those sponsors who do and conversions with bank, clearly it has become an awful lot harder for local developers to obtain construction financing, particularly the less more capitalized or if the project is in a more supply challenge market. To a great degree and there is a requiring more recourse imposing wider spreads, more conservatives, leverage levels, higher amounts of investor equity and just to have greater emphasis on who’s sponsor is. So at the margin that is starting to squeeze out some potential supply from the system and making deals harder to cancel.
Juan Sanbria:
Great, thank you. And then just on your development deliveries for '18, you had some slippage in '17. Is there any level of conservatives or slippages built into your 2018 delivery assumptions in terms of the timing and contribution to the NOI line?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Jaun it’s Matt. I think it's basically what we expect. We do update our schedules every quarter. And our performance in general has been quite good over long period of time. We did have some challenges last year. There is lot fewer deals that are actually starting lease-up in '18 and in '17 and the risk is usually in getting that firstly about getting those initial sign offs from the fire marshals and others. So I think we're feeling pretty good, it's what we expect and there is a lot. They're just a lot fewer deals, so it seems like, in my mind it's probably lot less margin for error there than it was last year.
Juan Sanbria:
Thank you.
Operator:
And we'll hear next from Austin Wurschmidt of KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Hi, good afternoon. So as far as Southern California, that stands out as another market with a notable increase in new supply in 2018. And I just be curious how that broke out between the three markets that you have exposure to and whether or not you seen concessions pick up and any of your specific sub markets that are most exposed to competitive new supply?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, Austin, this is Sean, happy to take that one for you. It's in the supply in Southern Cal, yes, we do expect to increase year-over-year from 1.6% of inventory to about 2.3 to 70 basis points. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, just first on this cycle is exceeded 2%. We don’t think it's going to last one frankly because supply in '19 is projected back down at about 1.2% of inventory. There is a number of things potentially driving that and the pipeline make it more constrain in certain markets like Los Angeles, which has, as you may know, passed the JJJ ordinance, which is imposed new affordable requirements and other things on developers that make the economics quite challenging. But in terms of what’s expected for 2018, the biggest groups is really in LA, we are going from about 9,000 units to 15,000. Orange County is up about 1,500 units to about 7,400, and then Santiago about 2,400 units to about 6,000 in total, which is fairly heavy amount for somewhat smaller markets. In terms of your question about concessions and such, it's in the sub markets where we would have expected it, so at Santiago it's not significant at all, but for the most you see it in Downturn Santiago in terms of the concentration of supply, and therefore more concessions. In Orange County, it tends to run in Irvine, Anaheim and a little bit Huntington Beach where you see concessions, but again we're not talking about significant levels here. And then LA, it's -- where it’s a little bit to play heavy so you see some concessions in Downtown LA, for sure, which is where a heavy amount of supply is being delivered and we'll continue to be delivered in 2018, and then that includes Korea town as well. So, Downtown LA create sound, there is a healthy amount of supply there and then the other concessions that really kind of in the West Hollywood, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire portion of LA. So we're not material in terms of maybe what we saw when we opened some deals in San Francisco last year, but I'd say in terms of any concession activity that slightly above the norm, those are bit of submarkets that become mind.
Austin Wurschmidt:
So the fact that you’re not seeing a lot in sort of the University City, Glendale, Burbank type areas. Is that what gives you the confidence that same-store revenue growth could remain fairly stable despite the fact that you’re see in this notable uptake in new deliveries?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, I mean, I think where the deliveries are both concentrated we have little exposure, it's the basic answer. So we’re seeing concessions in Pasadena has resulted deliveries in Glendale? Yes. Is it going over to Burbank given the nature assets we have in Burbank which are pretty affordable value oriented communities, no; those are the some of the best performing assets we have in LA right now. They’re doing 6% kind of numbers. So if we had five deals in Downtown LA and Koreatown, I’d be concerned; if we have lot of existing assets in sort of Hollywood, Hollywood that might be a little concern, but we just finished lease-up on West Hollywood job and it worked out just great. It’s a terrific asset, rent cements substantially both pro forma and part two location of the product, the design and trade in the building et cetera. So we feel pretty good about where we are given what’s happening in that market. And the fact that job growth there is expected to be relatively flat year-over-year, it’s down slightly, but compared to some of the other markets, it’s pretty wide spread and we forget about the submarkets in which we operate.
Austin Wurschmidt:
That’s helpful. Thanks Sean. And then next question, as far as development, you started a new project in sort of the suburban Baltimore region, you completed an asset there, I believe, last year. And I’m just curious what kind of the appetite to grow exposure to the Baltimore region?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hi, this is Matt. We like Baltimore and we are - we have had very little exposure there over the years, in fact, the only same-store stabilized assets we have in the Baltimore Metro or similar assets in Columbia, Maryland. So if you look at it, it was so much surprising us, if you look at the long run rent growth tree, you have four kind of sub-regional markets in Metro, D.C. -- Baltimore is actually number two right behind Washington and ahead of Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland over a long period of time. So we would like more exposure there, we finished the deal on Hunt Valley couple of quarters to go. This is done quite well. We do have the deal that we look to start this year, actually in Downtown Baltimore. So and it’s also among - markets in the Mid Atlantic, it’s the one that’s probably seeing the lease supply. So while demand has been okay, not phenomenal, the demand supply balance is probably been better there and favouring more or so in our than D.C. Maryland or Virginia.
Austin Wurschmidt:
So how would you see that market shaping up parameters wise in terms of your exposure within the Washington D.C. Baltimore region?
Matthew Birenbaum:
We have a particular type work, but I can see growing to 2% to 3% of our total portfolio from less than 1% today overtime, if you look at five years from now.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Thanks. And then last one for me. Can you just share where the two land partials you acquired in January were located?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yeah. I think one of them was they both deals were playing to start in the next quarter or two. I believe one of them was in suburban Massachusetts. And ...
Austin Wurschmidt:
I'll back to you on that one.
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yeah, we’ll come back to you on that one.
Austin Wurschmidt:
No, no, that’s fine. Do you assume a start in a development start in southern South Florida or Denver within that $700 million to $750 million you've targeted for this year?
Sean Breslin:
We're not -- we do have some deals identified and some that are kind of percolating along, so there is that possibility.
Matthew Birenbaum:
And in that case, it would be with the sponsor. It wouldn't be certainly be something that we would acquire within this year. So …
Austin Wurschmidt:
Okay. Thanks for the time.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Dennis McGill at Zelman & Associates. Please go ahead.
Dennis McGill:
Hi, guys, thank you. Just one question on the trajectory of the same store sales as you go through the year, have a little bit of a dip down in the fourth quarter and realized there is a tight band throughout the year. But just hoping to maybe get some clarity on how you're thinking about that? And why there would be a slip at the end of the year if you're starting to see some elevation on the supply side?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Yes, Dennis, it's not a whole lot really to talk about. I mean, it's really a function of the individual assets to make us the same store pool and how they perform quarter-to-quarter, delivery through too much into that. So like to the extent that we see a better job growth given the supply does start to fall off in the fourth quarter of 2018 when you look at it quarter-by-quarter across our footprint, there is some upside but there is nothing rally to read into that.
Dennis McGill:
Okay. And then just one clarification, can you just explain noncash write off logistics of that on the New York City Land parcel?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. This is Kevin. We, in the fourth quarter, we acquired the land on which are Morningside Park's community in Manhattan is located from the [indiscernible] and pursuant to the ground lease that was occupied since we completed the project in 2009. We acquired it for $95 million and doing so. We extinguished the ground lease that has some fair market value resets and didn't otherwise have a buyout option. So essentially, you think it was a pretty attractive acquisition of land from a long term perspective with probably levered IRR in 6% to 7% range, initially a little bit alluded because we get the opportunity to limited ground lease that have a $2.3 million run rate. But we have some prepaid rents associated with that and we will be eliminated ground lease to go it off.
Dennis McGill:
Okay, that's helpful. Thanks guys.
Operator:
And moving next to John Guinee at Stifel. Hi sir, please check your mute button. And I'm hearing no response from that line. And we'll go next to Vincent Chao at Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao:
Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Appreciate the commentary on sort of the assumptions that are met in your outlook in terms of job growth and wage growth that's helpful to all the supply in your market. So I was just curious in terms of home ownership rates, are you embedding any additional increases in home ownership rates relative where we ended '17?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, Vincent, this is Tim. I just say, as I mentioned in my remarks, we are expecting housing demand to be more balanced than it has been in the prior years of this cycle where was predominantly rental housing. As I mentioned, we could see just how the fundamentals this year favoring for sales slightly as you know. If you're looking across age cohort say home ownership rates have ticked up. I wouldn’t be surprise as we see that continue here for the next, at least for the next few quarters the prospect of interest rates rising, I think maybe get some people off the sideline, potentially who may have been thinking about it. And certainly whenever you have the kind of confidence levels that you’re seeing right now and the kind of that could stimulate some for sale. So almost implicit in roughly 2% rent growth versus housing prices, I think, growing sort of mid single-digit, we expect a single family all things being equal, single family and for sale demand little bit stronger than the real side.
Vincent Chao:
Okay. Thanks for that. And then just on the expense side of things. Kept your - since your expense outlook unchanged basically year-over-year, maybe quite a bit different from equity residential yesterday. But I’m just looking at the line items for the full year, it does seem like there were some items that have been normalized would put some upward pressure on the same-store expenses relative to 2017. I was just curious what the offsets might be to allow you get to that?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes. It happened there run through sort of the outlook for CapEx. As we provided in the earnings release, the range is 2 to 3 with the midpoint 2.5, basically on top of what we did in 2017 as you noted. Probably taxes are going to make up 60% of the increase in total OpEx. They’re going to be up about 4.5%, just give you some perspective. It’s about 34% of our OpEx structure. Another 30%, its payroll, which we expect to increase at about 3.2%, the markets probably stronger than that to be honest, but we’ve reduced some bodies in certain regions for a number of different reasons to try and give you a little bit more efficient. So we’ve taken a little bit of pressure of payroll. The last 10% or so is from repair and maintenance and other categories, but there are offsetting reductions in a number of other categories, to give you some sense, for example, utilities, which is actually zero, selling offset, but zero growth rate that we’ve made a number of investments in sustainability over the last couple of years whether it’s LED or other types of investments that are continued to payoff and we expect to continue to invest in that this year in the form of solar and other projects. But we’re also seeing some offsets in terms of the marketing line items. The mix of marketing, however, engaging in terms of SEO search et cetera, cost per lease down about 10% year-over-year, cost inter costs were down. We’ve implemented online tour scheduling over the course of the last 12 months. And now about 41% of all of our tours is getting online, that’s up about 1,000 basis points year-over-year. That -- it doesn’t sound like it would be meaningful, but when you’re paying about seven bucks a phone or call or two bucks an email for a call centre to answer the phone or reply to an email that has the pretty fast based on the volume that you’ve got. And those are the marketing things in terms of survey costs we brought in house and things of that sort. And then in addition to this year, we’re running some lease management pilots where we’re replacing bodies onsite with people on a call centre where we can scale that activity. So there are number of things like that can sort of add up to offset to some of the pressures we’re seeing in the labor market and on property taxes and other places.
Vincent Chao:
Okay. So just, and then thinking about those sort of smaller buckets, the utilities and the market the other ones that you've really highlighted those seem really could be negative again here in 2018 it sounds like?
Timothy Naughton:
It’s a possibility of setting on how things play out, but they offset some of the pressure for sure that we’re seeing in this category, yes.
Vincent Chao:
Got it, okay, thank you.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes.
Operator:
And we will go next to Drew Babin of Robert W. Baird.
Drew Babin:
Hey, good afternoon. Question on capital sourcing, the $1.25 billion in guidance is the $300 million interest rate hedge, I mean, indication of the size of the debt issuance potentially this year. Can we expect that the balance of that is mostly comprised of most of dispositions and should the stock price evaluate?
Kevin O'Shea:
Hey Drew, this is Kevin. Well, just a couple of comments. First we, we do typically as we did this year, provided an overall prospective on the amount of capital we expect to source, net of internal cash flow and as you point out that’s about $1.25 billion this year. We historically and it’s a matter of practice, don’t break that down any further, we did disclosed $300 million of hedging activity in recent years as the prospect of interest rates increasing has become more pronounced, we have had a bit of a practice of hedging a portion of our anticipated debt issuance. So it's not necessarily one for one relationship. And so, but, stepping back and looking at that $1.25 billion, as you know, we roughly have three sources that we typically tap, common equity, asset sales and unsecured debt. Common equity markets are pretty unattractive for us as we - as you can tell and we all are cumulatively appreciate of. The other two markets so remain pretty attractive, Matt already talked a little bit about the transaction market. The unsecured debt market continues to be attractive. So our expectation and our capital plan contemplate that one on the $1.25 billion role. We denominate in the form of asset sales and unsecured debt, but we haven’t disclosed exactly the components of those items.
Drew Babin:
Okay, understood. And then on the expense overhead side, it looks like those expenses are a little higher than the most forecasted between property management G&A and investment management. Which of those three has been the primary driver behind that?
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, this is Tim. In terms of the outlook and for G&A next year there or this year, I'm sorry, 2018, there are number of areas that creates on a unique headwinds for the year, some which maybe non-core by the way, but in area of compensation, we actually have couple of seniors exit or retired now with the goal that actually accelerate some LTI and then just the best thing impact are some past multiyear LTI rewards that just start have start to accumulate plus some litigation related expenses versus last year that we are anticipating we have in the budget. That accounts about half projected increase in 2018 over '17. You know, I guess the other thing I’d say is we are -- even though that we are getting sort of later in the cycle, we architecting and invest in the business in terms of capabilities, we’ve been building the data analytics capability over last year too, and just a stabilization of that provides some pressure as well. And I guess, last I say, when you look at our over course of cycle and where those metrics are, they are actually, it's actually quite good, G&A is running about 16 bps, which is at the low end of the REIT sector, probably management overhead, which you asked about is running about 2.5% revenue to spend again sort of quite favorable and growth this cycle has been on the area 50% to 70% of our top line growth has been, which is always an objective of ours, keep it at or below, below top line growth. So it’s coming from a number of different places, but a number of things are kind of unique this year that are creating a little bit higher than average G&A growth.
Drew Babin:
All right. That’s helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
And we’ll go next to Conor Wagner at Green Street Advisors. Please go ahead.
Conor Wagner:
Thank you. Can you please tell us new lease and renewal growth in the fourth quarter and then your assumptions for those underlying your 2018 guidance, please?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, Conor, it’s Sean, happy to do that. In terms of Q4 of '17, which is for our 2017 same store bucket, rent change was 1.1%, and that kept rise renewals that fourth rate and then move in down about 2%. And then in terms of the outlook for 2018, the way that we think about it give you some census basing growth potential in the portfolio is around 75 basis points right now. And we expect life term rent change to be about 2%, which is down about 20 basis points from the full year number in 2017. So, kind of put those two together flat they can feel off a little bit of pick up in the session is that how you get to the midpoint of our guidance.
Conor Wagner:
All right. So then the occupancy assumption is flat?
Sean Breslin:
It’s flat. Yes.
Conor Wagner:
Okay. Thank you. And then maybe on where renewals are in January and you’ve been sending them out in February?
Sean Breslin:
Yes. In terms of January, to see this, January rents change is running around 1%, which is about 50 bps above or where in December. And then we are trending in terms of January expected growth, total rental revenue growth in the 2.3% to 2.4% range. In terms of renewal offers for February-March, were in the mid 5% range, there is about 50 bps flow last year.
Conor Wagner:
Great. Thank you very much. And then, I think, Matt you mentioned earlier a mid-6 yield on what you currently have in the development right pipeline. And I just want to understand the underlying cap rate there because it looks like some of your recent deals have been maybe a little bit more suburban. What do you estimate the cap rate spread is for prevailing market cap rates on the development pipeline right now?
Matthew Birenbaum:
On the stuff, it hasn’t started yet on the development right pipeline?
Conor Wagner:
Yes, or they can expect to start in the next year?
Matthew Birenbaum:
I mean, I think a lot of that is in the near term, most of the starts are into suburban kind of podium and wrap, which is probably high for us, cap rates are kind of mid 60s, it's about a 160 basis points spread.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, Conor, I would have said same, it’s up four and three quarters versus low to mid sixes in terms of projecting development yield.
Sean Breslin:
And I would add also that just -- if you look at the four deals we just started in this past quarter, those actually averaged the six fix deal underwritten, and again vocationally probably very similar kind of high four type cap rate on that basket.
Conor Wagner:
Okay. Thank you. And on the development rates picked up in the fourth quarter, you guys are pretty active. Did you see any move there in pricing or any adjustment when you were all those - I know it's right, so maybe it’s a little bit different equation, but was there any move on pricing or any adjustments from the seller standpoint?
Sean Breslin:
Not necessarily, it was an interesting mix of business. And usually by the time they hit our release as a development, right, we’ve already been working on them from anywhere from two to three months as long as in some cases a year or more so. When you look at how that building broke down, about a third of it is actually Northern California RFP, public private partnership type deal. So those probably are a little bit more flexible in terms of the pricing and that may reflect not kind of hard edge market pricing if you will. About a third of them were Southern California, one of them is entitled. The other we do expect to start this year. So I think land pricing there was still pretty aggressive. And then about a third of them was kind of a lot of our bread and butter suburban Boston, Baltimore, Suburban Baltimore, Suburban Long Island kind of infill stuff. And I'd say pricing there hasn't gotten crazy, so it didn't run up quite as aggressively, but actually one of those deals is a deal that we have looked at several years ago where I think the pricing did drift down a little bit, maybe we're starting to see a little bit of that.
Conor Wagner:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
And we'll move next to Rich Hill at Morgan Stanley.
Rich Hill:
Hey, thank you guys. Just want to move back to maybe the demand side of the equation that you've talked about job growth and understanding the guidance of 1%. I'm curious, are you starting to see any population migration trends in your portfolio? And how is that reflecting which markets you're participating in? I know you've talked about Denver and Florida market as growth, but I'm curious if you can talk about population migrations.
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure. This is nice if I can speak to you a little bit and then Tim or Sean, they want to chime in as well. Certainly our markets historically have been characterized as market that have international immigration and domestic actually out migration and that's been true for 3 years. This cycle, particularly early in this cycle, some of our markets actually saw domestic immigration, which was pretty unusual other than maybe Metro D.C., which has have that history over a longer period of time. Where we're sitting today, it's probably back to the historical norm, which is domestic out migration international immigration. And that is one of the attractions frankly for the expansion markets both Denver and Southeast Florida have strong domestic in migration as well as some international immigration particularly in Miami. So I'd say that's kind of what we're seeing today is trends reverting very much to what they've been for the past 20 or 30 years.
Rich Hill:
Got it, and so just a follow-up to that, if I may. What gives the job growth story going again in your opinion?
Sean Breslin:
I think we're late cycle. The only thing really it gets it going again is later participation rates going up which is starting to happen at the margin, but it's well publicized. We don't necessarily have the right skills and the labor force to fill the jobs that are unfilled today. So I think it's -- to be honest other than maybe marginally stronger job growth is going to be a correction before you start seeing materially higher job growth rates. It does wage growth, doesn’t -- maybe we won't see for productivity growth, but I think it does mean we like to see stronger job growth. And we make that summer household formation too, which we haven't seen the deconsolidation, if you will, that we actually seen the maths of housing consolidation, kind of in the earlier to expect it. So there is still some drop, there is still, when you look at that kind of potentially wage growth, there are some drivers in the economy that could suggest we could grow from $1 million household formation $1 million to $2 million to $5 million with a lot of the economists are projecting in the next couple of years.
Rich Hill:
Got it, and understood the household formation argument. So maybe just going back to the supply side of the equation, it looks like to us creation value is still more attractive than the replacement value. So what stops the supply pressures? It looks like -- all the numbers we’re looking at just supply requesting. It is just because developers are getting a little bit more cautious on where we are on late cycle, you’re seeing at tightening the lending standards and all of that leads to little bit less supply than we were seeing previously as we clear the supply that was put in place three years ago. Is it as simple as that?
Sean Breslin:
I think there is some dynamics between per sale and rental, right, I mean, if we’re looking at -- we’re saying household formation for about $1 million a year, we’re seeing production of about $2 million, when you factor in also lessons of 300,000 or 400,000 units, we’re still probably demand maybe outstripping supply to margin that’s mostly evident and what you’re seeing for a single family housing prices today being -- growing at more than a inflation versus on the rental side, we’re growing basically at inflation type level. So, I think, the same the dynamic between for sale rental ownership rates have started to tick up a little bit. Housing is more balanced, and we’re back to kind of one-third, two-thirds mix that we think we’re sort of customer seeing in a normal housing market where about third of that multifamily virtually all of that’s rental by the way and about two-thirds that are single family and virtually all that is for sale.
Rich Hill:
Got it, so, just normalization market for the most part?
Sean Breslin:
That could so, yes.
Rich Hill:
Okay. Great, guys. I may ask some additional questions offline, but thank you.
Operator:
And we’ll go next to John Kim at BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim:
Thank you. I had a question on dispositions your average holding period on assets sold last year declined under 10 years and prior to that it was about 13 years on average for the nine years prior to that. Is there anything we should read into this as far as how quickly you’re willing to trends for assets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Hi, John, it’s Matt. Not really, I mean, it really is just based on individual asset characteristics. So I mean it’s going to vary each year based on kind of both our geographic goals and, I mean, the one constrain we have is our capacity to take tax gains. And so you may see us starting to find assets that have lesser tax change and sometimes those are assets with lesser holding period just because some of the assets we’ve developed on the long time have been depreciated and have a huge value creation at the beginning, so but there is no specific strategy around that one way or the other.
John Kim:
On recent dispositions where they skew it more towards developed assets or acquired assets?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Well, I mean, we were doing both because we have the fund assets, which were all bought, most of what we own in our portfolio is -- as a podium portfolio almost the vast majority of it is assets we developed other than the Archstone asset that was the one big kind of acquisition other than one-offs we’ve done over the years. So it does tend to be on the wholly on side more of the assets being sold, half of the assets we’ve developed.
Kevin O'Shea:
Yes, John, just add to that, we have been selling, particularly last couple of years, but I think we’ll probably continue in that peers, largely assets in the Northeast where per say all that’s been self developing. We can have a pretty deep development pipeline there and just sort of managing overall portfolio exposure. We should expend to spend continuing growth takes on some recycle, some capital out of those markets.
John Kim:
Okay. And then one, to turn back to slide 22 of your presentation and the development delivery being skewed more towards '19 versus '18. I think you’ve said some of this due to interaction delays, most of it probably planned, but do you think there is a risk that this is happening more in the market to your competitors and that’s not baked into for supply forecast on slide 18?
Sean Breslin:
Yes, John, it's Sean. I spoke to slide 22 and what I noted is that’s planned schedule for those deals that are under construction, which is based on the mix of business whether its garden, mid rise, high rise products and the expected duration associated with those jobs when I started construction. So there is no real anticipated delays as it relates to that portfolio pretty much on schedule. And as Matt noted earlier, in terms of the delivery some of that modules that have already started to deliver, that start maybe in the third and fourth quarter of '17. So there is virtually no delay risk there, it would just be new deliveries, which wouldn’t take until Q2 or Q3, so given the mix of business, we feel pretty confident about what that is, and it's not based on delays from '17 to '18, that's just as scheduled.
Timothy Naughton:
Yes, and I mean this is pretty [indiscernible] to our particular pipeline. This is not reflective of the market as a whole. It's that what you're asking. I mean we will be delivering quite a bit more in '19 than '18, Our expectation is the market, our market flow see less deliveries in 2018, just happens to be when the deals we having to have in the pipeline and how that moves through.
John Kim:
Alright, okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Alexander Goldfarb at Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Hey, good afternoon, thank you. Just some quick questions for you. First Kevin, on the $150 million of debt prepay, is there a timing or rate associated with that, so what quarter and what rate as we're modeling at?
Kevin O'Shea:
Sure, Alex, you've got probably $75 million or $76 million that is scheduled to mature another $70 million or so that is sort of elected to payoffs. And the cadence, I don’t have the cadence throughout the year, I think, probably it's going to be, they look at some each year. Probably will be skewed toward the front half, but it’s $150 million overall, the blended rate is kind of just underneath 4%, because some of them are just maturing, but we do have a couple deals that are elected to play offs that have interest rates between 7% and 8% where it is actually a modest prepayment penalty and a pretty positive NPV associated with that as you would expect.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then on South Florida, and I think you mentioned the same for Denver where you made partner with the local entity to provide the capital to allow them to develop. What would be the yield differential that you would be looking at there versus on your wholly owned developments?
Matt Birenbaum:
Hi, Alex, this is Matt. It’s a good question. Every deal is different, so it will depend a little bit on the allocation of risks and responsibilities, but our goal, we do in that kind of business with ultimately to have an option to buy the partner out of completion, so we would ultimately take the asset in as a wholly owned asset. And the yield on that at that point, it's probably somewhere between a third and a half of the way between an acquisition and development, that’s kind of the way we're thinking about it.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay, so meaning closer to -- so it's closer to an acquisition yield versus closer to a development, the other peer thing up third to half way?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yeah, again, depending on how they are coming in and what kind of risks the sponsors taken versus we’re taking that. Yeah, I think that’s, we feel like the way we think about it is, there is kind of three different buckets of risks and developments, there is entitlement pursue risk, there is construction risk and there is lease-up risk. And in these types of deals, we would continue to own the lease-up risk, we would not own the entitlement risk and we wouldn’t really owned very much of the construction risk if any so depending how you want to price each of those risks.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. And then just finally, and if I miss this before, I’m sorry. Your pipeline is now $3.8 billion and it was $3.2 billion at the end of third quarter. You only bought $35 million of land. So what was the delta that drove the shadow pipeline up by almost 600 million?
Matt Birenbaum:
Yeah. The way that math works is the -- it’s not about the land owned, it’s about the development sites under controls. So we started the quarter at $3.2 billion, we started for $100 million which would have taken us down to $2.8 billion, but then we added $1 billion in development rights, all of which were kind of options, none of which were land that we bought in any of those new development rates. So that’s how you get to $3.8 billion.
Alexander Goldfarb:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we’ll go next to [Indiscernible].
Unidentified Analyst :
Yes, sorry to keep this going. I just wanted to clarify around supply given some of your comments about '18 and '19. Specifically in '18 again you kind of have all access data saying we peak in 1Q as seen and then things started getting better for the rest of the year. I mean although you're saying '19 is better than '18, should we also be kind of thinking about a steady progression or steadily improving demand versus supply environment as '18 progresses or you kind of think -- you're thinking differently from what I think the actual data seems to be telling everyone to believe?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, [indiscernible], this is Sean. Just to be clear, I think, we said anything about peak in Q1, but if you look at the cadence of supply quarter-by-quarter through '18 it doesn’t start to decelerate until Q4. Just to give you our breakdown and little more precisely and we probably normally are but Q1 is about 61 basis points, Q2 and Q3 around 65 basis points and it falls off about 55 basis points in Q4, and then further decelerate as you move into 2019. So there are a couple of markets where you see supply fall off more steadily, but those are the numbers across the footprint through the fourth quarters of '18.
Unidentified Analyst :
Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you.
Sean Breslin:
Yeah.
Operator:
And it appears we have no additional questions at this time. So, Mr. Naughton, I’d like to turn the program back over to you for any additional or concluding remarks, sir.
Timothy Naughton:
Thank you, Laurie, and thanks everybody for being on the call today. And we look forward to seeing you in the coming months at various conferences. Have a good day.
Operator:
And ladies and gentlemen, once again, that does conclude today’s conference. And again I’d like to thank everyone for joining us today.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
[0B8FLS-E Nick Joseph Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
Operator:
Good morning and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' Third Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you. Aaron, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' third quarter 2017 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
All right. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q3 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum each of us will provide some comments on the slides that we've posted last night and then we'll all be available for Q&A afterwards. I'll start with a brief overview of Q3 results and then Sean will provide an update on operations and how the portfolio is positioned headed into Q4. Matt will talk about development activity and how we are positioned to deliver growth through that platform over next two years to three years, and Kevin will discuss the close out of Fund II and provide some insight into the balance sheet at this point in the cycle. And lastly, I'll wrap up with some thoughts about our recent announcement to enter the Denver market and our intention to enter Southeast Florida in the future. Just starting now on slide 4. Results for the quarter included a core FFO per share growth of 5.8%. Same-store revenue growth was at 2.2% or 2.3%, including redevelopment; year-to-date same-store revenue growth stands at 2.6% or 2.8%, including redevelopment. And then lastly, same-store sequential growth came in at 1.3% for the quarter and 1.4% once you include redevelopment. We completed another $95 million in new development in Q3, bringing total completed year-to-date to $1.15 billion. We expect to complete another $650 million or so in Q4, which will result in about $1.8 billion, completed for the full year. Year-to-date and full-year completions are expected to stabilize, at an initial yield in low 6% range, well above prevailing cap rates for this basket of assets. In his comments, Matt will describe in more detail how these completions along with development underway will drive earnings and NAV growth over the next couple years. I'll now turn it over to Sean, who'll discuss portfolio operating results.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
All right. Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 5, our same-store portfolio continues to produce rent change that's generally consistent with supply and demand being essentially in equilibrium. We've been trending in the 2% to 2.5% range all year long, with renewals consistently in the low 4%s and new move-ins following a more seasonal pattern. For Q3 renewals averaged 4.1%, while new move-ins were 90basis points. In terms of the regions, Seattle continued to lead the way with rent change north of 5% for the third quarter, followed by Southern California in the low 4% range. Boston produced rent change in the low 3%s, while Northern California, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Greater New York, New Jersey regions, all deliver change in the 1.5% to 2% range. Moving to slide 6, the same-store portfolio is very well-positioned for the seasonally slower fourth quarter. Our same-store average physical occupancy rate for October is about 20 basis points above last year and availability is trending roughly 30 basis points lower. For the development portfolio, we met our revenue and NOI expectations for the third quarter. In addition our deliveries during the third quarter were consistent with our mid-year update that we're comfortable with the expected pace of both deliveries and absorption for the fourth quarter. And, with that, I'll turn it over to Matt to talk about development in more detail.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Great. Thanks, Sean. Turning to development, our development underway should provide good future growth to both earnings and NAV as those communities are completed and finish their lease ups. Slide 7 shows the $225 million in NOI, that we're expecting to realize from our current development with nearly half of that NOI to come from communities that have not yet even started any leasing activity. Only $17 million worth of NOI was generated by these properties in the current quarter. So, there's clearly a lot of additional NOI to come. On slide 8, we translate this future NOI into core FFO. We have raised most, but not all of the capital required to fund this $3.8 billion book of business. Because the earnings accretion depends on what the ultimate cost of that capital turns out to be we've shown a range of earnings impacts here based on weighted average initial cost of capital between 3.5% and 4%, which in turn translates into $0.53 to $0.67 of incremental core FFO upon stabilization. Slide 9 shows the spot value creation from this development translated into NAV per share accretion. The current weighted average initial yield on this basket of properties is 5.9% and we believe if these assets were completed and available for sale in today's market they would sell for a weighted average cap rate of roughly 4.4%. This translates into $1.3 billion of value creation on completion or $9.42 per share. Turning to slide 10, we have a very long track record of delivering strong risk-adjusted returns from our development activity through all stages of multiple market cycles. As Tim mentioned, we expect to deliver a company record of $1.8 billion in development completions in 2017 at profit margins of close to 30%, consistent with the margins we've achieved throughout this cycle. The chart on the left shows our development yields by year of completion going all the way back to the late 1990s and compares those yields to cap rates in that same year. With the exception of the single year of 2009 at the height of the global financial crisis, we have delivered positive spot value creation on completion every year for 20 years running. And because we're long term investors and not merchant builders, even those deals completed in the worst-case scenario year of 2009 are today yielding 7% on cost, allowing for plenty of long-term value creation from that book of business as well. The long-term returns can be seen in the chart on the right where we have sorted our unlevered development IRRs by the point in various cycles at which they were completed. While the deals which were completed earlier in the cycle have delivered stronger long-term returns, the returns across all time periods have been well in excess of our cost of capital and have delivered strong NAV creation for our shareholders. Now, I'll turn it over to Kevin to discuss Fund II performance and the balance sheet.
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Matt. Matt just touched on the primary way in which we allocate capital to new investments, which is through development; another way we do so is through acquisitions. In this cycle, one vehicle we've employed to create value through acquisition is our second value added fund through which we commenced investment activity in 2009, and sold our last community this past quarter. In addition to receiving asset management and property management fees, AvalonBay as general partner, received attractive investment returns, as well as, a promoted return of $35 million above our participant share of the fund's investment returns for performance achieved in excess of certain thresholds. As you can see on the bottom Slide 11, AvalonBay's investment returns on Fund II were strong. Excluding fee income, AvalonBay achieved a gross levered cash flow multiple on its invested equity of 2.4 times and a gross levered internal rate of return of 19.2%. Turning briefly to the balance sheet on Slide 12, we thought it might be helpful to highlight the evolution of a few balance sheet metrics across this cycle. Specifically, we show how four items, our net debt-to-EBITDA ratio, our unencumbered NOI percentage, composition of our debt, and our credit rating have evolved over three periods 4Q 2009 during the last downturn, 4Q 2013 not long after we completed the Archstone acquisition and then today. As you can see our credit profile and financial flexibility have significantly improved over the cycle and are arguably as strong as they have ever been in the company's history, which bodes well for capacity to provide continued strength, stability and growth throughout the cycle. And now, I'll turn it back to Tim to discuss our market expansion into Denver and Southeast Florida.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Kevin, and we're now on slide 13. As you know, we previous – previously announced our entry into the Denver market with a recent acquisition. In addition, today we're announcing our intention to expand into Southeast Florida as well. We've talked with a number of you over the years about our geographic footprint and some of the key factors that inform our thoughts with respect to market selection and portfolio allocation. We thought it'd be helpful to provide a little more color behind our decision to expand into these two markets. First, I guess I'd like to preface my comments by saying that while we are generally viewed as having had a stable strategy over the years, it's not been a static one. In fact, over time, our strategy has evolved to expand into high rise and mixed-use product, which allowed us to enter many urban, TOD and infill suburban submarkets. And through our brands, we now target multiple customer segments, including a value oriented customer through the Eaves brand, and a younger social seeking demographic through AVA. And we have entered and exited markets over the years, entering markets like Seattle and Baltimore, while exiting markets like Chicago and Minneapolis. So, our decision to enter Denver and Southeast Florida just does not reflect a shift in strategy, but rather an evolution and implementation of our strategy. And when it comes to market selection, some of the key attributes that we look for and demonstrate on this slide include markets with, first and foremost, the higher percentage of knowledge based employment, over-indexing in stem finance, education, and healthcare related jobs. Increasingly we believe that there will be winning and losing MSAs as economy migrates to more of a knowledge-based economy. A second and related factor is that we favor markets that appeal to our target customer profile, as we prefer markets that again over-index to the younger, college educated and higher income boomer segments. Third, we prefer markets characterized by lower housing affordability, which helps support demand for rental housing, and higher rental propensities. Fourth, we prefer markets where the public sector is active and invest in infrastructure and cultural amenities, both important factors to support growth and quality of life within the market. And lastly, importantly, we like markets that we believe play to our competitive advantages as a value-added investor. Markets characterized by tougher and lengthy entitlement processes that help either constrain or regulate supply, where a talented developer can grow its portfolio and create significant value through a deep level of understanding of its markets and skillful navigation of local politics. Moving now to slide 14. Of course, these attributes hopefully are correlated with markets that demonstrates strong rent growth over the long-term, which is a critical component of return for a long-term investor, and something we consider to validate this preferred attributes. As you can see from this slide, over the last 15 years, Denver and Southeast Florida have actually compared favorably to our overall portfolio. This chart reflects market level rent growth over that time. Performance at the REIT level has been somewhat stronger. As you can see, Southeast Florida has performed stronger than our East Coast footprint, while Denver has performed in line with our Western markets. Now to slide 15. One last point, I'd like to make is that these expansion markets enhance overall portfolio diversification. Southeast Florida in particular is not well correlated with our existing markets and both markets provide some diversification from the areas of greatest concentration, that being California and the Northeast. At target allocation levels the portfolio is roughly split into three thirds; a third California, a third Northeast, and a third higher-growth markets. In terms of market penetration strategy, we expect that we'll invest both through acquisitions and development. And in addition, may choose to capitalize local developers to initially leverage their market knowledge and pipeline to help accelerate our expansion objectives. Of course, our tactics will ultimately be a function of value and opportunity as we have no set timetable to reach any target allocation. Smart capital allocation will remain the priority, it's always been, and we look to deploy capital appropriately across the cycle. So, in summary, turning to slide 16, it was a solid quarter with core FFO above our outlook and the portfolio is well positioned headed into Q4. Development deliveries are tracking our mid-year reforecast and development should contribute meaningfully to FFO and NAV growth over the next two years to three years. Our balance sheet is well-positioned to fund additional growth and protect the company from downside economic scenarios. And lastly, our strategy continues to evolve, as we are excited to add Denver and Southeast Florida to our market footprint, as we believe those markets contain many of the key attributes that allow us to create even more value for shareholders over time. So, with that, Aaron we'd be happy to open the call for Q&A.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, And we'll go first to Nick Joseph with Citi.
[0B8FLS-E Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Tim, I appreciate your comments on the market expansion. But just wondering why now is the right time to expand into these new markets, and then how did you weigh market expansion against going deeper into your existing markets?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Nick, yeah, a fair question from a timing standpoint. Obviously, we're several years into the current cycle. Denver in particular just had a very nice run this cycle. I guess, I'd say a couple things; one, as it relates to acquisitions, we will be more cautious particularly with respect to sub-market focus, really trying to focus more on the sub-markets that we think are a bit more supply constrained given just sort of current recent trends. As it relates to development, as I mentioned, we do anticipate using really, both acquisitions and development. I guess I'd say these markets as well as our existing footprint, the land frenzy is sort of behind us at this point. And we've also learned over time that to take advantage of any distress or downturn that might occur from any economic correction, you need to be in business. And so, it's our attention to establish sort of beachheads in both those regions so that we are positioned to take advantage when the markets do turn. And then I did mention, willingness to look at development JVs, which we do think is a good way to tap into deals maybe that might deliver two years to three years out. And so, when you think of sort of a mix of timeframes that you might get from acquisitions, development JVs or our own sponsored development, we think it sort of diversifies kind of our risk against any cycle risk that may be out there, as they have timeframes from now to four years or five years from now. As I mentioned, our long-term objective is to have a full-service office in each region. And I think one of our key competencies has been able to build great teams in our regions and to support them appropriately, essentially. As it relates to our existing markets, we're always looking to penetrate those markets more deeply. So it's always something to consider, and we don't think we're missing out opportunities today in our current markets. But we do think there is an opportunity to expand our horizons a bit. As you know, as I mentioned earlier, we favor knowledge-based economies, and AvalonBay's markets, while we're heavily indexed there, we don't have a monopoly on knowledge-based jobs. I think it's kind of interesting, I think the Amazon HQ2 project is sort of evidence of that. Recently I've heard that Google, who as I understand allows employees to move to almost any market they want, has shutdown Denver recently because it was such a popular destination. So, it's a recognition that we think both these regions in a way provide a bit of a release valve – the Northeast in the case of Florida, Southeast Florida, and Denver in the case of California particularly, and particularly Northern California. So I don't know if that's entirely responsive to your question, but just a few thoughts.
[0B8FLS-E Nick Joseph:
Thanks. Yeah, that was very helpful. And then just one follow-up, were there any other markets that you considered expanded into and then could further expansion be announced in the near or medium term?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. No. Thanks, Nick. Thanks for the follow-up. Well, first of all, I mean, every couple years, we always take a sort of a comprehensive look at our markets, and so it's something we've been thinking about honestly for the last 10 years or 15 years, whether we had the right footprint. In most cases, it resulted in us maybe exiting markets, as opposed to entering markets, and doubling down on our existing footprint, sort of along the lines of your earlier question. But one of the reasons we're announcing Southeast Florida is because we did get that question a lot after we announced the acquisition in Denver, and this represents the two markets that we made a decision on today. So I don't think you should expect that that there's any near-term announcement of further expansion beyond this.
[0B8FLS-E Nick Joseph:
Thanks.
Operator:
We'll go next to Juan Sanabria with Bank of America.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America:
Hi. I was just hoping you guys could give your latest thoughts on supply, kind of what we should expect for 2018 versus deliveries. In 2017, there's been some slippage. And which markets across your main regions stand out as improving or getting weaker in 2018, as you see it presently?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Juan, this is Sean. I'm happy to address that. What I can tell you is based on what people are communicating to us at present regarding the delivery of communities that may have under construction is, for deliveries in 2017, it's about 89,000 units. In our footprint, that's about 2.1% of inventory. And based on what's on the books today that we can see across our footprint – in 2018, it's about 98,000 units or about 2.3% of inventory. Based on recent history, particularly the difficult construction environment today in terms of labor availability and things of that sort and recent precedent in terms of delays that we're hearing from multiple developers out there, I'd expect a 2.1% for 2017 to actually come down a little bit as we get through the end of the year into January and look what actually completed, probably in the high 1% range would be my guess is where that comes out. And so across the footprint, we would expect an increase in supply next year. My guess is, Q3 will look like 2.3% to 2.5%, maybe when you get to January. But what actually gets delivered next year probably will be less than that. But if you just look across the footprint, probably more supply in 2018 versus 2017. As it relates to the regional distribution, I can tell you that New England is expected to come down about 60 basis points next year, primarily a function of supply in the Boston market coming down. And then, all the other markets are you know flat to up a little bit. The markets that are probably going to be up more significantly in the Pacific Northwest is projected to be up about 40 basis points from 3.5% to 3.9%. And then Southern California across all three major markets there, L.A., Orange County, and San Diego, it's expected to be up about 40 basis points. Most of that relates to an increase in supply in the Los Angeles market. So what I'd generally say is, a little more supply in 2018 with the exception of the markets that I mentioned, and Boston in particular. And when you see a slowdown, it'd really be second half of 2018 deliveries before you start to see that. You know, we're running about 60 basis points of inventory on a quarterly basis right now. That's not expected to fall off until you get to basically Q3 of next year. So Q3 and Q4 start to fall off. So that's sort of the broad way to think about it, if that's helpful.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America:
That is. And just a follow-up to that, if you can comment on your expectations for Northern California, and then also have you seen any impact on the availability of labor post the hurricanes in trying to complete developments?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. So, why don't I take the first one, and we can talk about the second one as well, probably Matt or Tim. But the first one, when you say expectations are you talking about supply expectations or...?
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America:
Yes. Sorry.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Okay. Yeah. No problem. So, in terms of supply expectations, if you look into 2018, the only market that really of the three is expected to see a deceleration in deliveries is San Jose. It's running a little north of 3% of inventory right now. And for next year, we're expecting it to be in the low 2% range. So, we expect to see a pretty material drop off in deliveries in the San Jose market in 2018, but it's relatively flat when you look at the East Bay and you look at San Francisco.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I guess, I'll speak. This is Matt. I can speak a little bit to the second question about labor availability, and the impact of the hurricanes. It's probably too early to tell, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that it's going to impact the labor market particularly for construction, particularly for less skilled construction labor. We haven't really seen that yet, obviously we're not building in the markets that have – were most directly impacted by the hurricane, but certainly, it's something to watch for as the rebuilding efforts gets started, which usually there is a little bit of a lag effect on that.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America:
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Hey, good morning, guys. Sean, really quickly, if you could run though new and renewals by market in the third quarter? And then I've got a follow-up to that. Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. As opposed to going through each one of the markets, there's 16 markets out there across six regions, happy to share that with you maybe offline as opposed to consuming a lot of time on that. But broadly speaking across the portfolio rent change for the third quarter was 2.5%, which is 4.1% on renewals and 90 basis points on move-in, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, but if that's okay, we can take the rest of the detail offline.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Yeah. No, that's fine. I appreciate that.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Second question, in the presentation the $111 million of NOI from development not in lease-up. Can you guys give us a sense of when over the course of the future that's supposed to hit roughly?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think that represents kind of all the deals that are on our development attachment that haven't yet started leasing. So, if you go to that attachment aid, it will lay out kind of which quarter they all start to expect leasing, but it's basically over the next, call it, two years, they'll go from starting leasing to stabilization.
Rich Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay. All right. Thanks, Matt. That's it.
Operator:
We'll go next to Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Oh, thanks. In the past, you've talked about having around $1 billion of development starts annually. I'm wondering if that's still a good number, and whether you're thinking about raising that level because of signs of the apartment cycle lasting longer than expected?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Nick, this is Tim. If you look at our development rights pipeline, it kind of telegraphs kind of where development volumes are headed. I think, we have about $3.2 billion in development pipeline that tends to be you know the three years, three-plus years, maybe three and a half years' worth of pipeline. So it's still kind of in that $1 billion range, maybe a little less. As we've said in the past, we think it's probably going to trail off a bit, just given – even though the cycle is going longer, the economics are less compelling and less deals are sort of making it through the screen, if you will, and kind of hitting targets and we saw maybe earlier in the cycle just given where really the construction costs have gone and are going right now relative to rents.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. Thanks, Tim. One other question is you know for the future development projects you have on 96th Street in Second Avenue, there's been some press about this that the governor is kind of looking into the – the – whether it's parkland or not, and whether the project can go forward. Any sense on when and how this may get resolved? And if you could just remind us what the level of your investment is in that project? How much of that you know development right that you have on in the supplemental for New York accounts for that project? Thanks.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Nick. This is Matt. Yes, that's an interesting question about what's the difference between a park and a playground, which apparently there's a legal distinction there, which matters to the governor and the mayor. So, we fully expect that that will get worked out, but it will take some time. I don't think we have great visibility yet in terms of how much time that might add to the predevelopment schedule. That is not a project that we expected to start in the next year, so we really view that as a next cycle deal in some ways, you know, maybe it's two years to three years away from starting, depending on how everything shakes out. It does represent – I want to say, it's about $700 million, $650 million of the $3.2 billion in development rights. And just to be clear, that's a – that is a ground lease, so that actually doesn't reflect the value of the real estate.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. Just looking at the like-term rent growth that you outlined in your slide deck, track in a little bit ahead of last year, it looks like are in line-ish. I was just curious what markets are really driving the inflection? And then with the supply backdrop that you talked about, do you think that that remains stable into next year or we could see a pullback a bit?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Austin, this is Sean. Just to be clear as it relates to the rent change this year versus last year. Jason can probably walk through the numbers with you, but overall rent change is down this year relative to last year, as a function of really two things. One is the supply that we've talked about, and two is just a slower pace of job creation generally across the U.S. and in our markets, so rent change is down. In terms of inflection point, I think, the point we're trying to make is that rent change appears to be leveling off. We're basically around 2% to 2.5% all year long, and that we certainly aren't really talking much about guidance as it relates to next year, but trying to provide some context on the supply side in terms of what we might expect, which is similar to essentially slightly greater supply in 2018 as it relates to 2017.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And just then maybe just to add to that, this is Tim. Just in terms of the macro, – as Sean said, we're not giving guidance for next year certainly, but in terms of the macro environment, I guess, we probably see more cross-wins than anything else. It is our expectation, Sean mentioned earlier, supply to tick up a little bit. I think, all things being equal, we probably expect job growth to tick down a little bit, just given unemployment being at such a low rate right now, and the difficulty of finding skilled labor, but those – that is offset by some sort of positive trends as well. The Consumer and business confidence continues to increase, labor participation rates are on the rise a little bit, and wage growth is on the rise as well. We think all those things could help stimulate household formation. So, I think, there is – I think, there's probably going to be some offsets, but in general, we think it – it's probably shaping up to be a decent environment for 2018, without getting into much more detail in terms of how that might be translate into our portfolio.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
I appreciate the detail, Tim. And then, just lastly for me, I was just curious what your thoughts were on, what you attribute the above average rent growth in both Southeast Florida and Denver over the last 15 years versus kind of the overall portfolio?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, it's really, it's been on the demand side. I mean, that the – the markets haven't suffered from supply and Denver is probably – probably has more than it should have right now. But – the – I'd say, the Sunbelt has actually performed quite well this cycle. Supply growth hasn't been – and at least in the Sunbelt hasn't been that much greater than some of our coastal markets, and it's had some pretty strong growth even in the – even in some of the areas that we thought we – our markets captured a lot of the – for instance, a lot of the higher tech jobs. We're seeing a lot of that – seeing a lot of that accumulate in some of the Sunbelt markets, and certainly it's true of Denver as well. So I think, they've become – Denver has become a – become somewhat like – we're seeing that somewhat like we saw Seattle 10 years ago, becoming another kind of tech anchor in the Western U.S. And you know Southeast Florida certainly has benefited from some of the anti-growth initiatives perhaps in the Northeast over the last cycle or so.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
And just one quick follow-up to that. I'm just curious how you think about the volatility of these markets through the cycle versus the existing portfolio?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, you know, great question. So, Denver would tend to be more volatile, and Southeast Florida would tend to be more stable. So, which- as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Southeast Florida like D.C. is the one market that's sort of negative or not – not well-correlated with the rest of our footprint. So, there's some appeal to us for that, and whereas Denver would be – would tend to track more what you see in the West Coast, which means you – you got to be careful in terms of how you allocate capital over the course of the cycle, and be a lot more sort of thoughtful from a timing perspective.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thanks. Good morning. GGP discussed on its earnings call a JV agreement with you to build multi-family in one of their Seattle malls. How big of an opportunity is this for you as far as developing an existing retail?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is Tim here. Yeah, we are aware that GGP announced an agreement in principle on a single project in Northern Seattle. You know, there's – you know, every time there's been a structural change in the economy that's resulted in massive repurposing of real estate. It's tended to happen over a longer period of time when you move from agriculture to manufacturing, as you move from manufacturing to more information based economy. I think, there are a number of trends right now that we're going to – that's just only going to accelerate, whether it's – it's happening in the area of digital commerce, which is relevant to GGP. But in terms of things we're seeing in the sharing economy, the blurring of work with play, just the nature of work changing just based upon knowledge-based jobs. I think, that's – we think that's going to have a big impact in terms of the need to repurpose real estate over the next 10 years to 15 years. And a lot of great real estate has been consolidated over the last 15 years to 20 years. And so, we think there is an opportunity to partner with some of these owners that have consolidated great – great real estate during that period time, when high density housing is part of the solution, when it comes to repurposing. In terms of the form of that partnership, it's going to take different forms than it has already on deals that we've done. It might just mean helping them re-plan it and splitting the property, and just taking a piece of it for residential for ourselves and letting the existing owners sort of re-plan or take the rest of the property. It may be more of a condo structure, like we had at Assembly Row with Federal, where we may be building the retail and deeding it back to them, sort of in a condo structure. We own the retail – own the residential, they own the retail; or maybe a JV structure, which we're working through with GGP, where we own together the residential component, and generally we'll be amenable to that structure where we think we have a partner on the other side, where there's a clear alignment of interest, or long-term owners. Both believe sort of in the long-term viability of that location and the real estate. But we think it's going to be a big opportunity over the next 10 years or 15 years to be playing a role sort of in the repurposing of, like I said, just really great real estate that's going to need to shift its usage based upon some of these larger longer-term trends that we're seeing.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
So as far as control rights or ownership of land, are the characteristics pretty similar to freestanding multi-family, are there major differences, or it depends on the benchmark?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, I think, it's – I think, it depends. I kind of outlined three structures there and one – in the first case, it'd be analogous to what we do today. And you basically own and control the residential component. And the second case, it may be again sort of a more of a condo structure, where we're owning one piece of it, of the sandwich, so to speak, and they're owning the ground plain. And in other case, is this going to make sense to venture it. And we're going to have to -- we're going to – there is going to be mutual consent rights, as it relates to – as it relates to the asset, whether financing sale or anything else.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. And then a question on CapEx on our numbers AvalonBay spent least amount of CapEx both revenue enhancing and maintenance CapEx in this sector. Can you just describe why that's the case? Do you just see better returns in developments or asset recycling, or is it just a reflection of the average age of your portfolio?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, John, I'm happy to address that. You know, if you look at our CapEx for last year and this year, call it roughly 5% of NOI. And – but if you look at – that's kind of the recurring CapEx. If you look at revenue enhancing, yeah, fair point, we're spending about $50 a unit on that, which is dramatically lower than most of our peers. As you may know, the -we separate out our redevelopment bucket and we invest in our asset separate from the same-store pool, which is something that we think is important for investors to understand in terms of how we're allocating that capital and the returns that we generate on that capital. So that certainly has something to do with it. In terms of the nature of the portfolio, certainly you can go through our portfolio relative to others and look at age and things of that sort. But all those factors play into it and we want to make sure that we're being thoughtful about the timing of CapEx whether it's both defensive and offensive in nature to make sure that we're investing at the appropriate time in the asset and that we're also demonstrating to investors the returns that we're earning by investing in sort of offensive-oriented CapEx. So, hopefully that makes sense, and your other questions have been answered.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
I'll follow offline. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
We'll go next to Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Hey. Good morning. I noticed in the development disclosure quite a bit of progress on the leasing front, if you look at projects delivering over the next – really the first units delivering over the next three quarters or four quarters, at the same time, the average yield on the pipeline ticked down a bit. I'm just wondering if there is anything strategic going on in terms of maybe conceding a little bit on price to increase the velocity of leasing or is that something that's just related to things moving in and out of the pipeline?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Drew, this is Sean. I'll take part of that, and then if Tim or Matt want to jump in, they're welcome to. But in terms of leasing velocity, there is no question that in some markets in particular to the extent that we're either trying to close out the leasing of a community or we're starting – kind of jumpstarting it, particularly in the third quarter that we will yield a little more on price to get that velocity, either to get the initial lift as I mentioned or to finish up. And I said that was particularly the case as it relates to both North Station and Dogpatch this quarter. To give you a sense, on Dogpatch, as an example, we leased and occupied 32 and 36 a month during the quarter, and rents certainly took a little bit of a hit on that one as it relates to trying to push the velocity before we get into the seasonal slower fourth quarter. In addition on Dogpatch, it's early in the delivery, it's going to have all the amenities, just still heavy construction. So, you tend to yield a little bit more on price during that period of time. So the real rents there we probably won't know until the spring. And now in North Station, we were just trying to accelerate the completion of that project in terms of the lease-up. We're in the 70% plus range there in terms of lease and occupy percentage. We delivered some larger penthouses late this summer that we're trying to get occupied instead of having them sit there for the winter. So, things like that come into play at asset level, execution plans and you certainly see that reflected in the rents on some of the assets on the development attachment.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Drew. This is Matt. Just to follow-up on that, as it relates to the overall yield, the yield on the development bucket last quarter I think it was a 6.0% and this quarter it's a 5.8%. And probably about half of that 20 basis point reduction is just changes to the bucket, deals that completed in the second quarter that are not in that bucket anymore that were higher yielding. And then the other half of it call it the other 10 basis points is the little bit of erosion from last quarter in developments that we're leasing both quarters, and a lot of that's just the deals that Sean mentioned.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Great. That's very helpful. And then I wanted to dig in a little bit on the Lakewood acquisition being that it's kind of the only case study so far in this growth market plan for Denver and Southeast Florida. Specifically in Lakewood, what's unique about that market in terms of barriers to entry, sort of, the Mindy concept, and specific demand drivers that may be directly in that market?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. This is Matt, I can take that one as well. It is definitely a submarket that's seeing a lot less supply than most of the submarkets in Denver. A lot of the product in Denver is being delivered downtown. This is Lakewood North, it's really on the border between Lakewood and Golden, it's off of I-70 in a master planned kind of controlled community called Denver West, which includes the National Laboratory for Renewable Energy, it includes a fair amount of office, there is Mills Mall across the freeway that was part of it. So the immediate environment is, it's highly controlled by one family that's kind of built it out over the course of decades. But then even beyond that when you get out into the broader submarket of which it's a part, Golden is on a permit allocation system, so there is a lot of supply constraints there. And then Lakewood has its own jurisdiction. It's not as restrictive as Golden, but it's certainly not as permissive as Denver. So it is an area that's seeing less supply, and I think generally what you see in Denver is the further west you go, the more supply constrained it gets, and some of that's regulatory and some of that is topographical, you start to get up into the mountains. And this asset is really in the foothills. It's a great place to live, it's for people that are looking to get out on the mountains on the weekend, which is part of that Denver lifestyle, which is so appealing to so many folks. So, we were pretty excited about it, and I think it is a reflection of kind of the locational strategy we're going to take there. At this particular point in the cycle, there's a lot of activity and a lot of excitement about downtown, a lot of people want to live there. There is a lot of new product being delivered. At some point, pricing may make sense to us there, but for right now we felt that this offered a much better risk adjusted return.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Great. That's very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey. Good morning, everyone. Looking at the retail densification opportunity, do you underwrite the developments on a standalone basis looking at supply and demographics or does the quality of the retail asset influence the decision?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is Tim here. Well, certainly, the quality of the retail asset is oftentimes reflective of the quality of the location. And so, to the extent it's a better location, we're going to demand probably a lower going in yield, with the expectation we're going to make more of a return on growth over time. But certainly the existing retail, if it's dying retail, and the whole site needs to be sort of redeveloped, that's a very different kind of risk profile. We'd consider it, but it's more of a master plan exercise, and it is sort of surgically where you're going in and maybe pick off part of the parking field or taking down one of the anchors and sort of re-planning some sort of a lifestyle project that integrates into the existing mall.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And at what point do you enter these decisions, are the projects largely entitled or do you take your skillset and work through the local entitlement process?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, we're partnering in many cases with the owner of the real estate. We think one of the things we offer them is both capital and skill and talent, and so they're leveraging both as part of the relationship. So, typically, it's kind of the deals I just described; we'd be sharing in the pre-development work, we'd be taking most of the lead, as it relates to design and entitlement, but obviously we'd be working alongside with them during that process.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And then lastly, you guys talked a lot about volatility, returns and correlations, just wondering how you at the top down view your portfolio. Do you view like sort of a Sharpe ratio and is that the reason, maybe the volatility in Northern California, New York was a little too volatile this quarter, and you just wanted to balance it out, is that why there's was a reduction in those regions?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, not really. I mean, when you look at New York and Northern California, probably just- with respect to going to California, thinking long term, we just felt like we're probably a little more over-indexed there at 20% of our existing portfolio relative to the size of the market and our overall portfolio. I mean, Southern California is a much bigger geography, and so even if we were at a market index at Southern California, and over-indexed in Northern California, Southern California would still be a bigger part of our portfolio. So, it's probably we're not necessarily scared by volatility, because a lot of times you can diversify that way through other markets. But we are mindful of when the markets are more volatile is how we invest through the course of the cycle, because total returns do matter, when you enter – when you invest the initial capital.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Hardik Goel with Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
Hey, guys, thanks for taking my question. Just on the like-term rent change, you guys did 1.9% in October and then if you look at occupancy, it was up 20 basis points, so you could say like-term revenue was up 2.1% in October. What was that compared to last year?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I don't have October last year right in front of me, so I am happy to get back to you on that offline.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
All right. And just one more quick follow-up. When you say your exposure, you're going to take it out in New York, I guess, the target exposure is lower there, where in New York, because your portfolio is so diversified, and there's a lot of urban, there is a lot of suburban. Have you guys kind of outlined which assets you're going to look to sell and where are those assets typically?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Maybe a mix of urban and suburban over time. Right now, we're at 24%, we talked about our target being 20%. I don't have numbers right in front of me, but it's sort of roughly split between urban and suburban right now. More recently, we've been selling some of our suburban New York portfolio, in part because that's where we have a deep development pipeline. We've been able to create a lot of value in Northern New Jersey. And then to some extent, it's strategic. We've been selling out of parts of Connecticut, particularly the Northern Fairfield and areas north of that.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
Thanks. That's all from me.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from John Guinee with Stifel.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Oh, John Guinee here. Thank you very much. Talking a little bit about development. First, hard costs last 12 months, how much have they gone up, and has land adjusted down yet to reflect that increase in hard costs? And then second – and if you answered this, I apologize, but what yield on cost do you expect in Denver and South Florida, higher yield on cost, or lower yield on cost? And what kind of product do you build in for example the various South Florida markets, where Miami to West Palm Beach is probably 75 miles, 80 miles distance?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, John. This is Matt. As it relates to the first question, we see hard costs have been growing probably through the course of this year in kind of the mid-to-high single-digits, depending on what market you're in. So, they're still growing well faster than inflation and faster than rents. So you're right. In the long run, that would impact land valuation. I'm not sure we've seen land values drop yet, but we've certainly seen terms start to soften a little bit in most markets, and land pricing in general is not continuing to go up, maybe with one or two exceptions. So that's always the first step and it does take a while for the market to adjust, and there's plenty of deals in the pipeline that are out looking for financing. But some of those deals are not penciling the way that sponsors thought they would. So we do expect that there should be continued softening there. But it's certainly, as we sit here today, it's definitely continuing to get harder to find business that underwrites today because it takes a while for that to play itself out, that process. As it relates to yields and product in the expansion markets, cap rates I think in Denver and Southeast Florida are probably pretty similar to what we see, say, in our DC markets or in Boston. They're a little higher than the West Coast, they're little lower than some of the suburban Northeast stuff. So, therefore, we'd be looking for yields probably roughly similar to that kind of low-to-mid 6%s, depending on the product and the submarket and the location. And our early indications are certainly that folks are finding success and finding deals that meet that criteria over time. Yes, Southeast Florida is a very diverse market, that's one of the things we like about it. And ultimately over time, just like in our other markets, we would look to have exposure. You look across kind of our portfolio in Metro New York, in Metro DC and Metro Boston, we have everything from wood frame, garden, apartments, there are three stories in some of the further out suburbs to a lot of kind of mid-rise wrap and podium products that's in field suburbs to high rises downtown. And all of those products can be supported in Southeast Florida at different levels. One of the big differences in Florida obviously, just because of the hurricane curse (52:43), none of its wood frame, it's all concrete but the costs are very different in these different markets. So, you can develop. Certainly what we've seen is many private developers have been able to develop profitably in that market as well across all those different product types.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, John, it's Tim here, maybe, just follow-up, just briefly on the land question. Yeah, Matt is right, I mean, the land markets really haven't adjusted. Our focus really has been on, one, as it relates to new development, in some cases, densifying our own assets where we've got excess parking, where we could take advantage of it, do negotiate the transactions either with folks that are looking to repurpose some of their assets and, thirdly, RPs where we're negotiating basically land residual values with jurisdiction. So, those efforts are bearing more fruit than just kind of going through the open market because in many cases the land economics still make no sense. I don't think we've tied anything up in Northern California maybe in three years, from terms of land standpoint. So, we're using a lot of different strategies to continue to sort of look at opportunities, but most of them are strategies that do allow for some adjustment to the land bases through a negotiated process.
John William Guinee - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.:
Excellent. Don't slow down. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey. Good morning, guys. So, what are the, I guess, more macro trends we're seeing is some declines in bank lending to multifamily, maybe that's because there's less demand from owners given decline in transaction volumes or maybe that's because of tighter lending standards. But I am wondering if you're seeing any slowdown in supply as a result of declining loan growth, or is the supply that's in the pipeline pretty much baked at this point?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, this is Sean. In terms of what's in the pipeline today for 2017 and 2018, that's pretty much baked given the duration of the construction cycle. What you're really referring to is deals that might be starting in the fourth quarter or sometime in 2018 and delivering in 2019 and 2020.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Right.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Certainly, we're hearing about the exact trend you're speaking to, as it relates to the tighter lending environment. Several of us were just at ULI just over a week ago, and heard about that a fair bit from a number of the private developers, both longer-term owners and particularly on the merchant builders side, and they're going to their second, third or fourth tier bank to try to get a deal done. So, certainly it's putting more pressure on them in terms of how they're thinking about their deals and the equity sources that are available to fund the gap because typically the deals that are getting done, the loan to cost ratios are coming in a little bit lower than earlier in the cycle. So, between that – between where construction costs are today and the expectation that based on what we see in the environment, there is the potential for construction costs in some markets to run above rent growth. It certainly is going to be a regulator on supply beyond what's already in the pipeline.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. And is there any markets that makes you maybe more bullish or less bullish on?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
As it relates to the same-store portfolio or...
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Well, really just overall in terms of – look, you are a well-capitalized entity, some of the maybe merchant builders are less well-capitalized. And so, are you seeing opportunities in some markets where maybe some of the smaller competitors are starting to pull back or is it too early to see that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I'd say at this point and Matt and Tim can certainly come in as well. But I'd say it's probably a little too early for that, people have their deals capitalized sort of already started obviously. Question is what they may have in their pipeline that once they get the permits, once they figure out what the costs are, what the economics are, does it make sense? I'd say we've probably seen a little bit of that, but not a substantial amount at this point. It'll probably take a little bit of time for that to bleed through in terms of opportunities don't get done, and therefore someone's looking to recycle land, so probably a little early in the cycle for that.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Tim. And we have seen, we've started to see some opportunities sort of recycle, maybe land deals we looked at two years or three years ago that maybe less experienced sponsors guided to, and didn't sort of fully understand the economics of what they were taking on either in terms of predevelopment requirements, or frankly the construction costs. So you're starting to see a little bit of that. It's happening more in some of the markets, as I mentioned earlier like Northern California or Seattle, which tend to be a little bit more volatile and maybe there are some folks that are experiencing sort of the wrong side of that volatility at the moment either in terms of what the numerator or the denominator is telling them when they're running their performance.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. Thanks, guys. I'll follow up offline with any further questions.
Operator:
We'll go next to Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good morning. Just two quick questions here. First on Southeast Florida geographically, did you guys outline – are you more concentrating in Miami and the immediate market sort of a little north, a little south or are you going all the way up to West Palm, if you could just outline your thoughts?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, this is Matt. We are interested in having a presence in all three of the metro areas there
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then, Tim, on your comments on a little deemphasizing New York and San Francisco, how much of that is just a function that the markets on an absolute basis have gotten too expensive, whether it's on cost to develop or acquire or the absolute rent levels needed to make sense and sort of the other markets may have a broader tenant base and economic base to allow more deals and allow a broader renter profile. So, how much of de-weighting Northern California and New York is based on pure economics and cost?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I guess, Alex, it's partly that – in the case of New York, I mean part of it's just the total size of our overall portfolio. So, we're more comfortable with something closer to 20% than 25%, as it relates to weighting and particularly, when you combine it with Boston. In the Northeast, those have been good markets, long term, but there are some challenges at the same time, whether it's California, Northeast just from a tax base and the like. So part of it is, just a little bit of additional diversification providing other growth opportunities beyond Northeast and California, which as I said earlier, some of these markets tend to be a little bit more volatile. Timing is important, it's important in New York, it's important in San Francisco, and so sometimes, you just sort of need to be out of the market. In some of these other markets, provide some opportunity to fill in some of the holes as you just kind of pursue your growth strategy.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi. Good afternoon. Just following up again on the Denver and Southeast Florida strategy, these two markets were also the markets that EQR got out of about two years ago. I am just wondering, could you talk a little bit about what their exposure was versus what you're targeting to kind of get a sense, it's the same stuff? Are you looking at different property type, are you looking at different submarkets? I'm just trying to get a sense of, they got out two years ago and now you guys are getting in and I'm just trying to understand why?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, I mean I think you probably need to talk to EQR to ask them why they got out. But I don't think their portfolios were particularly urban, and I think they are probably older. And as Mark said, maybe that played a role, I don't know, but that's them, obviously, they've made a bet on more of an urban footprint, so that may have played a role. In our case, we're starting from scratch and so we're looking at trying to build the portfolio that we want to build long term in each of those markets and as Matt had mentioned earlier, I think the Denver West acquisition was representative of the kind of business we want to do when we think that there is a – when there is maybe an opportunity in a supply constrained market – when there is plenty of supply generally in the market and there'll be other times when there'll be opportunity in supply-driven markets, so. But we said many times, we're agnostic between urban and suburban. We're capable of developing and operating both, and we're going to be looking for value at different parts of the cycle where it's most compelling.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. Second question, the installation of the Amazon Lockers at some of your locations, could you talk a little bit about just exactly what you are hoping to gain from that? Is it just better management of that process, is it actually something that ends up dropping to your bottom line? Could you talk about any kind of cost savings that you expect to kind of get from this and just how much more could you kind of see a rollout of Amazon Lockers in your properties?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. Tayo, this is Sean. Just to address this briefly, we did reach an agreement with Amazon to install either lockers or a package room across our portfolio, or at least a percentage of our portfolio, and if it goes well, we'll probably expand that. I mean the benefit is multiple and just highlight maybe a couple of things. One is just customer convenience that you can pretty much access. The package has been delivered to you 24x7. So regardless of your lifestyle, your work hours, whatever it may be, you can have access to it whenever you want as opposed to when someone's there. And also, it allows us to probably be a little more efficient in terms of our team given the number of packages that we receive. There is more than a couple of million packages here. So, it's a pretty significant time allocation in terms of labor hours associated with each one of those packages. Just to give you some simple numbers, we've kind of run through the math and by the time you receive a package, log in a package, store it, when the customer shows up, you retrieve it, you log it out, you have them sign it, et cetera. It can be three minutes or four minutes of time for each one of those packages, so labor hours definitely adds up. So that's the primary economic benefit associated with the Amazon Lockers at this point. And we'll see how it plays out in terms of other opportunities with them as well.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
But could you talk a little bit about just on a estimated cost savings, something like this could give you, whether it's on a per building basis or something like that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, it's a little too early to lay that out. I mean, you pick up some time for someone who's there doing that but they also are doing various other things. So across the portfolio, we certainly expect to pick up something, but we haven't quantified it yet since we're early in the process.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good morning. I saw retail bad debt expense picked up in the quarter. Could you speak to a little bit of that, and then given that you're seeing opportunities to redevelop other retail, could you tell us a little bit about your strategy for your existing retail?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Conor, it's Sean. I'm happy to address the first one, and then Matt or Tim may have comments on the second one as well. But on the first one, it was really one tenant that blew out in New York City, that we wrote off during the quarter, it was around $600,000, and this was reflected in the write-off in the comments, in the office operation section of the expense attachment, so it's that one write-off.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
As it relates to the existing retail – Conor, this is Matt – we have about 600,000 feet I believe and across our stabilized portfolio and existing retail, and we've actually focused quite a bit in the last couple of years on increasing the occupancy, that I think we brought the occupancy on that retail up from maybe low 80%s to high 80%s, around 90%, over the last three years or four years. So, it's mostly small shop space. So, I'm not sure if there's any huge opportunities there, but there are select situations. We have a couple of high profile retail locations where there might be opportunities over time as tenants turnover coming out of some longer term, older leases, but it really is a grab bag and it's a 1,000 feet here, 2,500 feet there. So, I don't know if there's any huge opportunities there.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you. And then given that your current development rights are pretty heavy on New York and New Jersey, and your longer-term plan to decrease your allocation in that region. How does that fit or how should we think about you're going to be backfilling the development rights pipeline?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Conor. This is Matt again. I guess one of the reasons why you've seen our disposition activity in the last couple of years be a little more heavily concentrated in Metro New York, New Jersey is because of that. So, I think we've sold something like $900 million or $1 billion out of Metro New York in the last couple of years. Mostly in the suburbs, we did sell Christie Place maybe three years ago now. So, we are mindful of that in terms of keeping the portfolio in balance. And we have not been doing many acquisitions in that region. So, all of our growth there has been through development. So, over time, it's a big ship and how you turn it, it gets to kind of the incremental decisions you make on dispositions, but it is still where we're finding tremendous yield in terms of development opportunities. So, we're mindful of that and try and balance that with decisions. I think Tim wanted to add something on it.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, yeah, Conor. I think when we talk about target portfolio, it's in the future. I mean, we are expecting to grow the overall portfolio. So, we may not necessarily shrink on an absolute basis the New York Metro area, but we will look to recycle capital within our market as we develop. So, I think that's kind of the short answer.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Great. Then finally, on that same theme within the Bay Area, do you have any plans to shift your allocation within the three regions or hold it pretty constant?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Nothing too specific at the moment, Conor. We're pretty well distributed between the three regions today. So, I think it's going to be probably a little more asset by asset. Over the 20%, we're roughly between 6% and 8% split between Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose today. So, we like having a presence in each of those markets. So, it's probably going to be probably a bit more opportunistic in terms of what we think sort of the better value from a dispo standpoint sort of presents itself.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Rich Anderson with Mizuho Securities.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Thanks. Tim, in the beginning of the call, you said you're expanding into other markets in part just kind of be in business should there be an opportunity if the cycle turns downward or something along those lines. Can you just describe your mindset there? Are you feeling just because the number of years is increasing in terms of how long we've been in this cycle that you have to be a little bit more cautious on the future, despite the view on supply maybe coming down next year or am I reading into that too much?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No. Richard, I think it's a good question. Yeah. It's just a recognition that economic cycles don't last forever. Having said that, they don't generally die of old age, they die of distortion and we're not seeing a lot of distortions today whether it's in the capital markets or labor markets that suggests we're at the end of the road today. But we do see construction costs and rents that are kind of above trend and those tend to sort of migrate back towards trend over time. But the one mistake I think a lot of developers make at times is they wait for markets to recover and to see clear evidence that development is profitable before they get in and oftentimes it's three years or four years after you want to be in from a – particularly from taking a land position, so you kind of need to be feeling what the land markets are like today to be able to sort of understand when the opportunity might be more right rather than sort of do it on a hindsight basis. So it's just kind of what our experience tells us. Oftentimes, the best land deals are either done after there's an economic correction or just before if it's done on an option basis where you can often times sort of renegotiate your transaction sort of after the dust has settled.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. And second question is, and this can be a simple yes or no answer, but as preeminent developer of apartments in the U.S., have you been approached by any cities as a means to sort of sweeten the proposal to attract Amazon's HQ2 like Denver, for example? I'm just kidding about that but anything along those lines?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
There's really nothing there, Rich.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Nothing there. Okay. Thanks.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jeff Pehl with Goldman Sachs.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Hi. Good morning. Just wondering if you could touch on your urban versus suburban rent growth in Northern California and Metro New York/ New Jersey, and Boston? You had a slide in your 1Q 2017 presentation, and I'm just wondering if you can give an update on that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Jeff, this is Sean. Maybe the way I can answer that for you is say a little bit about blended rent change in what you might think about, you said Northern California was one market I heard. Just to give you a sense in terms of blended rent change in the third quarter, not a lot different. The East Bay basically was 1.8%, San Francisco was 1.4%, San Jose was only 70 basis points, but that was constrained by the Mountain View rent ordinance, rent control ordinance that was put into effect. So it's got some noise in it in terms of San Jose, so be mindful of that. And I am sorry the second market that you indicated was?
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Metro New Jersey and New York and then Boston?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, okay. Boston, I don't have it broken out right in front of me in terms of urban versus suburban rent change during the quarter. Boston overall was in the low 3% range. In terms of New York/New Jersey, that's a little bit easier to break out, because it's represented by the geography. But to give you a sense, the strongest performing market within our footprint of New York/New Jersey was Long Island, where we had rent change around 3%, followed by Central Jersey at about 2.5% and then the city of New Jersey, both around 2%. The weakest was actually our Westchester portfolio, it was around 1%, which is a relatively small basket, and it has some movement of one or two assets, it can move the needle. So I wouldn't read too much into that.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Sean, but maybe you could just talk just suburban versus urban rent growth, East Coast versus West Coast what we're seeing right now, maybe how that compared sort of couple of quarters ago just to...?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, in terms of urban versus suburban performance, we typically look at the Axiometrics data, and then overlay that with our own portfolio data in terms of urban versus suburban performance. One thing just to keep in mind is when we started talking about these kinds of numbers, sample size does matter. And we're about two-third suburban, so just keep that in mind. It's not going to be consistent across each and every market in terms of our portfolio allocation between urban and suburban, but across the footprint for our portfolio, urban growth was around 140 basis points versus suburban about 260 basis points. So, 120 basis points spread in the third quarter, as it relates to performance. And again, that's our own portfolio of data as compared to Axiometrics, which is a little bit wider in terms of suburban versus urban, it's closer to 300 basis points, but they have a much bigger sample obviously that they are reporting against as compared to our own portfolio.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
And do you think suburban can continue to outperform urban in 2018?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Based on what we know about supply, that would be the expectation. If you look at the deliveries both 2017 and 2018, skew high on urban submarkets. So, if you break apart that, call it roughly 2% of inventory, it's in the high 1% range for suburban, and then, it's also north of 3% for urban. So, you blend it together and you get to sort of that 2.1% to 2.3% that I was mentioning earlier. So, given that expectation for deliveries, there certainly is good absorption in the urban submarkets, but there is just too much supply coming online this year and next year in those environments.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
And then, just my second question real quick. The U.S. homeownership rate has ticked up a little bit recently. Just wondering if you have an update across your portfolio on move-outs to purchase a home, and if there's any markets maybe that are above average for that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. The move-outs to purchase home still has not moved really. This cycle, it's still running around 13% of move-outs. And one thing that we've noticed, and it's been highlighted by a couple of different research firms, is that what we're seeing in the data would indicate that people that have been in some single family rentals are moving into home ownership. And I think, not only for ourselves, but a number of our peers in our markets aren't really seeing the move-outs to home purchase change much. It sort of makes sense based on what we're seeing., And then as it relates to any particular markets that are above or below their long-term average, typically what you'd see is the Northeast, particularly Boston is a market that's trending right around or slightly above its long-term average in terms of move-outs to home purchase, which is running right around 22%, 23%. Pretty much all the other markets are at or below their long-term average. And to give you a sense, Northern California is trending around 9% or 10%. The long-term average is closer to 14%. Southern California is pretty much right at its long-term average, so Boston is really the only region where we're seeing that occur at this point.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Thanks. Thanks for taking my questions.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Nick Joseph with Citi. Mr. Joseph, your line is open, sir. Please check your mute function.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Can you hear me? Can you hear me, now?
Operator:
Yeah. We got you.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
All right, it's Bilerman. Tim, I was wondering, I know 10 years could be a pretty long time in terms of where the company is going to be, and I think back to last 10 years, you've almost tripled in size. This is pre-Archstone obviously, from $13 billion of assets to $34 billion today at that market. And even post-Archstone, you've grown probably by about a third from call it $25 billion to $34 billion. So, as I think about your 10-year forward look in terms of your portfolio construction, how do you think about the sizes, the portfolio look in that context? Could we see that growth continue or do you really view this as sort of a steady state type plan, where everything is self-funded, both development as well as growth into new markets via acquisition and new development?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Michael that's a pretty loaded question. I mean, first of all, on scale, we do think there are certain advantages of scale. There's a lot of advantages of scale at the regional level, it's one of the reasons why we have been committed to the footprint that we have been committed to, and in many cases had exited markets to redeploy that capital into existing markets to develop scale. You can recruit higher caliber talent into markets when you've got a bigger presence, you can leverage business intelligence in ways that are important particularly if you're a value-add investor or developer in those markets. So we are clearly believers in scale at the regional level. We're a believer in terms of the kind of capabilities that you can build over time, whether it's things like revenue management and other things that you can deploy where it's not just a matter of just turning a button on, it's supporting that with great market research and data analytics that allow you to sort of optimize it. So all things being equal, we like scale, but this is a capital-intensive business, it's only going to make sense to grow the balance sheet at certain points in the cycle, and at other times, it may make sense to contract the balance sheet or to recycle. So I would say, we have no hard and fast objectives about how big this company should be or ought to be. To some extent, we're a little bit beholden to the capital markets or cost of capital in terms of how we deploy. But we do want to achieve certain levels of presence within the markets that we choose to be and we wouldn't go in the Southeast Florida or Denver unless we thought we could build a portfolio of a few thousand units over time that would allow us to achieve some of those other strategic advantages.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
And it sounds at least from your initial comments that doing some potential development JVs, approaching acquisitions cautiously is at least some initial ways. I remember back, I can't remember if it was 2011 or 2012 when you did the exchange with UDR, the SoCal Boston exchange. Could that be an avenue where other REITs may be over indexed or under indexed to the markets you want to get out of, and over indexed to the ones you want to get into. Is that something that we potentially could see you execute?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It's something we would have interest in to the extent that there was complementary objectives within that. I don't know whether it's public or private. And then with respect to development JVs, one thing I didn't mention, we are sponsoring local developers. It's going to generally be a structure where I think there's a path to getting sort of full fee ownership of the asset, that's different than maybe kind of a retail JV that we're talking about earlier with respect to GGP where that really is strategic and where interests are aligned long-term and where it might be more of a 50-50 structure on a go forward basis.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
And then moving to last question just on that slide 13, the conceptual presentation of your circles on the quarter moons, half moons, just visually when you look at those items, right, everything in Southeast Florida and Denver is below what your legacy markets are. And so, I guess if these are your market attributes and even though Southeast Florida and Denver arguably are higher than what you define as the U.S. market metro average is a half moon. They're still relatively below what your legacy markets are, right. If you did this chart in 10 years and you exceed your plan, all your legacy, your new moons would all have more white ones?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is a current assessment of these markets. First of all, if they were more filled in than our existing markets, we would be there already. And so to some extent, you are projecting a little bit too with respect to these markets in terms of how they might perform in the future for instance on these sort of knowledge-based economy. Do we think Denver will get more than its fair share of those kinds of jobs, we do kind of going forward.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Right.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So I mean, when you look at public investment and infrastructure, I mean, what Denver and the State of Colorado are doing and what's happening in Southeast Florida, it's pretty impressive, whether it's public transportation or some of the amenities that the public sector is supporting and investing in. So I mean, we are in the long-term investment business and so we are looking at longer-term trends as to where people want to live, the kind of people we rent to as well as what's the posture of the government sector in terms of supporting those metro areas. So, we'd like to think that these circles will continue to fill in a bit over time as we get to understand these markets and they continue to mature.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Right. Do you feel like the institutional core capital will come as well, right? You think about your current markets, that strong institutional core bid that will allow you to exit at times you feel like...?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It's already started, Michael. We're already investing in these markets.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
All right.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And see, now there may not be a big REIT presence in these markets, honestly, it's one of the reasons we're kind of attracted to them at this particular moment in time where there's not a lot of people that bring the full complement of advantages that we could bring to these markets, whether it's talent or capital.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yeah.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, it kind of presents sort of an interesting opportunity from a competitive standpoint.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for all the time.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the call back to Tim Naughton for closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Okay. Well, great. Thanks, Aaron and I know it's been a long call, but I appreciate you all staying with us. We look forward to seeing you in just couple of weeks' time in NAREIT in Dallas. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Andrew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Melinda, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' second quarter 2017 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available in on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q2 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I have a few minutes of comments on the slides we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. My comments will focus on providing a summary of Q2 results, an update to our outlook for the full year. And lastly, I'll touch briefly on how we're positioning the balance sheet at this stage of the cycle. Starting now on slide 4, results for the quarter include core FFO per share growth of 3%. Same-store revenues grow 2.5% or 2.6% including redevelopment. We completed $400 million in new developments at an initial projected yield of 7%, representing net value creation of close to $200 million. We paid off $1.2 billion of secured debt this quarter that carried an average GAAP interest rate of 4.5% and an average cash rate of 6%. And we refinanced that debt primarily with new long-term unsecured debt of 10 and 30-year maturities. Turning to slide 5 and our updated outlook for the year, we now expect core FFO growth of 5%, which is down 50 bps from our original outlook of 5.5%. Same-store NOI is forecasted to be a little bit lower at 25 basis points at the midpoint – 25 basis points lower, I'm sorry, based upon on higher operating expenses. NOI from development and other stabilized communities is expected to be off by roughly $7 million from our original outlook driven by schedule delays at a few developments. Development starts are expected to be about $100 million less than expected. And external funding is expected to be up by about $200 million from our initial outlook, driven mainly by the opportunistic payoff of a $550 million Freddie pool that was schedule to mature in 2019. Slide 6 shows how these changes are contributing to the revision in our outlook to core FFO growth. The same-store and redevelopment portfolios are expected to be off by $0.02 per share as a result of a higher OpEx I mentioned earlier. Expenses are being driven by a number of factors, but most notably, from uninsured losses and maintenance cost in connection with West Coast storms occurring in Q1 and higher-than-expected bad debt. As mentioned earlier, the development bucket is expected to be down by $7 million, which equates to $0.05 per share. Our revised capital plan is contributing $0.04 per share of core FFO this year. And finally, overhead is projected to be up $0.01, primarily due to higher professional fees and a true up of long-term compensation metric. Turning now to slide 7, same-store revenue growth is still expected to be in the mid 2% range for the year with modest revisions across regions. In Northern California, our revised estimate is largely attributable to a new rent control measure recently passed on a retroactive basis in Mountain View, California, where we have three communities that are subject to the new ordinance. Other regions are within 30 basis points plus or minus of our original outlook. Turning now to slide 8, as mentioned earlier, a delay in deliveries across a few projects is impacting lease-up related NOI in our development bucket for the year. We expect a shortfall of roughly 270 units per quarter on average, with most of the shortfall occurring in the peak leasing seasons of Q2 and Q3, as you can see on the chart there at the left or the graph at the left. This equates to the $0.05 shortfall in the development NOI for the year. The table at the right is really just provides an illustration as to how delivery delays impact earnings growth for the year. Turning now to slide 9, importantly, lower development NOI this year is not being driven by slower absorption or declining rates. Rather, we continue to see healthy lease-up performance with occupancies running at 34 units per month per community in Q2 and average effective rental rate of 4.5% above pro forma on the $1.5 billion of communities currently in lease-up. This slide shows two communities that are performing well above expectations. Avalon West Hollywood in LA on the left and AVA NoMa in D.C. on the right, both of which are seeing effective rental rates of around $300 per month above pro forma. The average yield of the $1.5 billion communities in lease-up is currently 6.5%, which is roughly 200 basis points above prevailing cap rates for these assets on average. So, while we may be experiencing some schedule delays that impact current year earnings, we continue to generate strong NAV growth through the development platform. Now to slide 10, as mentioned earlier, we've been very active in the capital markets in the first half of the year. So far this year, we've raised $1.5 billion of external capital, most of what we had planned for the full year, much of it in connection with the refinancing of maturing debt. We do expect to raise another $400 million or so for the balance of the year. Lastly, I want to touch on the balance sheet for a minute, turning first to slide 11. The capital activity this past quarter significantly improved our debt profile. Duration is increased with average years to maturity above 10%, an increase of a couple years versus the average so far this cycle. And the average interest rate on total debt has fallen by 150 basis points since the beginning of the cycle and now stands at 3.6%. And lastly, we have little exposure to debt maturities over the next two and a half years, as you can see in the bottom chart, with just over $200 million coming due before 2020. Turning now to slide 12, in addition to reduced liquidity needs related to rolling debt over the next two to three years, the strength of our credit metrics provides us with plenty of financial flexibility. Debt to EBITDA remains at 5 times, which is the low end of the target range that we've discussed with you in the past. Fixed charge coverage stands at 4.7 times. And unencumbered NOI is up materially to 88% of total NOI. Our balance sheet and credit profile then leave us very well positioned eight years into the current expansion. So, summary, our outlook for the full year really hasn't changed much. We still expect modest deceleration of fundamentals in the second half of the year with same-store revenue growth in the mid 2% range for the full year. While construction related delays are expected to reduce lease-up NOI somewhat in 2017, we continue to generate healthy NAV growth through development. And our balance sheet and liquidity give us ample flexibility to support continued growth through new development, while also providing a healthy margin of safety as we move into the latter years of this cycle. And with that, Melinda, we'd be happy to open up the call for Q&A.
Operator:
Thank you. And we'll go to Nick Joseph, Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Just around the same-store revenue, I'm just curious how things are trending relative to the midpoint just given that we're in early August now and you have some visibility in terms of renewals for August and September?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick, it's Sean. Just a couple comments on that; generally speaking, things are trending as we expected. They've kind of been playing out that way for the most part through the first half of the year and now into July and August. So, I'd say we feel pretty confident as to the guidance we provided.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
And when you think about – you narrowed the range, when you think about what the potential drivers could be of either reaching the high-end or low-end of guidance, what are the key variables there, at least where we stand today?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick, at this point, it's probably going to really move around occupancy. If you think about where we are in terms of the leasing season and lease expirations, the fourth quarter, not a lot of activity. We kind of know where we are for August. We have pretty good insight for September. So, where we sit today, if you look at it, current occupancy in August is running 95.5%, 95.6%, that's up about 25 basis points compared to last year. And when you look at availability in terms of what we have available to lease 30 and 60 days out, that's down between 30 and 40 basis points relative to last year. So, our expectation is we're going to pick up a little bit of occupancy on a year-over-year basis in Q3. In Q4 it probably flattens out a little bit. So, for the most part, given where we are with rent offers that are out there, what's being committed and then the expirations that are left as you move into Q4, for the most part, any deviation is going to be around occupancy absent some material acceleration or deceleration in demand which is unforeseen.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And just finally, on supply, obviously, in your portfolio you've experienced some delays; feels like across markets those delays are pretty common. So just curious what you're seeing in terms of expected deliveries in the back half of this year in 2018 and any shifts that you've seen in any specific markets that you'd like to call out?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, it's Sean again. Happy to address that; and then Tim or others may have comments as well. But, at the beginning of the year, our expectation across our footprint is that supply would be just over 2% of inventory, about 2.1%. As we massaged it mid-year, both on a sort of bottoms-up basis and a top-down basis with our teams and third-party data sources, the expectation right now, based on what people are telling us, is that 2.1% is still generally intact, but what's happened is, it shifted pretty dramatically. There's probably – out of the roughly 85,000 units that are expected across our footprint for 2017, about 7,000 units have been shifted from the first half to the second half. So the way that plays out is, if you look at the first half of the year, we're running around 44 to 45 basis points in each of the first two quarters, that's going to tick up close to about 60 basis points in terms of supply of stock in each of Q3 and Q4. So, it's basically been back-end weighted, particularly, as you get to Q4, which is north of 60 basis points. I think what that tells us is, based on what we're experiencing and others, that the number is probably not going to come in at 2.1% for this year, it's probably going to come in shy, because everything that was pushed to the fourth quarter, not all of it's going to make. So, our expectation is it probably will come off of that 2.1%, maybe into the high 1% range, 1.9%, 1.8%, who knows. And some of that inventory will get pushed into 2018. So, the peak for supply probably will be in the back half of 2017, first half of 2018 before you start to see any moderation.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
We'll next go to Nick Yulico, UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Oh, thanks. Just a couple of questions on New York; I guess, first, it looks like your same-store pool got a little bit bigger in New York City. There was an asset added to it or...?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. We had a couple that came out of development, one of which was a two-phased community. The second phase came into same-store this year, correct. And then, in addition to that, there was a change in the basket between Q1 and Q2; there was one asset that was being considered for disposition in the first quarter that was not in the same-store pool. That came into the same-store pool when we pulled it from the disposition list in the second quarter.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. I guess, I'm just wondering, as I look at the reported revenue growth of 1.4% this quarter New York City versus first quarter 2.4%, year-over-year numbers, was there any impact for that delta on the change in the same circle?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. The one asset that did come in is trending weaker than some of the other assets in New York City. So it's certainly pulled down the growth rate for the city specifically if that's what you're referring to.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. That's helpful.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
And then within – just one other question is, Long Island City, your waterfront assets there. What percentage of your New York City revenue are those assets and how you're thinking about the supply impact still to come, recognizing it's not right in that sub-market in Long Island City, but it's nearby and at rents that are much cheaper than your assets.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, what I can tell you is – I can get back to you on the specific percentage of revenue from those two assets. I don't have that off of my head. What I can tell you is most of the supply in Long Island City is now coming into more of the central business district, portion of Long Island City as opposed to the waterfront. There's still some activity on the waterfront, but if you think of it relative to the supply that's been delivered on the waterfront over the last decade, it's relatively immaterial. The Riverview assets that we own there still are the best performing assets that we have within the New York City footprint at the moment in terms of revenue performance.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Nick. This is Tim Naughton here. I think it represents about 1,000 units of roughly 3,000 units. I don't know what in terms of percentage, but I suspect, Sean, a little bit lower.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It would be a little bit lower rather than that, yeah. Yeah, maybe 20%, something like that, 20%, 25%.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. And so, I guess, so you're saying the assets are still performing very well, but is that a function of – that some of the supply impact still has to come in the back half of the year? I understand they're good assets, very good location, but I'm just trying to understand how they're outperforming within New York City? Is it just a function of the supply impact having not come yet in that market?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not necessarily. The two assets that we have there are pretty well positioned if you think about it. Really, few things going on; one from a macro standpoint is that specific area on the waterfront in Long Island City has really become a neighborhood over the last decade. We were bit of a pioneer there early on when we built our first asset and then we built our second asset. A lot of newer, higher price point assets have been delivered into that submarket, sort of buoying the whole environment. And our assets there being a little more value oriented continued to perform pretty well as the supply has abated, in particular along the waterfront, and shifted more to the business district, I would say. So, there's more of supply to come, more in the business district than on the waterfront, but what comes in the waterfront really is coming at much higher price points than where we are, which just enhances the entire neighborhood.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. Thanks, everyone.
Operator:
And Richard Hightower, Evercore.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Hi. Good afternoon, guys. So, Sean, really quickly, it hasn't been asked yet, so I'll ask it just to see if you can run through new and renewals across the major markets for the quarter and then maybe where we are in July and August as well.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, happy to run through some of that for you. So, in terms of the Q2 data, blended rent change was 2.6% for the quarter, which is 4% on our renewals, which has been remarkably pretty flat all year and then move-ins at 1%. It did trend up through the quarter. So, April was 2.2%, May was 2.6%, and then June trended up to 2.9%. And the range is sort of mid-to-high 1% range in New York/New Jersey, the Mid-Atlantic, and Northern California. And then it moves up to sort of the low 3% range in New England, high 3s to 4% in Southern Cal, and then sort of mid-6s up to high 7% in Seattle. And then, if you look at July, July is trending sort of in the high 2% range as well. And offers, if you're looking out for August and September, they're running in the mid 5% range, which is down 30, 40 basis points from where they were in May and June.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay, great. Thanks for the color there. And then, my second question. I know you guys have been doing development for quite a long time and are very, very good at it. I'm just curious, as you kind of look at the development schedule every quarter, how much cushion is baked in, in terms of the delivery cadence just for the reasons that we saw last quarter, where you see some delays, it impacts numbers to some extent. Just how much cushion do you put into those numbers every quarter?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Rich. This is Matt. We do monthly updates on all of our development projects and what we put out there and what we share is essentially what we expect. So, I'd say that's the expected case just like it is on the capital cost side, on the budget side. So we feel like, based on everything we know now, that's our best guess. I will say there's probably more risk in the first turn than in subsequent turns on these projects. So the hardest thing to peg is always when you're going to get that first certificate of occupancy. That's when the inspections and some of the processes around the local jurisdictions is a little more uncertain. Usually, once you get beyond that first CO, you have very good visibility into when your subsequent turns are going to happen. You know how your subs are performing then. So, when you look at how many communities we first opened for occupancy in the last couple of months, those, I would say, there's not that much risk in the subsequent turns. If there's risk, it's probably in the communities that haven't yet opened the doors.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Rich. This is Tim. Maybe just to follow up on that a little bit. I think, historically, we've actually had a little bit better success as it relates to schedule. I think we've always had deals where you have some struggles as Matt was saying, but they've generally been offset by projects that have been able to deliver early. I'd say there's a couple other things happening. Some that you probably – those of you who have (22:04) or whatever, probably been hearing just in terms of just labor shortages, subcontractors getting stretched, not necessarily performing, holding up work. We've actually had some subcontractor failures that have cost us some time. But a big piece of it, Matt mentioned inspections, the inspectors are stretched as well, and so we're not getting the kind of response that we have maybe earlier in the cycle that you get from them. And the other thing is, when they get out there, they've been more stringent around phased occupancies and, subsequently, on these high-density wood frame buildings where we may have been able to get phases of occupancy in smaller batches, they tended to be in larger batches which have contributed to pushing back that first delivery that Matt talked about. So it's really kind of a confluence of a few things, I think, that are kind of combining here to create more of an issue than we've seen in years pass.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. Thank you, guys.
Operator:
And we'll go to Juan Sanabria, Bank of America.
Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Good morning. Just on the supply again, could you talk to when you expect peak deliveries in each of your major markets and has that shifted at all as the year's progressed?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Juan. This is Sean. Each of the major markets going across that's about 16 of them for us, so that might be a better topic to handle offline. I can say it maybe across the larger regions maybe to kind of run through it. We're expecting pretty much flat supply when you look at New York/New Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northwest between 2017 and 2018. Like I said in my earlier comments, some of the 2017 deliveries might get delayed, but net-net probably pretty similar levels; a slight increase in both Northern California and Southern California when we get into the 2018 relative to 2017. And then in New England, we're expecting it to thin out a little bit and come down maybe 50 basis points or so. So there is a lot of deviations at the market level when you run through all those regions, but hopefully, that provides kind of a high level overview for you.
Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thanks. That's great. And then, I was just hoping you could talk to expenses. They kicked up in D.C. and Boston. Kind of what's driving that? Is it more discounting going on or anything unusual in those two markets that drove the higher same-store expense growth?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not necessarily. The things that are really driving our revision to guidance are really three components; two pretty easily identifiable. About the third of its bad debt, about 40% of its uninsured losses associated with the storms we had in the West Coast earlier this year, and then the balance is a whole mix of things. Some of it is maintenance-related cost from the storms, timing of government licenses and fees, a little bit of unusual carpet replacement in some markets, things of that sort. It's not necessarily just one thing either across the portfolio or in the markets you specified that's driving the differences.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And Sean, maybe one thing. Juan did ask about customer discounts, so to be clear, that doesn't run through expenses, it runs through revenue in our case as it relates...
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
In the case of concessions for new move-ins, that's a contra revenue account for us. The only customer incentives that would be expensed would be for apartments that are not habitable for some related issue. If it's a storm related events or something like that that they can't really occupy their home, then we give them customer service discount for a hotel or a thing of that sort to make sure that they're covered during the duration of the time that their home is not habitable.
Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. And then any color on that bad debt increase?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Bad debt is kind of mix bag of things to be honest. Some of it relates to an increase in identity fraud across the markets. Particularly, it's most concentrated in LA I would say and other parts of Southern California. It's also related to issues we've had in the court system in the Greater New York Region, particularly, the suburban market where it's not been as easy to get judgments as it's been in the past, where judges have been pivoting on us more. So there's not necessarily one specific factor, but sort of a confluence of factors that are impacting bad debt this year.
Juan Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
And we'll go to Drew Babin, Robert W. Baird.
Andrew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
Hey, good afternoon. A quick question on D.C.; some of the other companies have reported there's been some variability of performance between Northern Virginia, Maryland, et cetera, within the District. I was hoping you could kind of give a breakdown of how that's shaking out, especially as it pertains to leasing in the last few months.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, happy to chat about it. It's Sean. In general, what we've seen is that performance in suburban Maryland has been leading mainly a function of mix of assets. We've got some value-oriented assets there that are performing well. And then that's followed by Northern Virginia and then after that, the District, which has been quite choppy, given the amount of supply that's been delivered. To give you some sense of indicators, from a rent change basis in Q2, suburban Maryland trended in the 2.5% range, Northern Virginia kind of 1.7% and D.C. has basically been flat. It was positive 20 basis points. So that's somewhat indicative of what we've been seeing and would expect that to continue as you look at the second half in the year and supply is expected to increase pretty meaningfully in the District. So, still expect D.C. to be the softest of the three markets within the Mid-Atlantic.
Andrew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
It's helpful. And then a quick question on New York Metro. How has New York Metro kind of shaken out by submarket this year versus expectations? Has the city itself been a little more resilient than you might have expected. And I did note that from 1Q to 2Q, there was a bit of deceleration in suburban New York. Was hoping you could talk some about that and the dynamics going on there.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, sure. When you look across New York/New Jersey for us, I think it is a fair statement that the city has performed a little bit better than we might have expected to be honest. And the markets that have been a little bit stronger include New York City, Long Island's been performing well, and then Central New Jersey. Those are the three that are leading in terms of performance in the greater region. In terms of the issue you identified in New York suburban, one thing you got to keep in mind there is that 1,200 apartment homes in that market. So, if you have a little bit of sneeze at one (29:16), it does affect the basket. And we had couple of assets that normally have nice short-term activity during the summer period that, as you lead up to it in Q2, they kind of kick in late-April, May, and then go through the summer. Just not quite as much demand this year for that short-term activity, which prices at a premium and, therefore, impacted couple of assets in Westchester. So I wouldn't read too much into that when you're talking about a basket of 1,200 units.
Andrew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.:
All right, very helpful. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
And Austin Wurschmidt, KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Good afternoon. Was just curious, you mentioned increases in supply in Northern California and Southern California next year. Any particular submarkets that are seeing outsize increases?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
For this year versus next year?
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Correct.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. It's typically the usual places. So, what I can tell you in Southern California, where you typically see it is Downtown LA, and then, if you move down into a – there's a little bit in the Marina. And then if you move down into Orange County, it's Anaheim and Irvine. You typically see a tick up there. And then if you move down into San Diego, I believe its Mira Mesa and Downtown, you see a little bit of an uptick. And then in terms of Northern California for 2017 versus 2018, you do see an uptick in the city and there's a few different places where it comes into play. Some of it is not the core part of the city, but you are seeing an increase in – the Financial District more than doubles as you move into 2018 is an example. There's more in South San Francisco. But then there's also pockets like Burlingame that there's not any deliveries expected this year, but they're expecting about 500 units next year. So it's kind of spread around, and one thing you do need to keep in mind, as I mentioned, is some of the deliveries that have been pushed into Q4 this year probably will slip into next year. So, it's a little early to make a final call on what 2018 is going to look like.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for the detail there. And then, I was just curious if you had the detail on what rent growth would be if you were to include short-term leases in that number?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I don't have that right in front of me. It's a relatively small percentage. And you have to realize that it's a pretty volatile number. It spiked in Q2 and Q3 in terms of pulling up total rent change for all terms, but it's softens materially in Q4 and Q1 and pulls everything down. So, I can – Jason and I can address that with you offline if you like to.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Yeah, that would be great. Thanks. And then just last one, was curious, when you look at the capital plan through the balance of the year, I'm just curious what the most attractive sources are and how we should be thinking about funding plans for the back half of the year.
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Austin. This is Kevin. It's really not much change from where it's been over the past six months to a year or so. Obviously, as you're aware, there are three principal markets that we look to tap on the business
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And Dennis McGill, Zelman & Associates.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Afternoon. Thank you. Just wanted to hear a couple of thoughts relating to the supply delay and then how you think about the year progressing relative to initial expectation. When you look at your own delays and then seeing that in the market as well and still seeing deceleration in the first half of the year, do you look at that as though the risk has just shifted within the year, so the year looks as though you would've thought it would look, but the back half is more decelerated than the front half because of the timing or is the quarterly progression playing out as you would've thought as well?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Dennis, this is Sean. I think, generally, it's playing out – if you think of the trajectory or slope of what's happening with market rents and, therefore, rent change in our portfolio, it's playing out about as we expected. I would agree that the risk has probably shifted a little bit more to the back half of the year. But the way I looked at is when I see those 6,000 or 7,000 units that have been delayed and pretty much everybody said they're still going to make it this year, I don't think that's likely to occur in that way. So we had certainly done some things to try and protect the downside going a little bit further out on renewal offers, trying to lockup some people in certain markets where we see an increase in supply in specific submarkets in the third and fourth quarter relative to what we experienced in the first half and things like that that are kind of tactical. So I think we've done a good job of trying to shore it up if you want to think about that way. As I mentioned already in August, which is sort of the last of the peak leasing months, we're starting out the month about 25 basis points higher on occupancy and about 30 basis points lower in availability that is intentional to try and make sure that we have a slightly more defensive cost share as we encounter more supply and kind of late Q3 and Q4 in some of these places where present some risk. So, I think your comment about the risk being more in the back half is probably a fair statement if you're addressing it from a supply perspective. And then also the fact that job growth has been a little bit weaker across the footprint in the first half of the year; it's only running about two thirds of the pace of last year. And that would likely manifest itself in demand in late Q3 and Q4, so we're just trying to be thoughtful about how we position the portfolio for those periods of time.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
That's really helpful. Thanks. And when you think about pricing power by month when would you typically see the peak seasonally?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Typically, the peak is in July or August depending on the year. Probably would have been July this year.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Okay. And then last question, just on Northern California, when you think more broadly about how that market might recover from early strong increases to moderating, going negative and even probably bouncing back faster in the last quarter or so than we would have expected at least. As you look forward, is that a market where you would be comfortable if it just got back to stability relative to long-term averages or do you think that it can reaccelerate even beyond that just given the demand?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, happy to comment about that and then Tim or others can. I'd say where you could most likely see reacceleration that would be meaningful at some point would likely be in the city just because the nature of the product site that you're building there, which is type one concrete high-rise. There's a pretty long gestation period. So to the extent that we see supply falling off, say, in the back half of 2018 as an example, going into 2019, that next round of communities that would be built is likely some kind of gap in there, and those have been stressing the system in terms of funding the right kind of land opportunities, blending it with where construction costs are, a constrained financing environment that there is certainly pressure on starts, generally across the country and that is something we've talked about. But, particularly in San Francisco, with that kind of product type, it might be a little more meaningful than you'd see on wood frame job in San Jose or the East Bay as an example. So, you probably would see the acceleration in that market potentially. It's the core is where people like to live and then it kind of reverberates out from there down to peninsula and then over to the East Bay. So, Tim, you want to add something to that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Dennis, certainly, we've seen it in the past. We saw it 2000, 2001, where you had a pretty meaningful reacceleration after a bit of a slowdown in the late 1990s. And obviously, that was on the backs of what was going on in Nasdaq. This is a market that where hiring is a function to a large degree what's happening in the equity markets and it's been a nice run, obviously, in the equity market. I don't think it's as dependant as it's been in the past. But I think that would be sort of the argument or the case in which we might see a more meaningful reacceleration than just sort of getting back to equilibrium.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman & Associates:
Thank you, guys. Good luck.
Operator:
And we go to Wes Golladay, RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Looking at the development pipeline for next year, I think Matt mentioned that the initial occupancies are where you see the most risk. And how do you see the projects at Avalon Maplewood and AVA North Point kind of going right now? And if there was anything behind at this stage, is there just something you can do to mitigate risk for those projects?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Wes. This is Matt. North Point is going great. In fact, it's making strong progress. And Cambridge is not perhaps as overwhelmed with supply relative to its history and its context at the moment. So, I don't expect there to be any risk there. There might even be an opportunity, we'll see, to pull forward a little bit. And Maplewood, that's obviously the rebuild from the fire that we had early in the year and that's also actually gone, if anything, probably a little better than expected. So, I think we're feeling very good about the possibility. That's another one, I guess, the current schedule shows us, opening the doors for occupancy. First quarter of 2018, I would – we may even be able to get that pulled into the end of this year, but certainly, we feel good about opening the doors there beginning of next year.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. So, I guess, would it be fair to characterize what happened this year as more of a transitory issue?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, those are just the two you asked about. There are a couple where there is probably a little bit more challenges. But I think it's a reflection of – every job has its own unique circumstances, but it's a reflection of where we are in the cycle. As Tim was saying, it is an industry that is at kind of full capacity. So we have seen some subcontractors fail that we had to replace. We have had some challenges in some of the jurisdictions. So, in years past, we had – the two you mentioned are two where we might actually have good surprises that might potentially offset if we have slipped somewhere else.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Wes, maybe just add to that, to the extent we can see it coming like months in advance, we're generally able to put together or often able to put together a recovery plan to make up some of the time. It's really in those instances where you don't see it coming like Matt mentioned where it's a failed subcontractor or just an inspection issue, which you just – there is really no time in which to recover. And that's generally where we run into the biggest schedule issues.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Operator:
We will go to Alexander Goldfarb, Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Oh, good afternoon. Two questions here. First, Kevin, just on the balance sheet, noticed that you have some 1031 proceeds. I'm guessing that's from the Seattle sale. So, two-part; one, do you expect to acquire another asset or is there a potential for special dividend? And two, are there any other Seattle type student housing-oriented assets in your portfolio that you may seek to sell?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, Alex, this is Kevin. I may start and Matt may want to add here. The 1031 proceeds you see in our balance sheet relate to a sale that was accomplished earlier this year at Avalon Pines in Eastern Long Island. And so, whether or not we're able to use that will be ascertained in the third quarter here. And if we can match with something we will, if we can't, we will retain the proceeds because, based on our current estimate, we can absorb the capital gains that would flow from that prior sale.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then, Matt, on the opportunity for other student-oriented buildings to harvest?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. There maybe one or two others in our portfolio that have a heavy student population. We do have other assets in the market right now for disposition that don't happen to meet that criteria. But that particular one was a little bit unique and a combination of things. So, we'll obviously continue to be selling assets. I don't know that any of the next kind of three, four, five assets we sell probably not likely to be ones that we'd sell to a student housing operator. That was a little bit of (42:29) there.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then the second question is, on the rent control out in Mountain View, I assume this is the standard where there is vacancy decontrol, so you can bring it to market on turn. So, one, just want to verify that and, two, are there any other markets that you think could have this that you'd expect communities to be impacted by further rent control?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Alex. This is Sean. Your first point is correct in that there is vacancy decontrol associated with the Mountain View ordinance. Really, what was somewhat punitive about that one, as Tim alluded to, is there was a rent rollback. The rents were rolled back from current levels to October 2015 levels, and no rent increases were allowed for people that were under leases that remain in their home until September of 2017. So that's pretty unusual and that impacted our outlook for this year. But, ultimately, as you have turnover activity, you'll get it; the question is what's the duration. So we'll see on that. And then, in terms of other challenges, there has been chatter in Northern California, primarily from other jurisdictions. There's only a couple of locations where it's actually passed, Mountain View being one of those. And so we continue to keep an eye on it. Typically, at this point in the cycle, last couple of cycles included, there is a lot of this chatter in Northern California and then it slowly abates. So, we'll see how it plays out, but it's right now, sort of addressed at the jurisdictional level in terms of whether it's Mountain View or Richmond or Santa Rosa, et cetera, that pop up from time to time.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
And we'll go to Vincent Chao, Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Hey. Good afternoon, everyone. Just – I think we probably touched on it already, but just as you look at the changes – slight changes in the same-store revenue outlook by region, we just talked about Mountain View, but are the other changes that we're seeing here largely driven by the shifts in supply and also, at a broad level, say that job growth has been little softer. I was just curious sort of what are the deltas to what your original outlook was driving some of the change here?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, this is Sean, happy to address that. There's really three regions or markets that are underperforming the original expectation. The first is LA, which is projected to be off about 50 basis points from what we expected, coming in closer to 4% instead of 4.5%. There's really two factors there. One is job growth in LA in the first half of the year is only running about half the pace of last year. So there has been softness on the demand side. And then, for us, we had a headwind in the San Fernando Valley in terms of some unusual rent premiums we achieved last year that presented a difficult comp for this year. So LA is the first sort of market. And then in terms of two other regions, Northern California is expected to be off about 40 basis points from our original expectation. About half of that relates to the Mountain View ordinance that I mentioned. The other half relates to performance in the East Bay, which has been a little bit softer than anticipated. And then, thirdly, in the Mid-Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic is projected to be off about 20 basis points from what we expected. Just general softness, both the combination of demand where job growth is running about two-thirds of the pace of last year as well as just (45:58) lot of things moving around. So, fortunately, the other markets, New England, New York/New Jersey, Seattle, San Diego as an example, are somewhere between 20, 30 basis points ahead of plan, kind of offsetting that. So net-net, we kind of sum it all up and we come out about even.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Great. [Technical Difficulty] (46:19-46:24) is it just the demand side coming in better or is there some supply?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? You kind of muffled a little bit.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Yeah. Sorry. Just on the markets that are doing a little bit better than expected, the Pacific Northwest being the biggest positive delta, is that more demand driven, just better demand than you thought?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not really. Pacific Northwest is, to be totally honest, a bit of an enigma to us. Job growth across all the West Coast markets has fallen off pretty materially this year, Seattle included, and Seattle is delivering kind of 4% of inventory in terms of supply. So what it has had is it's had very solid wage growth and it's a very difficult, very tight single-family market. So we're getting disproportionate share there in terms of kind of marginal propensity. And so, we would've expected a little bit more easing off this year in Seattle. I think us and our peers though have been saying that for three straight years. So there's probably a little more risk in the second half of the year in Seattle, I would say, just given what's happened with job growth in the first half, but it's a little difficult to put your finger on it precisely for Seattle to be honest.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll go to Conor Wagner, Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good afternoon. Could you comment or give us some color on the land parcels that you bought in the quarter?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Conor. This is Matt. I think it was two parcels and both of them were suburban Boston. One is in Sudbury, which is a job which will be a start here in the next quarter or two, which is a development that we partnered with a retail group there that's actually developing a Whole Foods-anchored shopping center, and then we're doing, I think, about 250 apartments as part of that same master development. And the second one is the former Hilltop Steakhouse in Saugus on Route 1, north of Boston, where actually there's also a small retail component to that project as well about, I think, close to 300 units, maybe 280 units that should start here before the end of the year.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And have you seen any changes in land market in the last year?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, it's definitely been more challenging for us to continue to find development rights to backfill. Both of those are deals we've been working on for probably 18 to 24 months at least. So, it's definitely getting harder. I think less land deals are getting struck right now probably, just as a reflection of the fact as we've been saying for a while that construction costs are growing faster than rent. So, it is putting some stress on development underwriting on future deals.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And given that where you develop these markets are generally perceived to be higher barrier, more difficult to build, that's obviously good from a long-term rent growth perspective, but it can make it challenging for you to replenish your development pipeline. As you look forward to the next couple of years, do you have any thoughts to expanding your market footprint to give yourself more opportunity to develop if you can't make a pencil in the Bay Area, Southern California, et cetera?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Conor, this is Tim. We've talked about this in the past certainly, but we're always looking at whether it makes sense to enter new markets. I think, as we've shared with you and others, we're looking for – to the extent we do that, we're looking for markets that share a lot of the same attributes in terms of high-value added jobs, just kind of just over-indexing to those parts of the economy, and generally looking for highly educated work forces, attributes that would support new development, and would have pricing that would allow new development to be economic. So, it is something that we are evaluating, but it's – I wouldn't say it's not a lot different than – frankly than we've been evaluating in the past. And then, as it relates to our existing markets, interestingly, the two sites that Matt mentioned, those are both repurposed real estate. And I think that is where the opportunities are going to continue to be in our markets, whether it's repurposing suburban office, which is the case on one of those sites or retail that perhaps is obsolete at this point or not healthy for you in the case of the Hilltop Steakhouse. But I think that's going to be probably a theme over the next few years. But, as Matt said, I think it is getting a bit more challenged just to make the hurdles work, to clear the hurdles, if you will, just given where construction costs have gone and where rents are today. So I think it's really going to be a combination of things; not meeting underwriting parameters, perhaps getting late in the cycle, and just not a lot of vacant land.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And have you had any conversations or anything move forward on retail. Again, this opportunity, it's a thought on many people's minds, but have you started to act on that beyond these smaller deals or looking at other retail players or bigger sites?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. And we have been, actually, in the last couple of years. We've done a number of deals, whether it's Hunt Valley, which was one of the completions this quarter up in Baltimore. Mosaic was certainly an example of that. Assembly Row is an example of that. But, as you know, there is a lot of whether its office or retail guys out there thinking about their portfolios from an asset management standpoint perhaps even more aggressively than they have in years' past and we just like that there'll be more opportunities to work with them to help repurpose some real estate.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you very much.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure.
Operator:
And we'll next move to Rich Hill, Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the call. Just want to maybe take a step back. You talked about a lot of various different markets, but I want to get your perspective holistically, maybe what markets were surprising to the upside and downside as it relates to demand?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rich. This is Sean. I kind of ran through the market that we expected to see some outperformance as compared to underperformance this year. It's kind of a function of several different factors. If you look at it purely from a demand perspective and one thing you have to remember is that there's typically some lag, but in terms of where we've seen better job growth, it should lead to better demand in the short run, being the next quarter or two. Job growth in New England is up on a year-over-year basis, which has been fine and our New York/New Jersey relatively flat. And number of the other markets, we have seen – our markets at least, we have seen softening trends recently in terms of job growth, which gives us a little bit of concern about demand in the second half of the year. So, as I mentioned, we position the portfolio slightly more defensively for the back half when you consider that demand outlook, which is potentially a little bit of softening with the fact that a number of markets are going to see an increase in supply in Q3 and Q4. So that's probably the most crude way to look at demand in terms of what you expect in the next quarter or two.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay, great. That's helpful. That's it from me. Thanks.
Operator:
And we'll next go to Rob Stevenson, Janney.
Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Good afternoon, guys. Tim, Fund II is winding down here. I think you can only have like one asset in there now. What's your thought about doing sort of similar type of structures going forward? Is there a situation where you're happy to do it and you see value there? Or given your size and scale and ability to deploy capital at this point, you're going to basically hold all of the best deals which you see on an acquisition side for yourself?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Rob, I guess I'd answer that in a couple of ways. One, as we mentioned in the past, let me – by being in the fund business, it does create some issues as it relates to being able to be active portfolio managers and we have tried to be more aggressive in that area in terms of repositioning the portfolio. Just given the number of deals that we have in development in the Northeast for instance, we're just going to need to be able to recycle capital there and redeploy that into some other markets at times. And being in the fund business, when it's an exclusive acquisition vehicle, impacts your ability to do that. So that's one issue. And I guess the other thing I'd say is, when we did the first couple of funds, it really came off of a long extensive period where we were trading at a meaningful discount (56:02) and it was really an opportunity to activate that lever, if you will. And we're able to do so, generally successfully, as it relates to the performance of those two funds combined, but I think, just given some of the other strategic priorities, it's just not likely that we would do it in the near term.
Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. The multi-family partners unconsolidated deals, do those have fund set provisions or are they coming up on sort of end of their life? What's the remaining JV stuff that you have, what's the sort of light at the end of the tunnel there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, with respect to – I think you're referring to the fund that we picked from Archstone, I believe the termination date on that fund is 2021.
Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
On both of those? There's like one with seven and one with three in it?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. So, the seat fund is more of a straight up joint venture. That doesn't have a fixed termination date, whereas the U.S. multi-family fund with seven assets has a termination date of 2021.
Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
And do you have the ability to, if the market conditions are robust, to sell assets out of there sooner or is it until then?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. We're in constant consultation with the partners in those vehicles and have been actively, from time to time, selling assets out of one of those vehicles in the past year or so and currently.
Robert Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay, all right. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Operator:
And it appears there are no further questions. I will now turn the call back over to Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Melinda, and thanks, everyone, for being on the call. Enjoy the rest of your summer and I look forward to seeing you at some upcoming conferences in the fall. Take care.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's conference call. We thank you all for your participation. Have a great day.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Daniel Santos - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' first quarter 2017 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question and answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Cynthia, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' first quarter 2017 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available in on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I'll provide management commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. My comments will focus on providing a summary of the Q1 results, review of important macro trends impacting our business, an overview of market and portfolio performance, and finally some color on our approached development at this point in the cycle. Starting now on slide 4. Highlights for the quarter include
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our first question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. When you provided the mid-quarter update in early March, you indicated that you're running about 25 basis points ahead of initial expectations in terms of same-store revenue growth. Is that still the case today, I guess through almost the end of April?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick, this is Sean. It's a fair statement as it relates to Q1. Q2, obviously, we're just getting into the leasing season now. So, I'd say it's probably closer to par at this point when we look at what's happening in April and what we might anticipate through the balance of the quarter. But there's still a lot of transactions left to go here in the next 60 days. And occupancy is a little below where we were for the first quarter, about 10 basis points or so. So I'd call it probably closer to neutral than slightly up.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And just in terms of individual markets, are there any markets that are either materially outperforming or underperforming what you initially expected in guidance?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Material being the keyword there, Nick. I wouldn't say any of them are material at this point. Think about the volume of transactions in Q1, it's just not that heavy. The markets I'd point to that maybe are slightly below our expectations, right now, first probably is LA, the San Fernando Valley specifically. As you may recall, there was a sizable gas leak there last year and we achieved some pretty nice rents in that market. We're not achieving as much growth on top of those slightly higher rents than we would have hoped for. And I'd say it's a little bit weaker operating environment in Northern California as well, combination of job growth and the supply that we expected with more supply on the way. So those are probably the two that I'd point to that are maybe slightly below, and then on the other side slightly above, Pacific Northwest continues to perform quite well. Job growth has been healthy and then job growth in Boston has also been pretty healthy, pretty consistent with last year at this point, at least through March. And supply is relatively level and starting to moderate a bit in the urban core. So those two, probably slightly ahead and then the other two slightly behind.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
And we'll hear next from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Hey, good afternoon, guys. I want to go back to the Bay Area for a second there to follow up on Nick's question. When you look at Avalon's performance versus a couple of peers that have reported already this quarter as well, there was just a little bit of underperformance in your Bay Area revenue growth numbers versus what those companies reported. I'm wondering if there's anything peculiar to your geographic setup there relative to peers or something else about the portfolio that we should be aware of for the first quarter?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rich, good question. Not necessarily. I mean, one thing to keep in mind as you compare across the peers is there are some, I'll call it, geographical differences in terms of how we account for different things. So if you think about rent change is an example of revenue growth. Everything that we have in terms of discounts, concessions, et cetera is in a contra revenue account, so it's really a net number. And if there's not anything flowing through the expense side of the house, that creates some differences. Whether you include redev or not, that creates some differences, things of that sort. So you just have to sort of keep those things in mind. As it relates to the portfolio, there are some differences, probably too many to mention as it relates to this particular call, but I wouldn't say they are material enough at this point that you would point to, say, San Jose and say, what's the mix there that's creating significant variation. It is not dramatic in a market like San Jose. Some of us are more urban concentrated versus suburban, but you really have to dissect it in pretty good detail to get down to where those differences are.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. That's helpful color. Second question here is on development. I appreciate the color in the presentation, as to the composition of the pipeline in terms of mid-rise versus high-rise and so forth. I just want to confirm that that is more a function of where you're building, that it's mostly suburban in the pipeline today, and could you confirm sort of the number or the portion of the pipeline that is suburban versus urban at this point?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. This is Matt. Yeah, I think it is normally high-rises are in urban markets, and mid-rise and gardens are in suburban markets, there are some exceptions to that. But when you look at our development rights pipeline of the $3.4 billion, about two-thirds of it is mid-rise product and only about 25% of it is high-rise. The difference being an 8% garden, and when you look at it kind of on a location basis, about 35% of it's urban, and 65% of it's suburban, and when you look at our starts, this year they're all suburban.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
That's great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Hi, good afternoon and thanks for taking my question guys. Just carrying on that, the last answer there, if you were to look at the market and do your market intelligence around where you're developing or could develop, do you see a similar shift in the market towards suburban and mid-rise away from urban?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Matt, again. I guess, certainly in terms of the supply being delivered in the next couple of years, no, we're seeing supply in our markets over the next couple of years roughly 2% of stock, and it's about 3% in the urban submarkets as compared to maybe 1.5% in the suburbs. If you look out beyond that, the stuff, it might start this year. You might start to see a shift a little bit, but one of the reasons we like the suburbs, the suburban submarkets and why we think it really plays to our strength as a developer is that they are more supply constrained. And generally speaking, the entitlements process is more challenging, it's a longer more expensive process, where in a lot of the urban submarkets, the jurisdictions want the business, they want the growth, they want the tax revenues and if it works economic – the barriers in the urban submarkets tend to be more economic than regulatory. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see the composition of mix change a bit, but it is inherently a little more difficult to get those starts going in the suburbs.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
And then last quarter, you had a slight sort of detail in your thoughts on how revenue growth would progress through the year and had a little bit of an uptick in the fourth quarter, not sure if that was intended or not, but when you think about the outlook today, is that a similar way to first to think about how the year might phase?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Dennis. This is Sean. We don't have any reason to believe it'd be any different than what we anticipated as part of our outlook when we talked about it on the last quarter call.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Perfect. And then just last question for 1Q, did you give the new and renewal numbers for the quarter?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think Tim gave it on a blended basis in his prepared remarks, but in terms of the Q1 detail, Tim indicated the blended were unchanged for the quarter was 1.7%. Renewals were 4.2% and new move-ins were down 1%.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
All right. Thanks, guys. Good luck.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Good afternoon. Thanks. First question is just on supply. Can you just talk about what you saw happen in the first quarter, is supply in your markets or any particular markets slipping into second, third quarter? And then I guess what are your latest thoughts on 2018?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Jeff. This is Sean. I can comment and then either Matt or Tim can jump in as well. But, I mean in terms of the supply that's being delivered in our markets and throughout the different quarters of the year, from a portfolio perspective, it's pretty even throughout the year. If you look at it in terms of market by market performance, it's a little bit different to give you some perspective as an example. The markets that we're projected to see an increase in deliveries as we move through the year includes San Francisco, the Pacific Northwest and Orange County, those that are going to come down a little bit as you might have imagined given where we are in the cycle aren't many, but it's little bit San Jose, a little bit Northern Virginia. And then as you move into 2018, it's pretty level until you get to the back half of the year where you start to see things fall off in markets like New York City and San Francisco in the back half of 2018, but our experience would tell us based on what we've seen in the last several years and particularly given that the biggest concentration of supply is urban, which is product is more challenging to get delivered. We probably expect a relatively flat pipeline between the deliveries in 2017 and 2018 across the footprint with some minor deviations from market-to-market.
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Jeff. It's Kevin here. Just to put in perspective. I think we've talked about somewhere between high 1% range to 2% range that we expect to be delivered in 2017 and 2018. And it's going to jump around quarter-to-quarter, but based upon our best estimate, it's somewhere between 40 bps a quarter to 55 bps a quarter, so it's pretty low. I know some out there is positive that they might expect to see it coming down more significantly later in the year, that's not our expectation.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And then is that even a change from your thoughts from let's say a month or two ago? For some reason, I thought you guys are -
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
No. Okay. And then just specifically Columbus Circle, can you just talk about that project and your comfort on expected returns?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, Jeff, I know we talked a lot about it last quarter, so not really any update from last quarter in terms of expected returns in rent. So I guess I'd just refer you back to the script there, but it's under construction. Retail, we are starting to gear up from a marketing standpoint, which I think Matt spoke to last quarter and there is really no update in terms of how we are thinking about the economics from what we laid out last quarter where I think we gave a fair bit of detail between retail and residential and the implied cost on each of the product types.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
You bet.
Operator:
And we'll next hear from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. You mentioned that you saw acceleration in like-term rent change into April. I was just curious how the metrics for like-term rent change in the first quarter and April stacked up relative to last year and whether or not that you would expect the current year to, I guess, turn positive relative to last year's like-term rent change at any point this year?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Sure. Austin, good question. If you look at it in Q1, rent change on a blended basis was down about 220 basis points compared to Q1 of 2016. We still need to expect to see some acceleration of rent change as we move through the leasing season here, particularly as you get into sort of the May through July portion of the year. But we are not expecting a rent change to exceed what we achieved last year given the outlook for both the demand and supply in our market, so I don't think. It would be a positive surprise to the extent that occurred and we may see an uplift later this year to the extent we see better job growth through the second quarter, but we're not expecting that as part of our original outlook. We did not expect that and we don't expect that today.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
No, that's helpful color. And then, just would love to hear you guys' thoughts on the revised 421a plan or the affordable New York plan. In terms of just the economics and what it could mean for potential pickup in permitting activity?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure Austin, this is Matt, I guess I can speak to that one. I think it's been expected for some time that there would be a new program. In fact, I think the betting was it would have happened a little sooner than it did happen. So, it's not hugely different than the prior program. There are some subtle differences. So I think you may see some deals that we're waiting on the program to pull their permits, so they could avail themselves of it. There has been very little rental product started in New York City really over the last three, four quarters I think. So, you might see a little bit of an uptick there, but we're certainly not expecting any dramatic surge, because the economics of starting new rental deals are still pretty challenging there with where construction costs and land values are.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. That's helpful. And then just one last one. I was just curious in the release you guys mentioned that there was a change in the composition of your dispositions for the year. Could you just provide a little bit of additional detail as to what exactly that comment was related to?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. This is Matt again. There are changes to that disposition pool typically throughout the year basically based on kind of market dynamics and market sentiment. So in this particular case, we thought we were going to sell one asset that was going to have a very large GAAP gain that was affecting EPS which is why it's called out there. And basically, we've replaced that asset in the plan with a different asset, which we believe will be met by a little bit deeper kind of buyer pool market, which has a different GAAP gain to it.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Is there any change in the volume of dispositions that you expect in terms of dollar value?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not materially, no.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hi, guys. You mentioned the supply for your portfolio is starting to move to the suburban markets. Are you seeing demographic shifts favoring the suburban markets from the demand side, people looking for more space, looking to be next to the schools?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Wes, Tim here. I think you may have misheard us. Actually, for 2017 and 2018 we're still expecting deliveries to be about twice what we – in the urban submarkets than the suburban submarkets. So we may have misstated it, but to just be clear. I think there was question as to beyond 2018, in terms of land deals that people are starting to see here today that might start over 2017, 2018, and deliver 2019 or 2020, might we see a bit of a shift to suburban? And the answer is yes. We might see a little bit of a shift there, but as Matt mentioned, we are seeing – the entitlements are more challenging there, so we don't necessarily expect to see a dramatic pickup in suburban supply as a result.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. What about from the demand side? I guess that's what I was trying to get at. So sorry if misheard you earlier.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
But do you see demand shifting to the suburbs with the aging demographic, people are saying, well, maybe it's now time to live in the suburbs, a lot more space, want to be next to (27:22). Any of that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, no, it's a good question. I think you have two trends that are occurring that maybe take a little bit longer to play out. That's the leading edge of the millennials in the late 30s now, but the bulk of millennials are still 23 to 28. That's sort of the pig going through the python, if you will, and there's still a preference for that age cohort we think in the urban submarkets as we've seen in the last couple years. But combined with that you have kind of the potential of the downsizing boomers. And we think there's a good probability that that's going to create more demand in infill suburban kind of locations, that they're both kind of migrating to the same kind of geography, if you will, looking for the same kind of amenities, still kind of walkable lifestyle, but maybe more space in the case of an aging millennial and maybe a little less space and more walkability in the case of a downsizing boomer.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. That makes sense. And then I guess if you would have to pinpoint when you – I mean there's a 300 basis point gap right now in effective rent growth between the suburban and urban. When do you see that I guess being close to each other? Will it be more of a late 2018 event, maybe 2019 event when you look at all these trends?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Just speaking for myself. I mean, again with supply being 2x in the urban markets – suburban markets and demand is not 2x, it's something significantly less than that. Maybe it's higher in the urban submarkets, but it's not twice what we're seeing in suburban markets. It's hard to see that those lines converge over the next couple years.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Fantastic. Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Hey, everyone. Just wanted to go back to the discussion around the composition change. I thought I heard that one of the assets was switched – you're switching to a different asset that has a deeper buyer pool. Can you maybe comment on what you're seeing in terms of investor trends across the different buckets of your portfolio? Which are sort of seeing the weakest demand? And have you started to see cap rates expand in some of those weaker-demand parts of the portfolio?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Vin. This is Matt. There hasn't been a lot of transaction volume in the market, particularly in our markets. In the first quarter I think transaction volume was down something like 35% or 40% year over year. So there's not a lot of data to go on yet. But it is an interesting market out there in the sense that some assets are meeting with incredibly deep demand, multiple rounds of offers. We're selling an asset right now in the Pacific Northwest where we had to go to three rounds, which we weren't expecting. So if you have the right asset in the right location with the right story, there's still a lot of capital looking to be placed. Then there are other assets where if that story isn't there and doesn't line up with kind of the dry-powder capital that's on the sidelines, it can be a little more challenging. And we're just trying to respond to that. To tell you the truth, it's a little unpredictable. We've been a little bit surprised sometimes at which assets draw that deep pool and which don't, and we have a very large portfolio and so we had the opportunity to kind of trade on that.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Vin, it's Tim here. I think one of the challenges is probably a lot of market participants are behaving like we are to the extent they're seeing some softness in a particular kind of asset. They're just pulling the asset rather than accepting a lower price. So there's just not visibility to, whether on a composite basis cap rates have really moved, their valuations have moved at least at this point in the cycle.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. But is there is any geographic trends that you can draw? So it sounds like it's maybe more asset specific, but are there any regions that are seeing weakness?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Certainly New York City is – because of all the stuff that's been discussed on this and prior calls, there's probably some of that kind of trophy money is little bit sidelined right now.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Got it. Okay, thanks. And then just maybe moving back to some comments in terms of markets that you expect supply to accelerate or decelerate. I didn't hear you comment on LA. And I think EQR said that they saw some peak deliveries here in the first quarter. Would you agree with that assessment, or do you think it's more ratable in LA from your perspective?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is Sean. Are you talking about 2017 specifically?
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Yes, 2017.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Based on the data that we have in terms of how we track it, which as you may know is a little bit of bottoms-up from the field teams that we have there working deals every day as well as top-down from a market research group. It's relatively flat in LA. It actually increases a little bit according to the data that we have around 20 basis points, 25 basis points of inventory in Q1 up to around 35 basis points, 40 basis points of inventory by the time you get to Q4 in terms of LA proper. Little bit lower than that when you get into Ventura County, but we don't see it leveling off per se based on the data that we have.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Got it. And do you think, just looking at the leasing progress at Hollywood, only 15% leased, next stabilization is 2Q of 2018. Do you think that stabilization period is at risk given the supply that doesn't really come down in from your data's perspective and then obviously job growth there has been a little bit soft?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. In terms of our West Hollywood deal, as opposed to AVA Hollywood, which start construction not too long ago, we delivered the first building. We're getting ready to deliver the second building. Demand has been very healthy for that community. Rents are coming in substantially above what we expected. So it's a pretty unique building, a great location. We're not expecting any weakness for that specific asset whatsoever.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Gaurav Mehta with Cantor Fitzgerald.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Yeah, great. Thanks. So I want to go back to your prepared remarks about taking a risk measured approach on development and one of the reasons you mentioned was improvement in for-sale market. So I was wondering if do you have a view that you may actually start seeing an uptick in residents moving to buy homes, especially in the suburban markets where you are developing?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Gaurav, this is Sean. I'm happy to answer that and Tim could comment if he likes. But we've not seen that happen in the portfolio at this point. It's still well below long-term averages. We're running around 11% of move-outs, which is call it 700 basis points below sort of long-term trends. I think it's a fair expectation that over a period of time we'll start to see that pick up some. Very different in terms of the market composition of that when you think about places like San Francisco and New York in terms of what that housing looks like, price point, et cetera, as compared to, say, suburban towns up at Boston or in the Mid-Atlantic as an example. So you might start to see it move some, but we're not expecting it to accelerate dramatically just given the very high cost nature of the housing in our markets combined with what's happening in the financial markets in terms of mortgage availability and qualifying.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Gaurav, just to add to that. I mean right now, for-sale housing is appreciating faster than rents and then when you lay on top of that, I think as Sean was implying at the end, just higher potential interest cost, I mean the cost of housing is going up at a faster rate than rental housing. I think it will be interesting to see whether that for-sale demand, first-time buyer really materializes this cycle. Much likely, we're talking about young adults who've been living with their parents and we expect that to be a pretty big source of pent-up demand and that really has not materialized this cycle for the rental housing sector. So we're still seeing kind of record level on a percentage basis kind of that millennial segment that haven't formed households yet and haven't decoupled with roommates and you kind of wonder where you might see some of the same behavior as it relates to that first-time homebuyer, but it's an open question for sure.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Great. And I guess as a follow-up, I was wondering if you could comment on the sale of land parcel in 1Q that was not included in previous outlook?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Matt. I think you're referring to a land parcel that was impaired. I don't think it's been sold yet, but that's actually a property in Tysons Corner that we've owned for a long time that was brought in the last cycle. There is an existing warehouse on it, and we thought that that was a long-term play on that submarket with metro coming and new master plan coming in. And after holding it for a long time, we concluded that the costs to develop it, the proffers that were going to be required, and the margin environment there wasn't as attractive as we had hoped it might have been. So we're going to move forward in selling that parcel and basically recognize the current market value.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Just on that, just maybe as a follow-up. That was a piece of property that we held for investment and not for development. Beyond that parcel, we have I think $13 million of sort of seven or eight smaller parcels that we're still holding for investment in addition to the $100 million of land inventory that we're holding for development. So there is not much left beyond that. We really were trying to sort of get that cleared before the end of cycle. And honestly it's a bit of stark reminders to why we don't to be holding land going into the next downturn?
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Omotayo Okusanya from Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yes. Good afternoon. I just wanted to talk about guidance for a little bit. So first quarter you were $209 million, second quarter midpoint at $210 million, so you're kind of around $420 million for the first half of the year and guidance was $844 million to $884 million. So it seems like you're trending towards the low-end as of this point. How do we kind of think about where you could end up at the end of the year given you're kind of tracking towards the lower end currently?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hi, Tayo. This is Kevin. I guess just a couple points. First, as you may be aware, we don't update guidance on our first quarter calls just kind of as a matter of practice for a number of reasons, including factors that Sean mentioned. There is just not a lot of transaction activity that's occurred year-to-date that allows us a very reliable basis on which to sort of reforecast for the year and come up with guidance. So what we do instead is we give a mid-year reforecast in connection with our second quarter call. So that's when we'll be able to speak in a more detailed way about how we see the year laying out from a quarterly core FFO perspective, if you will. The second comment I'd say is when you think about our business model and how development contributes to year-over-year growth and how the lease-up activity from development plays out across the quarters, it's typically the case that our core FFO growth is typically backend weighted. And when we gave guidance at the beginning of this year for development NOIs, you may recall in the attachment that we had during the fourth quarter release where we did provide our outlook for the year, I think we had development NOI of around $65 million. And if you look at sort of how that paces out over the year, that tends to sort of double each quarter. So a lot of our sequential quarterly core FFO growth tends to come from lease-up NOI, and you'll typically see a pattern where a lot of our growth is back-end weighted. So the mechanic of simply taking the first quarter and then the guidance for the second quarter and doubling it will never really work for us because you'll always kind of come up with a much lower number than what we've typically had for the year.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
All right. That's helpful color. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Rich Anderson with Mizuho Securities.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Hey. Thanks and good afternoon. Just quick first question, you have $0.08 of a debt gain in the second quarter, I know you are not talking about the full year guidance, but has there been a change to the capital program, because that compares to the $0.04 full year number that you had in February, just wanted to make sure I had my model right?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, this is Kevin, again. No, that number you see for the second quarter was part of our original budget. It relates to essentially a contemplated payoff of Fannie Mae Pool 2, which is something we picked up in the Archstone transaction. It's a November maturity. It opens for prior repayment on April 30. It's about $700 million in size, and so, that's an event that we expect to happen in the second quarter, and so there has been no change in that respect. Overall, in terms of our capital plan, don't have an awful lot to say, we're still early in the year. The outlook at the beginning of the year, we contemplated about just under $1.7 billion of external capital, that's probably roughly where we're at, maybe we're a little bit tacking a bit low, but we raised $460 million in the first quarter and kind of our overall plan is still, while we don't announce with specificity what we expected to raise in the capital markets in advance, generally speaking, what we said then is probably in terms of our current plan is still true today, which is we expect most of that external capital to come in the form of debt, with the preference for unsecured debt. We may do some piece of our debt activity in the form of secured debt to support ongoing tax protection, that we picked up in the Archstone transaction, but most of our overall net capital, we expect will still be debt, and of that, most of that hopefully will be unsecured debt, so not a significant change there.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
So then there could be some debt extinguishment losses later in the year, to get to that $0.04 net number?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, there is a number of different moving pieces and sort of the core – and adjustments between NAREIT FFO and core FFO, obviously in the first quarter you saw a couple here we had a promote from Fund 2 of about $7 million, that is within our NAREIT FFO, but it's carved out from -
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
I got you.
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Then so, we had sort of the impairment that was added back to NAREIT FFO. If you look out through the balance of the year, we have additional promotes from Fund 2, so we're wrapping that up. Our intention is to sell the remaining two assets. And I think, we probably have in total a fair bit of promote activity coming through the transom over the balance of the year, that will be items that we carve out of NAREIT FFO and then we have – so I think for the full year, we have something on the order of about $23 million of promote income that is for the full year in our budget for the NAREIT FFO that'll be carved out for core FFO purposes and then we have some deferred financing cost write-offs for Pool 2.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. I'll wait on that then for next quarter. Question more on the portfolio. On this kind of suburban shift that you guys have been undertaking for a little while now. I mean, how much is that a permanent condition? Are you willing to muscle your way through what will inevitably be a relatively negative environment for that strategy? Or is there some means by which you can alter the portfolio with some level of velocity to move with the punches? I'm just curious, how committed you are long-term to suburban real estate.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, Rich, I think as we said is we're actually agnostic. We're believers in our markets. And if you look over on a longer period of time, the reality is that suburban and urban rent growth more or less have been pretty equal. But there are differences at different parts of the cycle and across cycles at times. So currently our portfolio is probably 30% urban by market value and 70% suburban, but of that suburban, I'd say at least half of it, we think of it is really kind of infill, more kind of midrise suburban. And we're -
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Right.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
– as a developer and someone that leads with the development investment platform, we're looking for value. And so, our focus from a development perspective is where there's greater value, and it's been clear from a land standpoint over the last probably four years there's been greater value on the suburban side, and that will inevitably change. And at that point, we'll look more at urban opportunities. And I guess lastly, it sort of plays into maybe at the margin how you're thinking about dispositions where you think maybe some assets are out of sync with underlying intrinsic value, and you got to be willing to pull the trigger on some of those opportunistic plays as well.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Same question on the quote-unquote "land light strategy."
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Also even though it might go up in time, and it's kind of you said near record lows right now, but is that also kind of a permanent condition in the sense that maybe this is a vestige of some sort of lessons learned from the past downcycle when some impairments were taken and the like?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, I think our bias as always is try to tie things up with an option contract, a purchase contract, and try to close on the land as close to the time which it gets put into production as possible. But there will be times in the cycle if there's distress or dislocation that we can potentially take land down and put it on the balance sheet. We've got plenty of capacity to do that. If we think that makes sense, we'll consider that. We're not at that point, though, anywhere near that point at this point in the cycle. So really the comment was really about how we intend to behave through the balance of cycle until we do see some dislocation and disruption.
Richard Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Got it. Thanks for the color.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Daniel Santos with Sandler O'Neill.
Daniel Santos - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick one from me, just following up on developments. And apologies if you covered this earlier. Just given the rising cost of developments have driven a lot of development at the high end, wondering if you could talk a little bit more about ways that you might be able to sort of value engineer new development to develop at a lower price point for a broader audience?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Matt. I guess I can take that one. It's an interesting question and one that we constantly are looking at. Are there opportunities to push building technologies that might create opportunities to develop at a lower price point? I will say as long as I've been in this business, and my background is in development for a long time. The development always comes in at the top of the price pyramid. I mean, that's just kind of the way the kind of the housing stock gets refreshed, and as the existing market tends to age into the more affordable price point. This cycle, given how much high-rise construction has been, and given how expensive high-rise is to build, maybe that's a little bit more so than in past cycles. So some of it is location. There's people talking about in the future with autonomous vehicles and Uber and everything else, as there's a need for less parking, that will tend to bring costs down some, and we have looked at cases where, can we push the envelope a little bit on parking and maybe not build as much as we would have built 10 years ago. So that's a way, particularly if the parking is underground, where in a structure you can start to bring the costs down. And we're looking at pushing, whether it's modular or tall timber or other building technologies – we haven't tried anything really out of the box yet, but I think it's as an industry something that there's a lot of talk about.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Maybe just to add to that, Daniel. I think location of product is probably the biggest impactful thing that you can do. And if you look on – as Patrick said, now that we've broken out between high-rise, mid-rise and garden. If you take Columbus Circle out of it, the high-rise rents are kind of in the $3,000 to $3,500 range, mid-rise are roughly kind of in the $2,500 to $3,000 range, and the garden is more in the $2,000 and $2,500 range. And you look at the mid-rise and the garden piece, that's pretty close to what our same-store basket is running for today. I mean, the average rent, I think, is around $2,450. And so that's probably the most impactful thing that we can do. And then always looking to take advantage of new technologies, as Matt had mentioned as well.
Daniel Santos - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
That's helpful. Just one quick follow-up on the land. Just wanted to clarify, you guys said that strategy as we understand it, is to take the options on the land versus buying it and just clarifying that was not the case with this land that you took a impairment on?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Correct. We own the lands in that case. And as Matt had mentioned, we bought it back in the 2000s and it was an existing use, it's basically industrial, light R&D and it was in a part of Tysons Corner that was going to be going through a master plan change that would allow for an up zone to residential and ultimately we just decided that it didn't make as much economic sense as we had hoped when we made that back in the 2000s.
Daniel Santos - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Perfect. Thanks.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good afternoon. Sean, where are renewals achieved for April and where are they going out for May?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. For April, renewals achieved basically are still in the low 4's, consistent with Q1, which is at 4.2%. And then, in terms of what's going out for May and June, they're in the high 5's, that's up about 40 basis points from where we initially sent out offer letters for April.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And then you typically see 100 basis points bleed, 100 basis points to 150 basis points between what you're sending out and what you're achieving?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Typically, yeah, it was a little wider. In the first quarter it was a little bit weaker, it was closer to 200 basis points, but that would be more average as you described, yes.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you. And then, Tim or Matt, on the development pipeline that you lay out and as far as for 2018, longer term, how does that fit in, how do we think about that with the East 96th Street deal, I know there's been increased media on it lately and I've seen it listed as potentially $1 billion development. What's the expected start time on that, and how does that fit in, in terms of the commentary of the development pipeline coming down and doing less high rise?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Conor, this is Matt. We have been making progress. There's still a lot of entitlement work in front of us as well as design work there. So, we think that's likely a 2019 start. And when I mentioned that, 25% of our $3.4 billion in development rights is high rise, that's the vast majority of it that one deal right there. So, we do think, as we talked about a couple of quarters ago, that's a public-private partnership. The timing on that might actually be pretty good, when you think about kind of the macroeconomics, if we wind up starting that in 2019, delivering it in 2021 and 2022. And it really plays to our strengths. We still think that's a great deal, it's not $1 billion deal. There is a ground lease involved. So, there's an implied land value, I think our investment in that deal is roughly in the $600 million to $650 million range.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
And that concludes today's question-and-answer session. Mr. Naughton, at this time, I will turn the conference back to you for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Okay. Well, thank you Cynthia, and thanks to all for being on. I know it's a busy season right now for earnings, and we look forward to seeing you all in June at NAREIT New York. Have a good day.
Operator:
That concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC
Operator:
Please standby, we're about to begin. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Fourth Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thank you, Noah, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2016 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definition and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. This attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q4 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I'll be providing management commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. My comments will focus on providing a summary of Q4 and full-year results, and discussion of our outlook for 2017. My remarks will be a bit longer than usual this quarter, but we think it is an important time in the cycle to provide our perspective, our fundamentals and how we're positioning the company in response. So, let's get started, starting on slide four. Highlights for the quarter and the year include core FFO growth of 6.5% for Q4 and 8.5% for the year. Same-store revenue growth came in at 3.3% in Q4, or 3.5% when you include redevelopment and for the full-year about 100 basis points higher, 4.3% and 4.5% when you include redevelopment. We completed $500 million in new developments this year and started another $1.6 billion, most of it occurring in Q4. And lastly, we raised about $1.4 billion in external capital through debt and asset sales at an average initial cost of approximately 4%. Turning now to slide five; development drove strong external growth in 2016, both from recent completions and communities still in lease up. The $500 million of new developments completed this year are projected to stabilize at an average initial yield of 6.7%, about 50 basis points above original pro forma and more than 250 basis points above the initial cost of external capital raise in 2016. Yields on existing lease ups of $1.2 billion of the development are currently 20 basis points above pro forma. Turning now to slide six. You can see, so far this cycle, we've completed about $4.5 billion in new development and it's created approximately $2 billion in net asset value upon completion, or roughly $17 per share at NAV upon completion. And currently we have another $4 billion under construction, including the $1.3 billion started this past quarter, across five projects shown on the next slide, slide seven. The five projects started in Q4 include three communities on the West Coast and two on the East Coast. A couple are worth noting due to their size, the first is West 61st Street or Columbus Circle as we referred to in the past, which is a $600 million mixed use project on the upper West side at the corner of 61st in Broadway. And the second project that is AVA Hollywood, $360 million project, six acres in one of the more vibrant submarkets in LA and located across Santa Monica for many of the studios. Both of these projects represent extremely unique opportunities and excellent submarkets and locations. Now, given the diversity and the wide range of product in submarkets of our current development pipeline, you'll note this quarter on attachment nine, that we've divided the development portfolio into three distinct buckets based upon product type, high-rise, mid-rise and garden. These buckets roughly sync up with how we think about submarkets as well being urban or infill or suburban. Given that valuation and cap rates are often a function of product type in submarket, we thought this breakdown would be helpful in evaluating development portfolio. Lastly, one note on Columbus Circle, as we've discussed in the past, we did explore different strategies to venture this investment with either a retail or a capital partner, but for a variety of reasons including control and current market sentiment, we've concluded that owning 100% of this investment is the best approach to optimizing value. Moving to slide eight now, our creative development platform along with healthy contributions from our stabilized portfolio has driven strong earnings growth this cycle and we've outperformed the peer group on core FFO growth per share by 350 basis points on a compounded annual basis over the last six years. And on a cumulative basis, that translates into 3,400 basis points of outperformance in core FFO growth during that time. Let's now turn to slide nine and our outlook for 2017, highlights for outlook include core FFO growth of 5.5%, driven by same-store NOI growth of 2.75% at the midpoint of the range and from stabilization of new investment activity. In addition, we plan to start $900 million in new development and complete $1.7 billion in 2017. Turning to slide 10, you can see that the lower growth projected in 2017 versus 2016 for core FFO is entirely the result of deceleration in the stabilized portfolio. In 2016, the stabilized portfolio contributed 5.7% of the 8.5% growth that we achieved, while 2017 we're expecting a contribution of 2.7% or 300 basis points less from the stabilized portfolio. The projected contribution from the external growth platform in 2017 is essentially the same as 2016, right around 4% when you net out the impact of incremental capital costs in both years. In both 2016 and 2017, this growth is offset or expected to be offset by about a 110 basis points of drag from increased overhead and the loss of fees from the liquidation of investment management funds. The reduction of fund-related fees results in a headwind to core FFO growth of roughly 50 basis points in both years. Turning to slide 11, given our outlook for 2017, we did announce a dividend increase this year of 5.2%. The dividend is now up by almost 60% over the last six years or since the beginning of the cycle, has grown by almost 5.5% on a compounded basis over the last 23 years. I want to turn now to some of the basic – to some of key assumptions and drivers for outlook this year. Starting on slide 12, I'm certainly not going to go into detail on this slide, but the overall picture is a continuation of modest economic and job growth with perhaps a little more upside relative to 2016, given the improved outlook for the consumer and a recent pickup in the business sector. But also with more unknowns, with the new administration in place and the potential economic impact that could arise from any fiscal stimulus, tax, trade or immigration reform. Slide 13 through 17, drills down a bit more on some of these themes. First, looking at slide 13, wage growth is accelerating in a tightening labor market and is most pronounced for our target customer, that being young professionals, who are seeing healthy wage gains in the mid-to-high single digit range, as you can see in the bottom right of that chart. Moving to slide 14, this in turn is helping to propel consumer confidence, which is now at a cyclical high and then when you combine that with healthy balance sheets, the consumer – it results in the consumer purchasing more autos and homes and also resulting in higher rates of household formation. On slide 15, you see the corporate sector is starting to show some improvement as well, as business profits and confidence are on the rise. Although investment remains mixed still with equipment declining and investment in knowledge assets or IP still growing at a healthy clip. It's hard to say whether this is a cyclical or secular trend, as the U.S. moves towards a more knowledge-based economy, but we think for our market this is generally a positive trend. On slide 16, demographic should continue to support apartment demand really over the next few years and into 2017 for sure. The young adult cohort of that under 34 years is expected to increase by 600,000 in 2017 alone and are now experiencing job growth close to 4%, really the highest rate we've seen this cycle. The rates of family formation as we've discussed in quarters past are continuing to decline, which in turn is extending the rental tenures of this segment and helping to grow primary renter demand. Moving to slide 17, while rental demand should continue to remain healthy, we are seeing an overall housing picture where overall housing demand is becoming more balanced between single family and multifamily for sale and rental. Just about more than anytime over the last 15 years, it does appear that the for-sale recovery is taking hold after a long period of decline and/or stagnation, and supply is responding with single family driving virtually all the housing supply growth, while multifamily starts have flattened over recent quarters. Recently, we've seen starts and permits returning to historical patterns where roughly two-thirds are single family and one-third multifamily. This trend has been further supported by capital market behavior as financing has cooled for multifamily investment over the last year or so. In the next two slides, slide 18 and 19 provide a demand and supply picture for our regions. On slide 18, you can see that the job growth is expected to be flat or moderately down across most of our footprint. Whereas our wage growth is expected to rise on the order of 150 basis points over 2016 and importantly much of that is already occurring. Personal income overall is projected to be up by about 100 basis points, which should provide the consumer more purchasing power and should help support rent growth, all things remaining equal. Turning to slide 19, we know that all things don't necessarily remain static and we see that on the supply side of the equation. Apartment deliveries are expected to be up by about 50 basis points in our regions to 2% of stock, which is about a third higher than we saw in 2016. New England, particularly Boston is the only region where we expect deliveries actually to be down on a year-over-year basis. And once again, new supply should be concentrated in urban submarkets. We should see almost twice the deliveries that suburban submarkets in our markets will see in 2017. So how are these fundaments impacting our portfolio outlook? We show this on slide 20. Overall, we are expecting 2% to 3% same-store revenue growth in 2017. On the East Coast, expecting growth generally on the lower end of that range of around 2% with DC showing some year-over-year improvement. The West Coast is coming in towards the top end of that range at around 3%, although much more variable across the regions. Northern California is expected to lag in the 1% to 2% range, after years of just torrid performance. And Southern California, Seattle, should lead the portfolio with same-store growth in the 4% to 5% range. Turning to slide 21; in terms of trajectory during the year, we do expect the same-store revenue growth to decline in the first half of the year, before turning to stabilize in the second half of the year in the low 2% range. One thing to note from this graph, as you can see, we've already seen same-store revenue rebound once this cycle in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, we think, we could see some improvement in rental rate growth in 2018, once peak deliveries are absorbed into the market. Let's shift now and talk about investment and capital activity. As I mentioned earlier, we started over $1 billion in Q4, we now have $4 billion under construction or did at year-end. We expect to complete a record level of volume in 2017 such that by the end of the year, development underway should be in the $3 billion range or roughly about 10% of enterprise value, which is in line with the average so far this cycle. Turning to slide 23, with Q4 starts our charter (16:18) development pipeline is now down to $3 billion and land inventory, which is shown here, is at a cyclical low at around $100 million. We plan to remain light on land over the balance of the cycle. This should position us well to take advantage of any dislocation that might occur during the next market correction, when many of the best land buys are often made. Turning to slide 24, another way we're managing the risk of our development pipeline, we've talked a lot about over the last couple of years is through our strategy to substantially match funds new development. At year end, including the starts in Q4, we stood at 80% match funded on the $4 billion underway. In addition, we actually have $800 million in interest rate protection for planned debt issuance later this year. This further protects us from shifts in the capital markets that might impact the cost of future funding and helps us lock in investment margins on that development that's underway. Slide 25, this is a chart we've shown you before, but it also illustrates another benefit of match funding and that's the impact on our credit profile. With most of our pipeline match funded, we could actually fund the remaining portion entirely with debt without actually comprising our credit profile. Of course some portion of the remaining cost would likely be funded with free cash flow and our asset sales, but this is a hypothetical calculation that we think is helpful in understanding how the development pipeline may impact our balance sheet and credit metrics from time to time. And now the last slide, slide 26, I think this shows just a final benefit of match funding, and that's the impact on liquidity. We currently have $200 million of cash on hand and $1.5 billion line of credit was undrawn at year-end. With credit metrics at cyclically strong levels, we have an additional margin of safety and ample balance sheet capacity to fund new commitments that may provide additional growth opportunities. So there are clear three benefits of a disciplined match funding strategy; first, it allows us to lock-in accretion on new development; second, as we see here, it enhances current liquidity; and third, it preserves balance sheet capacity and provides financial flexibility. From a risk management perspective, all three benefits become increasingly important as the cycle matures. So, in summary, 2016 was another solid year for the company, healthy fundamentals and our competitive position helped contribute to the sixth consecutive year of strong earnings growth. In 2017, apartment demand should remain healthy, although we do anticipate that an increase in deliveries will temper growth in our stabilized portfolio relative to what we've seen in recent years and in 2016. Development on the other hand should contribute meaningfully to both earnings and NAV growth just as it's done over the last few years. And lastly, we plan to carefully manage liquidity and the balance sheet to allow us to pursue our growth strategy in a risk-measured way, a strategy that's produced meaningful outperformance so far this cycle. And with that note, we'll be pleased to open up the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. We will take our first question from Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. I was hoping you guys could just go talk a little bit about the Columbus Circle project. And it looks like – I guest first off, how we should think about the retail value there, so we can get an understanding for what the cost per unit would be for the multi-family piece.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Nick, this is Tim. I'll take that. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we did explore partners there are both in terms of a capital partner and a retail partner. And at the end, we decided control was important here for a few reasons, I may get into, but the economics of that deal are a roughly mid-4% in terms of yield. And I guess the way to think about it, the residential component is around a 4%, the retail component we think is a mid-5%s. And if you look at – if you try to separate the cost of the retail and the residential, essentially the residential is right around $2,000 a foot on very large units, by the way, something maybe we could talk a little bit about that, but we are positioning – we're trying to position this asset pretty uniquely towards larger units. We think there is a family market there. This is not a 421 – 421a deals, there are no affordable units. There's no pilot and so this does reflect full taxes. I think that's something else to keep in mind we quote the yields. The retail is about $3,000 a foot in terms of basis. And in terms of projected rents, we think the market for this deal is about in the $180 range – $180 a foot range on the retail and that's blended across the basement, the sub-basement, the main floor and second level and about $115 a foot on the residential component.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay, now that...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
That's a rough outline in terms of the economics. Obviously, this is a location and asset that we think is going to be absolutely at the top of the market, and while the economics are thin or thinner than we had anticipated, just given what's happened kind of in the direction of rents and construction costs over the last couple of years, we did think just maintaining control really enhanced our flexibility. To maximize an optimal time, just given that what you often see obviously in Manhattan and then some of the best locations in Manhattan. Evaluations could be more volatile and spike here. And so, we think it's important to maintain that flexibility so that we might have the opportunity to monetize at some point down the road and not have to worry about partner consents or secured debt being in place that might create additional friction cost to making the right capital allocation decision.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
That is helpful, Tim. And then the 100 – and I think you said $150 rents on the residential side.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
$115.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
$115, sorry. Where – are there already competing buildings in the market at that price point? And how do you guys feel about getting that type of rent in a market where it seems like the high end is maybe under a little bit of pressure in New York?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, I am going to go and turn to Sean, there are a few comps that are I think probably, particularly relevant.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Nick, it's Sean. As Tim pointed out, one thing to keep in mind here is the average unit size is a little bit bigger. It's about 1,100 feet for this deal, spread across studios all the way up to three bedroom units and above. So, in terms of current comps though, I mean the assets that probably come to mind most frequently for people and for our teams, what we've looked at are spread around, but probably three that I'd mentioned most specifically are like Grand Tier, which is at Broadway and 64th; The Corner, which is Broadway and 71st, and then the Brewster, which is 86th between Columbus and Central Park West. If you go look at those on a unit-by-unit basis and it just sort of reflect our mix, they are basically at rents that we're expecting to achieve for Columbus Circle and obviously we have better location in our view and for product that will be brand new 2.5 years from now. So, we feel pretty good about the rent based on what we see today. And beyond, when you look at the Central Park West sort of that kind of location, not a lot of products in the pipeline as compared to other submarkets within Manhattan like Midtown West as an example or going over to Brooklyn even, so feel pretty good about the rent based on what we're seeing.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay, and then sticking in New York, Brooklyn and Long Island City, what are your thoughts about performance of those submarkets for your portfolio this year given some of the supply underway right now?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. So, for Brooklyn, there's certainly more supply coming in 2017 versus 2016, it's about doubling. We really have one stabilized asset in Brooklyn and Fort Greene, which has been performing fine. Most of the supply that's come into Brooklyn didn't come until basically the third quarter, so we did expect 2017 should be softer than 2016. That being said, it hasn't impacted performance much at our lease up there at Willoughby, we probably accelerated our lease up a bit at Willoughby just in anticipation of the supply that's coming online, but we did 29 leases a month there in the fourth quarter, which is pretty healthy and expect that to continue, January looks pretty solid. So in terms of Brooklyn, I would say we expect it to be softer, wouldn't see a lot of impact in terms of our same store portfolio given it's one asset. Long Island City, there is more supply coming in there in 2017 as well. It's starting to become a little more concentrated in downtown as opposed to on the water, which is where we are positioned. So the Riverview assets we have there, the two towers have been some of the better performing assets over the last few years in our overall New York portfolio and I would expect as the supply comes online, they'll probably become more middle of the pack is our expectation for 2017.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks, everyone.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Just actually continuing on New York, what are your expectations for the more suburban New York portfolio and New Jersey?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Nick, it's Sean. Happy to chat about that a little bit. As you might expect what's happening. We do expect New York City to be the weakest performing market of our broader New York, New Jersey portfolio in 2017. For New York City, the expectation is for revenue growth around 1% and one thing to keep in mind is that represents the assets that we have spread, kind of all throughout the city. We have Morningside Heights, the Bowery, Brooklyn, Long Island City, Midtown West, et cetera. So assets anywhere from $50 a foot up to $80 a foot across those different submarkets as opposed to being all concentrated in one submarket where there is a lot of supply. But then as you get into the suburban markets, Westchester is closer to 2%, Long Island around 2% and then Northern and Central New Jersey around 2.5%. Certainly the more suburban market outside the core of New York are expected to perform better in 2017 relative to New York City as an example.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks, that's helpful. And then, Kevin, in the past sometimes you have included a heat map in terms of cost of capital of – or desirability of capital between equity, debt and asset sales. So putting equity aside given where the stock is trading relative to NAV, what is the desirability or value of debt versus asset sales today?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, I think from the standpoint of relative attractiveness both are – both forms of capital, asset sales and then unsecured debt are still pretty attractively priced today, even certainly on the unsecured debt side borrowing costs have increased a bit in the last three or four months here by about 40 basis points, 50 basis points. Bear in mind on that front, unsecured debt costs are still today roughly where they have been sort of the previous year or two in 2014 and 2015. So, just to give you a sense of it, if we were to do 10-year debt today, we'd probably be able to execute a 10-year bond offering somewhere in the 3.5% range on fresh capital. As Tim alluded to on the call, we do have $800 million of hedges in place, 10-year forward starting swaps that we would expect to apply to a like amount of bond issuings on the 10-year front over the course of the year here and the – essentially the treasury rate on that basket of hedges is at 2.28% overall, so favorably priced relative to spot values today. And our borrowing spreads on top of that, which of course are not hedged, historically have been about 135 basis points, today they are about 110 basis points. So, we think from the standpoint of the unsecured debt market, capital costs are generally still pretty attractive. Given our hedges, we think they will be attractive as well with respect to the 10-year issuance, which we've got planned for this year. And then, Matt, can certainly speak to the asset sale market. But we still think it's an attractive source of funds today, particularly relative to the returns on development that we would be redeploying some of that capital to fund.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. Matt, maybe just on that. Have you seen any movement in terms of cap rates or the amount of buyers showing up to bid for assets or the spread between the bid and ask on specific deals?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think it's probably too early to tell. Certainly, we – some of us were out at (30:41) and there was a lot of talk about that. So, I don't think we've seen evidence yet of any material movement in cap rates. We did sell two assets in the fourth quarter; one wholly-owned asset, which closed in October, so kind of before the election, and then there was a fund asset we sold in mid-November. We have a couple of assets that are in marketing now, so we may have more information by the end of the quarter, by next quarter's call, but I think it's probably too early to say.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thanks.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
Hey. Good afternoon, everyone. Just want to go back to one of Tim's comments in the prepared remarks about winding down the land portfolio as we kind of get into the mature stage of the cycle. It's a broad-based question. How do you sort of foresee the next few years playing out in terms of new opportunities arising? And are you seeing imprudent behavior among different developers, different investors in your markets and submarkets that would lead you to believe that those opportunities will be there a little farther down the road?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Rich. You don't know. I would tell you capital has been pretty disciplined. So the level of the stress is – probably would be somewhat a function of what is happening in the capital markets and the depth of any perhaps economic correction that might occur. Generally you are seeing 2% or 1.5%, 2% supply growth as we have been seeing, that's roughly in line with the kind of job growth that we've been seeing. So it doesn't – absent an economic correction, it doesn't seem that things are getting distorted yet, but we are at the point in the cycle, given that capital has cooled a bit multifamily. There is less of a need. There is less transactions that are closing say on an unentitled basis. We historically have tried to make use of land options as much as we can. We oftentimes have to buy land maybe one to three quarters before we actually put it into production, but with all the entitlements in place and maybe the other half, we are able to close within a, say a quarter of a – a quarter to start, but you're not seeing, it doesn't seem like you're seeing lot of people sort of get stuck with a lot of land on their balance sheets yet. So, we just want to be in a position where we've got the liquidity and the balance sheet kind of be first in line when the market turns. We don't think at this point any opportunities where we can buy land, using our liquidity to buy unentitled land, that there is enough of a benefit to do that and until there is distress, as I said, we're going to try to stay light on that, I mean, I think we typically get in trouble in the development game is being long on land at the wrong point in the cycle where you have an illiquid asset that doesn't cash flow, you may have to sit on it for a few years until the cycle returns, I mean that's one of the lessons learned, I think particularly when – from the private side of the business. But – so it's hard to say in terms of how much – what kind of opportunities will be there, but we're obviously just trying to position ourselves to take advantage of once it is – once (34:13).
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
That is helpful color, thanks. And then final question here. In terms of expense growth in 2017, it looks like you guys are having a lot of good luck on – within many sort of types of expenses in terms of segmentation, but I think payroll is one that is starting to accelerate maybe to the more worrisome side. Can you talk about how you envision that growing over the next couple years perhaps? And can you talk about the impact of new supply and its impact on wages and payroll and that sort of thing?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Rich, it's Sean. I want to give you just a couple of comments about expense growth for 2017 overall and then address the specific question about payroll. But in terms of 2017 OpEx growth, for us about 60% of the year-over-year increase is really going to be taxes, which we're expecting to grow at about 3.5% in 2017 for our same-store basket. We're also expecting some growth in utilities and payroll, both of those in the 2.5% to 3% range. But we're going to see some offsetting reductions in a couple of areas, one is we're expecting insurance come down a little down, but probably more importantly is we're expecting some reductions in marketing and maintenance due to various sort of cost reduction initiatives that we've had underway. Maybe just mention a couple of those for you, first, as it relates to our prospect portal, we introduced some new functionality late last year to allow our prospects to book tours online, and we went from basically zero booked online to about a third of them booked online in last quarter of the year. And so, we've taken out a significant chunk of cost for call center costs. So as opposed to booking online, someone may have sent an email or made a phone call that cost anywhere from a $1 to $6 depending on the channel versus essentially marginal cost of zero on the portal. Same thing as it relates to our resident portal, we're up to about 80% of maintenance requests booked online, that takes call center costs down. So, we're going to take probably more than $0.5 million out of call center costs in 2017, both on the marketing side and on the maintenance side, and then we're starting to see some benefit from our investments we've made over the last two or three years in resilient flooring with less carpet replacement and things like that. So, we're getting some tailwinds from some of those investments that we've made in the past. As it relates to payroll specifically, certainly seeing a more competitive market, we've been able to hold our own in terms of voluntary turnover below NMHC averages and things of that sort that we watch. But certainly seeing some pressure there, particularly in the more competitive urban submarkets, where there's heavy lease-up activity, and the potentially for community consultants that are leasing apartment homes to jump from one property to the next to make another $1 or $2 an hour. Fortunately, we have some pretty tenured staff in some of these locations where they've been with us for long time. They've seen this – had this play before, so to speak. And we've been able to hold turnover rates down, and then also as you may know, we don't have as many urban projects in lease up as maybe some others, so probably getting a little bit of relief there being in the suburbs. But it's certainly an area that we're going to have to keep an eye on and stay competitive, but with other things we have underway in terms of how we're trying to be as efficient as we can, trying to contain payroll growth as much as possible.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
All right. Thanks, Sean.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning, it's Austin Wurschmidt here. Good afternoon, rather. In the same-store revenue guidance, the slides that you provided on page 20 and 21, you talked about a stabilization in the second half of the year, perhaps a little bit of an inflection. Can you just talk about what markets you expect will drive the inflection and how you expect that could trend into 2018?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Austin, this is Sean. I can talk a little bit about that. It really is sort of an inflexion point for certain markets in terms of supply starting to fall off as you get into the back half of the year and then certainly as you get into the first half of 2018. To give you some examples, you start to see some softening in deliveries in Boston, Northern Virginia, LA, and San Jose as you get into the third and fourth quarter of 2017, and then it's more meaningful as you get into 2018. And just one thing to keep in mind is, Tim did mention sort of stabilization as opposed to reacceleration. So, part of that is a function of how we see supply delivering in certain submarkets that are basically our neighborhoods and how it impacts our portfolio. But it's also a function of comps in the third and fourth quarter of 2016 and what's going to happen with occupancy and things like that. So, there is a handful of markets, like I mentioned, and you start to see an abatement of deliveries to a certain degree that we think will start to translate to some stabilization.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great, thanks for the detail there. And then just wanted to focus on occupancy for a minute. You guys have been running at sort of the mid – low to mid-95% range now for the last several quarters and many of your peers are in that 96% plus range. And you guys had kind of been in that range in years past. So just wondering how you are thinking about occupancy as a lever today and then maybe anything that you are doing different you think from your peers?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, sure, happy to chat about that. Yeah, I think I mean every portfolio is a little bit different, depending on whether you're heavily urban, heavily suburban, different geographies. So for example, New York City tends to run higher typically than Southern California. So I think you have to look at sort of market occupancy across the footprint to determine if you want to be at the higher end or lower end, et cetera. What we have found for our portfolio is that being sort of in the mid 95% range really does optimize rate growth, occupancy is such that we're delivering the best rental revenue growth. And the one thing that you also have to keep in mind is that we're quoting an economic occupancy, which includes various factors, it's not just physical. So physical and economic are a little bit different, it's just something to keep in mind there, but we're comfortable operating sort of in that mid 95% range. As you may have noticed, in the fourth quarter, we picked up about 30 bps on a sequential basis from the third quarter in occupancy. And if I give up a little bit of rate doing that, but that was our expectation going into the fourth quarter. Particularly in certain markets where we saw supply starting to ramp up a little bit more in Q4 and going into Q1 of 2017, but mid 95% is sort of a range we're comfortable with.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thanks for taking the questions.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Hey, good afternoon, everyone. I just want to go back to the development side for a second here. Thanks for the color on Columbus Circle, sounds like that's about 4.5% expected yield. But just trying to get a sense for the other $700 million or so that was started in the quarter. What the expectations on yields are for those assets just given the fairly large decline in the overall pools. Expected yield from 6.4% to 5.9% would suggest that the other starts are sort of sub 5%, but just trying to see if there is anything else in there.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Vince. This is Matt. I can speak to that one. It is about obviously what goes into the bucket and what goes out of the bucket in any particular quarter. And this quarter we didn't have any completions, we have the five starts, as you noted. The other four, Belltown Towers is a new high-rise in Seattle, that's kind of a high-5% yield basis around $515 a unit after you allocate something for the retail, so we think that's a phenomenal location and a great long-term asset and a strong spread there relative to what that cap rate would be. We also started a wood frame deal in Emeryville called Public Market, which is a mixed-use project where we will own the residential and we have a retail partner there, that deal is about a 6% yield on today's rents. And that's a deal that – both of those are land deals that were struck probably two to three years ago, when the land market was not necessarily reflective of where rents went kind of over the intervening two years. The AVA Hollywood deal, that's a low-5%s yield, basis around $500 a unit there and that's a market where we think there is still strong rent growth in front of it. And then the fifth start was Teaneck, that's kind of low to mid 6%s, mid-rise in suburban North New Jersey. So, the basket as a whole did pull it down, but Columbus Circle would be kind of the outlier.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay, yes, yes, when I do the backwards math it seems like the starts would have to be a little bit lower than we just quoted, unless the existing projects – did the yields change on those? It seemed like some of the rent per homes did come in for a couple of the projects.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. No, I think, I mean, rents were down just a very small amount on the existing lease-ups, so yields might have ticked down a couple of basis points there, but nothing material. It's more about the basket.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Got it. Okay, okay, and appreciate the breakout between mid-rise, high-rise and garden. But I guess if you think about just the suburban urban definitions that you kind of outlined, how would that break up – or how would the pipeline break up right now, along those lines.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
In terms of what's currently under construction?
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Right.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think it's about almost half and half.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It is about half and half between suburban and urban in terms of what's currently under construction, (44:50) value perspective.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
We talked about how the starts for this year they are all planned to be suburban. So, it's a very different characteristic. Just to go back, I'm sorry, to the prior question, the other reason why the yield basket would have changed was in last quarter's number we also included some deals that completed in Q3 that fell off in Q4, and those deals had higher yields.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Got it, got it. Thanks. Okay. And then just in terms of the trajectory that you mentioned, you specifically called out Boston, Northern Virginia, San Jose as seeing some slowdown in deliveries to year end. But just broadly speaking I guess, is your demand outlook shifting at all over the course of the year and should we think about the heaviest supply sort of being behind us by the middle of the year broadly speaking?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Vince, this is Sean. In terms of, I guess, the broader way to think about it across our footprint at least is that the supply as a percentage of stock, the footprint is relatively static through the first three quarters, starts to fall off in the fourth quarter and it really starts to fall-off in a more meaningful way in mid-2018. The composition among the markets does shift from quarter-to-quarter. So, while you might see a modest deceleration in Q3 and Q4, some are up, some are down, the ones that I mentioned previously are the ones that are down in such a way that it starts to impact our portfolio more in the second half of the year, that's why I highlighted that.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Got it. Okay. And the demand side we should be thinking about is relatively stable?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I think though – yeah, I mean, if you look at it, job growth Tim talked about, we're expecting job growth to be similar to 2016 levels and depending on which market you are thinking about, there is a lot of different perspectives in terms of the potential for upside or downside. There's a lot of discussion about deregulation and the potential impact on financial services in New York, but people are also concerned about how long can Microsoft and Amazon be the anchors in Seattle. So, each market – there's probably commentary for each one in terms of the pros and cons on that job growth outlook.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. Thanks guys.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And maybe just one thing to add, I mean, demand of course tends to be seasonal as well. So you would generally expect demand to be stronger in the middle of the year relative to the end of the year. That generally gets reflected in average rent growth.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hi, guys. Sticking with the job picture, it looks like you guys are forecasting that 20 bps decline and your forecast for business is quite strong. So are you seeing any structural issue, just not enough high – college educated employees to take those jobs? Or is it election uncertainty that's causing you to taper back your forecast this year?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is – Wes, Tim here. I think it's really a function of availability of labor when you are looking at unemployment starting to mark towards the low 4% and as you know, for college grads it's probably more in the 2.5% range, which is the majority of our portfolio and our markets tend to be more college educated in general. So, I think, it's as much as – it's probably being driven more by that just the availability of labor than anything else.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Now looking at 11 West, you guys booked that JV in the asset. Do you expect maybe at some point this year to revisit that? Or is the bid/ask too wide, you just want to de-risk the project some more?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, unless sentiment changed a lot so that it started to impact the market's view of value. I think right now there is just – when you're looking at high-end residential and the street retail, the market sentiment has been as chilly as it has been in probably anytime this cycle. So, I just don't anticipate – we don't anticipate that turning around, we just think that is sort of the wrong environment to capitalize or sell a part of a project. So, it's one of the benefits of having a great balance sheet and plenty of liquidity that you're not forced to sort of capitalize or sell into the face of potentially a declining market or poor market sentiment or declining market sentiment. So I suspect we'll – it's probably something – it will be revisited when we see, maybe as I mentioned in prepared remarks maybe a little bit more spikier kind of valuations and we'll just see it as a more opportunistic time to transact.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay, great. Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Juan Sanabria with Bank of America.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Thanks for the time. Just curious what changed with regards to your outlook on supply now being more comfortable saying 2017 would be the peak versus kind of comments at NAREIT in November? What kind of – what did you get your head around where you feel comfortable making that statement at this point?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Juan, this is Sean. I can take that one and then Tim rather you can speak to it as well. I mean, we refresh our pipeline essentially every quarter and it gets a good scrub at year end as we take a look at what's been capitalized, what hasn't et cetera. So, what we've experienced in the past is that, and this is maybe what we alluded at NAREIT is the construction duration on what has been built this cycle, particularly in some of the markets like San Francisco and New York, it's urban and it's high rise, it's a different construction cycle, there is more risk involved in an execution what we have seen is typically that, a number of those deals end up getting delayed into the subsequent year for a variety of reasons. So, what we try to do is estimate as best we can given the data that we have from third-party sources, from our internal teams, both operations and development, permit data, et cetera and then handicap it. So based on what we see today, our expectation is as I alluded to earlier, but certainly there is still some risk that given the nature of the product being developed that some of it slips into 2018. Similar to what we saw in terms of some of the 2016 completions slipping into 2017. Our initial expectation for 2016 deliveries was higher than where we actually ended up. And that may be the case for 2017 as well, just too early to tell.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, great, thanks. And then just wanted to circle back on sort of the cap rate questions that have been asked around New York specifically. It seems like a part of the reason you decided not to JV the Columbus Circle was just a widening of the spreads there. Can you help us quantify kind of what that delta has been or could potentially be given the bid/ask spread or for high-end apartment core assets?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Juan, to be clear, I don't know that we've seen movement in cap rates, we just – there hasn't been much in the way of trade. I think there is a different view around – sentiment around risk and development risk, and what that might command in terms of a risk premium, but Columbus Circle, as I mentioned it's not a 421a deal, I mean it doesn't have a pilot – it doesn't have – so it has fully loaded taxes, which tend to impact cap rate, it doesn't have affordables, which might impact cap rate. So this deal, to the extent that it traded in the market, it will trade at the very, very low end. I can't think of an asset that would trade at a lower cap rate. So, even in today's market, if we took this to market, we think it would be probably in the low 3%s. And then on the retail side, the other part of it was that when we took – when we went to market, we just – there was interest at a reasonable value, but the kind of commitment that people – that organizations were able or willing to make against the forward obligation to take out the retail upon completion, we didn't think sort of justify the risk. For instance we – the market was telling us that maybe we get a $10 million to $15 million to $20 million deposit against what might be a couple hundred million dollar obligation. And so at the end of the day just we felt sort of the risk-reward of that from the seller standpoint just didn't justify sort of stepping into that kind of transaction and felt we'd be better off owning it through construction ourselves, and then ultimately start to capture some of the development profit maybe at some point down the road.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, and just lastly if I could ask about San Francisco, about your view on rent growth in 2017 across the different submarkets and at what point do those markets trough, if at all, in 2017?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Juan, this is Sean. In terms of Northern California, and San Francisco specifically, we are expecting it to be pretty weak in San Francisco all year, the weakest of the three markets within Northern California when you consider performance in San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. In terms of our revenue outlook, we're expecting the East Bay to be strongest, roughly 3%, San Jose probably around 2%, and San Francisco lagging considerably probably between 25 basis points and 50 basis points, in terms of revenue performance. And we're really not expecting much rate growth there at all in San Francisco, sub 1% certainly as you get into – get through 2017 based on the supply that's pretty leveled throughout 2017, doesn't really trail off until you get into 2018?
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Good afternoon. So on Columbus Circle the development is not branded as an Avalon product, is that by design?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
It is actually...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Matt, go ahead, I'm sorry.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Matt. We haven't made a final decision on that. We're still a couple of years away from leasing it, but given the rent levels and frankly the service level, while Avalon is our flagship brand and kind of highest level product and service experience, we do expect this to be a level above anything that you would find in a typical Avalon and so there is brand equity in the Avalon name, I think, particularly in New York, but it is a pretty unique and special product offering and it may be that it merits kind of its own brand identity.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
And so, the yield you are expecting on a stabilized basis is not going to be as earnings accretive as your other developments. But you did mention the cap rate would be lower in the market. So are you basically saying that you are planning to sell the asset or joint venture the asset once it is complete?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
John, not necessarily. I think what I was saying, this kind of location, this kind of asset, it just – there can be opportunities to take advantage of sometimes a market where somebody else has a very low cost of capital, maybe it's a sovereign that just has to own the best asset in the market and we have to be responsive to that if those opportunities arise. And I think particularly when you are looking at a trophy asset like this. So, I think it's just the recognition that by controlling it, it just gives us a lot of flexibility. We have two pieces here, residential could potentially be converted to condominium at $2,000 a foot, it's a pretty good basis for that location and it's going to be at a I think a pretty high level finish. We're talking about 10 feet ceilings for instance, which is unusual in a rental offering, and retail floor plates that are around 20,000 square feet, again pretty unusual in that part of the city. And so, they just recognize by having control it just gives us optionality and the best option at some point maybe selling a piece of it or all of it at some point. So, it's really about unlike a lot of our portfolio, which are – when you think about just kind of long-term kind of core hold that the sort of asset valuation doesn't necessarily fluctuate as much as it might at the very high end.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
On your development pipeline and the breakdown between high-rise and mid to low-rise, can you provide that same breakdown on your development rights?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, it's mostly – it's very little high-rise, in fact, I'm not sure there is any high-rise. I think it's been – I think at this point high rise has pretty been cleared. It's almost entire – it's mostly until mid-rise with some suburban garden. Matt, I think you actually have a more detailed breakdown.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. As of the end of the year here, our development rights 10% were garden, 70% were mid-rise, and 20% were high-rise, but that's really almost completely or maybe just the East 96th Street deal, which is public-private partnership, which is we've talked about in the past is still a few years away from starting. So, it is heavily weighted towards that, mid-rise kind of infill, suburban, and again that's kind of all of our starts in 2017 are either garden's or mid-rises and actually our projected yield on today's underwriting on our 2017 starts is actually in the high 6s. So it will start to pull that average back up.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
So, if you include East 96, it seems like your urban/suburban mix on the development rights is about the same as your current development pipeline?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No. No. The current development rights are about one-third urban, whereas the current under construction is actually 60% urban.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
All right, okay. And then on page 18 of your presentation you discuss how the Pacific Northwest and Northern California are expected to have the highest amount of personal income growth next year or this year. How much does this impact your ability to push rents if that somehow drops off a little bit?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. It impacts purchasing power. I mean when there is more income in a catchment area and housing is one of the biggest expenses of any consumer, the more income they have. They tend to allocate a reasonably sort of stable level, a percentage of their income to housing. So at the end of the day, as long as demand and supply are roughly in line, what drives our business is really – it's really income growth and it's one of the reasons why places like Seattle and Northern California, in particularly this cycle have dramatically outperformed. When you look at sort of the quality of jobs and the level of wage growth that we've seen and kind of innovation knowledge based centers.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Good afternoon, guys. Sean, on page 20 of the slide deck, where you've got your same store growth, most of this candle sticks look all to be the same size to me. I mean when you think about it, which markets have the greatest potential, variability operations wise this year, between the possible range of outcomes?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Rob. I mean, I'd say it's probably the markets where you are seeing more significant supply, combined with a job base that tends to be probably more volatile just based on its history. So, certainly San Francisco, we have dialed that in where we think it should be based on all of our history, but it's the tech factor, it can be volatile, we've got a baseline, but we know what the supply is and if the demand doesn't show up where we expected, you could see more deterioration there. But on the other side of the coin, some people are calling for potential reacceleration of job growth there later this year, it could go that way. I'd say probably there in New York are the two places New York City specifically, where you could see that that have the most significant impact on our portfolio, given our allocation. You could also say the same thing about Seattle and my comments earlier related to Microsoft and Amazon, but it's only about 6% of the portfolio, so it's not going to move the needle on a material way, given how much we have allocated there.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. How close are you guys to signing an anchor tenant on the retail or anchor tenants at Columbus Circle?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
This is Matt. We have not really started marketing it in earnest yet. I think we will be at ICSC in May, so we're really just now at the point that we're ready to start engaging in those discussions and we have brokers on board, so more to come over time.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then just lastly, either Kevin or Sean, what do you guys think is the appropriate level in 2017 for recurring but non-revenue producing CapEx per unit?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Rob, it's Sean. In terms of CapEx, we came in around $900 a unit in 2016, and for CapEx in 2017, we're expecting it to tick up some to maybe about $1,000 a unit, about 5% of NOI.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. Thanks guys. Appreciate it.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the question. Just two really quick ones. You mentioned New York and San Francisco I think as being your sort of most volatile markets. But just curious on the concession side from what you are seeing in the landscape, would you also say that those are the two markets where you see the most amount of concessionary competition? Or are there other markets that flag up for heavy concessions, but aren't having an impact on your operations?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Alex, it's Sean. The Northern Cal market is the majority of the concession activity for us on a stabilized basis. It's about – in Q4, as an example, it was about 60% of the cash concessions we issued. In New York, where you're going to see that is all the lease-ups. There's not a lot of concessioning on the stabilized assets at this point. You'll see a little bit here and there certainly depending on which submarkets you're in. But for the most part it's ramp it across all the lease-up assets regardless to which submarket that you're falling in just given the nature of the ramp regulations and the policies there in New York City. So, but for the most part from a market perspective on stabilized assets, you're seeing it in Northern California.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then the second question is, as you guys morph towards more of your starts being in the suburbs are you seeing more competitor developers coming back into the suburbs? Or is that still pretty muted for all the aforementioned reasons whether it's the difficulty in labor, land or getting construction financing?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Alex. It is Tim. I mean, you've seen a pickup probably over the last two or three years, but as I mentioned in my remarks, it's still on the order of half as much. I think we expect that to persist at least as it relates to deliveries, over the next several quarters. We're seeing roughly – our markets – if we're expecting 2% of total supply growth, this maybe on the order 1.5% in the suburbs and closer to high 2%, almost 3%, in the urban submarkets.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. So, Tim, as you look over the next sort of 12 months to 24 months, you don't see more developers coming into your suburbs, you still see it as muted.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. We actually, as we mentioned, we do expect supply – the deliveries to fall in 2018, but pretty commensurately between – proportionally between urban and suburban. We expect suburban supply to be on the order of 1.25%, maybe in 2018 and urban from about 2.8% to about 2.3% in 2018. So, drop of about 1.5% to 1.2% on the suburban submarkets and from about 2.8% to 2.3% on the urban markets. So pretty proportionate.
Alexander Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thanks, Tim.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Jeff Donnelly with Wells Fargo.
Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC:
Good afternoon, guys. Tim, I know it's maybe a little early to ask this, but with just the moderation in land inventory how should we think about the potential for starts in 2018 compared to the volume you are expecting this year? I am just curious if you expect that could level out or just later into the cycle as you discussed in your management letter. Should we expect maybe further pullback in starts?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Jeff. As it relates to 2018, as I mentioned, we have about $3 billion in the development right pipeline that tends to be kind of deals that are going to start over the – with the exception of maybe East 96th, but tend to be deals that are going to start over the next three years or so. So, I don't think you'll see a $1.6 over the next few years. I do think it's likely to be in the $800 million to a $1 billion range, just based upon deals that we can identify today, that are just going to take another 12 months to 20 months to get going.
Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC:
That's useful. And then I guess, Kevin, maybe can you just talk about some of the major variables that bring you to the top or bottom of the guidance range for 2017? I am just curious if it's capital markets activity, development stabilizations or maybe some of your same-store metrics?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, I think the biggest variable there is just going to be performance in terms of same-store, that's the biggest driver obviously of our NOI and FFO. The capital side of the equation could be an issue but, as I mentioned earlier, we've got against the $1.7 billion of net external capital we anticipate raising this year, we have $800 million in hedges in place that are mapped against the 10-year debt issuance that we expect to have this year. So probably not as many variables overall as there otherwise would be outside of community operations.
Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC:
And for the contribution that is coming from the development stabilizations, I am just curious, how have the assumptions around that changed maybe in the last three, six, nine months? Just – have you guys kind of altered maybe your lease up velocity or sort of concessions? I am just curious what might have shifted in your expectations.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, in terms of lease up velocity and that type of thing, hasn't really changed materially. I think the contribution really depends on the mix of assets, which markets they're in, et cetera from year-to-year, but Tim indicated in his prepared remarks, it's pretty similar between 2016 and 2017 in terms of the contribution from the external growth platform.
Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC:
And just maybe one last question for you, Sean. I recognize that supply is expected to be maybe higher into accelerating the Pacific Northwest for example or the mid-Atlantic. But as you look across your portfolios, in which cities and submarkets do you see the greatest overlap between the product coming online and your actual assets in – your own assets in the submarket?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, that's probably a few minute discussion to go through, kind of submarket by submarket. I'm happy to do that with you maybe offline, so that we don't run the call too long, if you like to go through kind of market-by-market assessment.
Jeff J. Donnelly - Wells Fargo Securities LLC:
Happy to do it. Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Okay.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey, guys. Just in terms of expenses, there has been I guess some increasing dialog about rising construction costs, primarily due to a lack of available skilled labor. I was curious how much of that is baked into your forecast and how are you thinking about that?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Rich, this is Matt. You're talking specifically about construction costs and development costs?
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Yes, primarily construction costs related to lack of availability of people that know how to do things.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean we've certainly seen pressure in our construction budgets as deals go through our pipeline from development right to development community. When we start a community and we report it as a development community, at that point, we have what we call Class 3 budget and that is based on bid coverage on almost all of the major trades and usually a pretty significant amount of the total budget has already been bought out by that point. So, what you see is, there is usually not a lot of variability or not a lot of risk in, whether we'll be able to deliver the project on the budget once it starts. The risk for us is probably more in the deals that haven't started yet that if we underwrote, we felt the hard costs a year ago were going to be x, and now that might be x plus something. And if NOI hasn't grown to cover that, then we might have some erosion in the economics. And that is a risk. And that also speaks to what Tim's talking about, about how we manage our land positions and most of the land we're controlling at this point, the vast majority of those 25 development rights is on land that we have under longer-term purchase contracts, very little of it do we own given the starts that we have last quarter. So, there is some exposure there. I will say, what we've seen is hard cost growth in most of our markets, it's still rising faster than rents, but not by perhaps the same margin as it was a year ago. So, hard cost growth is not – and again that's a reflection of the fact that start activity is starting to stabilize and perhaps the next leg is down. So, hard costs are still rising, but they are not rising as aggressively, the question is will NOIs keep up.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. Got it, that's helpful, thank you. Back to your presentation on page 17 of the presentation. I always like the charts that you guys provide. I was maybe curious, maybe even a little bit surprised about the comment that housing demand is more balanced. I take that to mean housing demand itself is not relative to multi-family, right? Because I guess our thoughts are that maybe the homeownership rate has stabilized but we don't see it really going higher. So I was curious if you are seeing sort of the same things.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I think we're saying the same thing. Homeownership rate in 63% range is starting to stabilize and that's what we really meant. The fact that it's stabilizing is evidence that we're seeing more balanced housing demand between for sale and rental. Whereas, obviously, earlier this cycle virtually all net new household formation was rental. We saw the opposite early in the 2000s and in my remarks I had mentioned, it's about as balanced as we're seeing since 2000, 2001. And that was not – that was the norm for the 30 years before 2000. It hasn't been the norm in the last 15 years. But increasingly when you look at demographics, and kind of look at the distortions that have sort of been wrung out of the market, we think we're just going to see a more balanced housing picture. I think a lot of people are still calling for the homeownership rates to tick down a little bit, but we're operating under the assumption that we're seeing some normalization right now.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Yes, that's consistent with our view. I am curious, are there any markets that you operate in where you might be seeing more housing demand than you were expecting. Or is it pretty much the same trend nationwide?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Rich, it's Sean. I mean for the most part if you're talking about customers leaving our communities to go purchase homes, now pretty much across all the markets, it's well below long-term averages. The only one that is sort of running at long-term averages is in New England, people are buying homes at a consistent rate, at least consistent with long-term averages, all the other markets, it's still well below long-term averages.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you. I appreciate it. Nothing else for me.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Ivy Zelman with Zelman & Associates.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
Hey, thanks, guys. Good afternoon. Maybe we can talk about the fourth quarter a little bit and tell us what, if you could, what your renewal and new lease figures were; and then maybe what so far in January in 2017. And then I have a follow-up, please.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Ivy. This is Sean. In terms of the fourth quarter numbers, blended rent change was 1.3%, which is a reflection of renewals at 4.7% and new move-ins down 2.25%. And then as we get into the January, it's around 80 basis points move-ins similar to the fourth quarter, but renewals were down to about 3.5%. And then if you look forward in the renewal offers, they're running around 6% for February and March, so starting to accelerate relative to the last few months and more consistent with the trends we saw last year.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
And just to follow on that assumption for 2017, as you recognize some of the pressure from supply and assumingly through the first three quarters, what assumptions are you using for concessions in your forecast for renewals?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, for renewal specifically?
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
Specifically, yes, because as consumers recognize that rents are down in places like New York and other more competitive markets, I assume that there is something baked in that there will be concessions for those renewals to keep those tenants in the occupancy rate.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes. Typically for us and for most, we don't do really concessions for renewals. The question is what the rate you're going to get? And so, for example, if we are making renewal offers at 6% for February and March, those probably going to settle maybe in the high-4%s as an example, so there is a little spread there in terms of what you negotiate to versus the original offer. Concessions really come into play on new leases.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
No, actually I apologize. I apologize, I meant recognizing what you are going to give them in concession on rate. I'm saying the absolute rate. So is it you pressuring it 2%, 200 basis points? So I appreciate that is not an actual concession.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, the range is normally around 110 basis points or so. I would expect it potentially be a little bit wider this year. So, as I mentioned, it might be 125 basis points, so if we're going out at 6%, maybe it's coming in at 4.75% or so, in terms of where they settle out. That number does move around quite a bit, but I'd say in the long-term, it typically is spread of about 110 bps between what your initial offer is and where it settles out, and what you actually get.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
Okay.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, that's how to think about it for renewals.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
Great. And then just lastly with respect to the back half of the year and appreciating your assumptions that you are making on employment and wage growth; do you have any sense in variability if employment growth is not, let's say, what it has been running in 2016, and it's something less than that? Like how much of a range and/or wage growth is dependent on achieving your expectations for 2017 within the assumptions?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Ivy, it's Tim. I can't tell you the exact sensitivity to the model, but as I sort of think about it kind of simplistically, if personal income growth is growing by roughly 5% in your markets and you're adding supply at 2 to 1, all things being equal, again not all things are equal, but to the extent you have a relatively balanced housing demand picture, which we do relative to recent years, that ought to equate into somewhere in the 2.5% to 3% same store revenue growth from our perspective. So, as people are spending – assuming people spend around a relatively stable percentage of their income on housing. Now those trends tend to sort of follow kind of on a more multi-year basis than they might in one quarter or a couple of quarter time period. So, I don't want it sounds overly precise, but that's why we generally – we only see negative, really consistently negative rental rate growth when we're in a period of recession, when you're actually seeing job declines and income declines in the face of – even though in the face of no new housing deliveries.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman & Associates:
Got it. Okay, guys, good luck. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yes. Good afternoon. Just a couple from me. Just given the comments about supply and, again, deliveries starting to slow down in the back half of 2017 going into 2018, and some of your thoughts around demand. Could you just give us a sense of how you expect – what kind of same-store NOI growth you are generally expecting on a quarterly basis? Is the idea it is going to be tough in the first half and improve in the second half? Is it going to be better in the first half and tough in the second half?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean Tayo, I think the chart that we provided on slide 21 gives you a sense of sort of trajectory of revenue growth throughout the year, starting a little bit stronger in the earlier part of the year and then trailing off and stabilizing as we get into the back half. Expenses are pretty choppy, so we provide a full year number, but the timing of tax appeals, insurance claims, things like that generally result in volatility from quarter-to-quarter that we try not to predict too much, because we generally will get it wrong in terms of the timing of the appeals and things like that. So payroll maintenance, the other things we can project pretty well, but those things create some volatility from quarter-to-quarter that we typically try not to provide much guidance on.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. That's helpful. And then in regard to some of your new development starts in – construction starts in fourth quarter, could you talk specifically about the Seattle and New York projects? And again, what I'm kind of looking for is there are some concerns about supply in that market. I am just trying to get a sense of where these two assets are relative to where some of the supply hotspots may be in both markets.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure, Tayo, it's Matt. The Seattle asset is in Belltown, so it's kind of on the Northern edge of downtown, that is a sub-market, in general there is a lot of supply in downtown Seattle, so unlike say our East Side development communities, which are currently in lease-up, which are enjoying a little bit less competition, that is in the fray. Having said that, it's kind of on the North side of it, so it's a little bit removed from where kind of the heart of all the supply is and it's not going to deliver for two years. So, by that time, it should be coming on the back side of that wave of supply, but certainly, that is going to be competitive sub-market. The West 61st Street by comparison one of the things that we have loved about that place from the beginning is, it is a very unique and special location and there is not a lot of supply coming there, particularly if you look out two years, it should have almost nothing to compete with, now there is going to be supply in Hudson Yards, there is going to be supply in other parts of Manhattan and to the extent, it's a kind of regional market, obviously there is competition there, but for folks that want to live in that neighborhood, with access to the schools, with access to that environment, all the amenities, cultural amenities, everything that's there, we think that actually we should be pretty well positioned in terms of the timing of when that's going to deliver.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. And then for some of the other starts during the quarter, any of them close to supply hotspots or no?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not really, I mean, you look at public market, there's not a whole lot in the East Bay, which again, East Bay has held-up better partially because of that, so we like Emeryville. Hollywood is an area that is getting a reasonable amount of supply. Obviously, we're delivering in West Hollywood, which is about a mile away this year. So that's a market that's going to continue to be competitive, but a very, very deep market there, and that's at a more – not at the kind of price point that say, relative to its sub-market, let's say Belltown or Columbus Circle would be. And Teaneck, there continues to be very limited supply, once you get-off the Gold Coast into New Jersey, once you're in land, that market continues to be very solid and steady for us, and we continue to deliver, beat our performance on the New Jersey stuff, partially because of that.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got you. Thank you.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good afternoon. Matt, earlier you mentioned that you haven't seen cap rates move, and I want to be clear that was a commentary in recent months. Could you comment on the level at all that you have seen them move in the last year? And if they haven't moved, is that an indication to you that people are willing to accept lower expected returns?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. I guess, what I'd say is, I think over the last year, they've been relatively flat. And I think, your all numbers, I think show that at least in terms of CPPI. Underneath that overall bucket, I mean what you hear is that maybe they're up a little bit on kind of core stuff. There's still every bit probably as low on value-add, where there's more capital chasing less assets. So the composition of it might have changed a little bit. I think you're right in the sense that people probably are underwriting softer rent or NOI growth than they would have been a year or two ago, so if cap rates haven't moved then, presumably they are accepting lower underwritten IRRs, so that's why I say, it remains to be seen, not a lot of deals have been struck since the latest move up in interest rates. So, there is talk that there might be a little bit of a bid-ask spread on some of the core stuff and that's why, some of that stuff isn't trading as much yet. But, so there is a dynamic, there's still a lot of capital looking to get out, albeit underwriting is probably not as aggressive as it was. And I don't think there are sellers that really need to sell assets, so it's going to be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Conor, maybe just to add to that. I know based on how we underwrite assets, when we look at residual cap rates, it's really not that much of a function what's happening currently, because we're looking out whatever 10 years, 15 years, 20 years depending upon the pro forma you're on, it's really more of a function of kind of normalized levels of interest rates and cap rates. So, I think to the extent that the market and my sense is, you are seeing more of that – to the extent the market assumed that you would expect maybe asset values to fluctuate a little less and just in terms of our underwriting and how we think about the value of our assets, it hasn't changed much over the last year.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay, thank you. Then, Tim, a follow-up. Your presentation you give a fairly optimistic view of the economy with business confidence, consumer confidence increasing. So in that environment and if you are also forecasting for stabilization or re-acceleration of rent growth, do you think that that would once again make development more attractive? So how long do you think that the debt side can be a constraint on development either stabilizing or re-accelerating?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, that's asking me to project behavior, I guess the side of it that we had – you didn't bring up really is what's going on in the construction cost side. So the margins aren't what they have been, just mainly because of what's going on the construction side. So that alone plus I just think regulated behavior. That tends not to change overnight. We'll see whether new administration changes that, but you talked to banks. I mean the one thing they're definitive about is we're not making – we're not accommodating multifamily capital requests like we were a couple of years ago and part of that is just the regulators leaning on them. So I think there is other factors that play just in terms of just kind of the pure economics of the business, but I think you make a fair point. I mean to the extent that it's still a profitable business, it's going to attract some capital and we don't see it going from 2% to 0.5%, which it happened in cycles in the past. I think it is likely to go down may be into the 1.5% range over the next two or three years, but even in our markets, which tend to be a little bit more supply constrained, not as much as cycled because of what's happened on the urban side, but I don't anticipate seeing the same kind of drop-off that we've seen may be in past cycles.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And that will conclude today's question-and-answer session. I'd now like to turn the call back over to the company for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thank you, Noah. I think we've been on for a while, so we try to respect people's time and thank everybody for joining us today and remarkably I think we'll see a number of you in just a few weeks. Thank you and have a good day.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation and you may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Analysts:
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker) Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Third Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Jessica, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' third quarter 2016 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risk and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measure and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available in our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason. And welcome to our third quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. I will be providing management commentary on the slides that we posted yesterday after the market closed, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. My comments will focus on providing a summary of Q3 and year-to-date results, our outlook for 2016, a look at fundamentals and lastly an update on investment activity and a look back on our capital allocation track record. So let's start on slide 4. It was a solid quarter where we achieved core FFO growth of 7.3% from a combination of same store NOI growth of over 4% and healthy contributions continuing from new lease ups. Year-to-date, core FFO per share is up over 9%. And in Q3, we raised over $1 billion in new capital including the October bond deal and disposition activity to fund ongoing and the upcoming development and to pay off maturing debt. Turning to slide 5 and our updated outlook for the year. We've updated our outlook for FFO and same-store metrics. Core FFO per share has been reduced by $0.05 per share or 70 basis points for the full year to 8.3% due to a combination of factors including same-store revenue growth being trimmed by around 12 basis points from our midyear forecast from a mix of lower projected occupancy and rate for Q4. Secondly, higher same-store operating expenses related primarily to higher utility costs and delayed resolution of several tax appeals. Thirdly, lower redevelopment NOI and lastly higher interest rate – a higher interest related cost in connection with our recent $650 million bond deal that we completed earlier this month. Turning now to slide 6. We thought we'd spend a couple of minutes on fundamentals that are shaping portfolio performance and the overall outlook for the apartment sector. GDP and job growth, as many of you know, continue to decelerate. GDP growth has been below 1.5% now for the last three quarters, while job growth is running more than 20% less than its cyclical peak, and well off last year's pace so far year-to-date. Lower corporate profits and business confidence is resulting in less investment in labor and capital, as businesses appear reluctant to make new commitments. Turning to slide 7, while businesses are slowing down, the consumer appears to still be in good shape. The labor market continues to tighten with more job openings helping to contribute to an improved wage picture. Consumers' balance sheets are in the best shape in many years. And these trends are contributing to cyclically high consumer confidence, which in turn is helping to drive stronger household formation, which is running north of a million per year, after lingering at generational lows earlier this cycle. Turning to slide 8, longer term secular trends should continue to support apartment demand. Young adult job growth is outpacing the U.S. average, driven obviously by strong growth in this age cohort. This generation is marrying and having children later, and unsurprisingly, we have seen the strongest household formation for singles and couples, as one- and two-person households have been responsible for more than 80% of all net new households formed so far this cycle. Home ownership rates have in turn continued to fall through this segment, helping to stimulate healthy apartment demand this cycle. While the leading edge of millennials are now in their mid-30s, the largest part of this generation are still in their mid-20s and are expected to stimulate rental demand for several years. So overall, despite slower economic activity, demand fundamentals are still healthy for the housing market in general and for the apartment sector, specifically. Turning to slide 9. Let's take a look at what these trends mean for our markets. So far, this cycle from 2010 to 2015, we benefited from a significant imbalance between demand and supply. This slide looks at this in a couple of ways. On the left, we look at the broader housing picture as household formation significantly outpaced housing starts during this period. And on the right, job growth outpaced new apartment deliveries by roughly 2 times. So, in the first part of the cycle through 2015, demand has run well above supply and apartment rates have grown well above the long-term trend. Going forward over the next two to three years, you can see from the right-hand side of both those charts, through 2018, we expect demand and supply to be more in balance, reflecting an industry moving toward equilibrium after years of significant outperformance. Turning to slide 10. That notion is certainly reflected in recent rent performance across our markets and in our same store portfolio. Overall, market rent growth according to Axiometrics has declined from around 5% to 2% to 3% over the last four to five quarters. Similarly, in our same-store portfolio, we're seeing same unit rent growth decline from over 6% to 3% to 4% range during that same time or to levels that are closer to historical average. Turning to slide 11 and double clicking through on our portfolio bit here, we can see a couple of other trends. First, we are seeing convergence in performance between east and west as differentials in rent growth have narrowed by around 300 basis points over the last year, driven mainly by deceleration in Northern California and some improvement in the Mid-Atlantic. And second, and as we've been discussing in recent quarters, rent growth in the suburbs continues to outpace that in urban submarkets by around 200 basis points, given this concentration of new supply in urban centers. Let's turn now to investment activity onto slide 12. Lease up performance continues to be strong as rents are roughly 200 basis points above pro forma and yields are 30 basis points higher. And with yields well-above prevailing cap rates and our marginal cost of capital, redevelopment is contributing meaningfully to NAV and earnings growth well into the current cycle. Turning to slide 13 and as discussed a couple of quarters ago this really has been the case during our life as a public company. This slide depicts development performance across various phases of the cycle since 1995. The strongest performance generally occurs during the expansion phase for sure, but it's been healthy even when new development has delivered into the downturn. We believe this speaks to our capability in this area and our disciplined approach to allocating capital to this activity. Turning now to slide 14. In addition, we continue to be disciplined in how we capitalize new development commitments. Excluding the benefit of any free cash flow or retained earnings we may enjoy, we're still currently 85% match funded against our $3.1 billion pipeline. That is we've already raised most of the permanent capital for this bucket of assets well in advance of it producing operating cash flow. So, as this development stabilizes, it will add meaningfully to future growth in free cash flow. Turning to the slide 15 and shifting gears a bit, we thought it might be helpful to briefly review our capital allocation track record over our life as a public company. While we understand that there's a lot of focus right now on moderating fundamentals, and the impact on portfolio performance. We are investing in long-lived assets with an aim to deliver outsized total returns over the long run. As you can see on this chart, over the last 20 plus years, we've been able to generate strong investment returns with unlevered IRRs of around 13%. A few points worth noting here. First, we've been able to deliver healthy returns, double-digit IRRs across all of our regions. Second, we generated strong IRRs across both urban and the suburban submarkets. Third, we generated the highest returns in markets where we have the longest tenure, the mid-Atlantic and Northern California. In our business, tenure matters in terms of market intelligence, experience, reputation and relationships. And lastly, while these returns represent a mix of unrealized or projected returns and realized returns, the average is consistent with what has been realized through our dispositions over the last 10 years, as shown on attachment 12 of this release. And lastly, turning to slide 16, this long-term track record has certainly extended to the current cycle. So far, this cycle, we've delivered around $4.5 billion of new development at yields that have generated initial NAV accretion of around $2 billion and healthy earnings accretion contributing to annual compounded growth in core FFO of almost 13% over the last six years, a period of time when core FFO per share has more than doubled and dividends have grown by more than 50%. So, in summary, while we are seeing some moderation in fundamentals, it appears that we are settling into a period of equilibrium as the economic expansion plays out. Of course, some markets and some markets will outperform while others might lag. But overall, demand and supply seem to be really in balance and projected to remain that way over the next two to three years. And as we move into the later stages of a very healthy apartment cycle, we continue to exercise a disciplined approach to the capital allocation, both in how we raise and deploy capital, and that should allow us to generate solid earnings and NAV growth that will help us outperform. And with that, Jessica, we'd be happy to open the call for some questions.
Operator:
Thank you. And we'll take our first question from Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
So, looking through the presentation last night, we noticed that I guess this quarter, you didn't break out the market-by-market assumptions that are driving the changes in guidance versus guidance as of last quarter. Are you able to provide those on the call this morning?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hey, Rich. This is Sean. I can give you a sort of a general overview of where we're seeing market performance relative to our midyear expectations, if that's helpful. Obviously, it was a very modest reduction in terms of full year same-store revenue guidance. And essentially, where the shortfall is occurring is primarily in four places
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. Thanks, Sean. And then would you be able to breakout the new and renewal divisions to the different markets from 3Q (14:35)
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
For the third quarter?
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
...4Q? Yeah, third quarter and then maybe what you're seeing today in the fourth quarter as well?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure. For the third quarter blended rent change was 3.5%, and I'm just going to walk through the markets here that represent 3.2% in New England, about 2.5% in the Metro New York/New Jersey region, just over 3% in the Mid-Atlantic, 5.2% in the Pacific Northwest, 2.7% in Northern California, and mid-5% in Southern Cal. That blends to 3.5%.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay. Thanks. And then my final question here concerns development. So, it looks like implicitly, I guess, starts are expected to go up in the fourth quarter versus what happened in the third quarter. And just a general question, I guess, how are you guys feeling about the development pipeline today? And have any of your assumptions changed in terms of how you're underwriting the projected yields on the overall pipeline or the things that you're starting in the near term?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Hi, Rich. This is Matt. Yeah. No. We are expecting a lot of start volume here in the fourth quarter. It was always really in the plan that the starts were going to be back loaded this year. And it's really just a function of when those deals work their way through the system and are ready to start. So, we haven't – I wouldn't say our view has changed in any material way in terms of the attractiveness or the profitability of the development platform. We're still adding new development rights through the course of the year. They're still kind of at the same current economics. Again, we underwrite to kind of today's rents and cost and expenses that don't really trend. That we're still seeing on average our development rights pipeline underwriting to about a mid-60s yield. Some variation by region, but that's been pretty consistent really for the last several years. The only thing that's really potentially changed is just different deals will move around quarter-to-quarter. So, whether we wind up with the start volume for the total year that we expect at the beginning of the year, probably just depends on what happens with the Columbus Circle deal and whether that starts this quarter or it may slip-in to the first quarter next year.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
All right. Yeah, thanks for that, Matt. I guess maybe one follow-up there. Just simply to the extent that the current environment has deteriorated over the course of 2016, I think where we might be a little bit confused is just how some of the assumptions haven't changed much. I mean, is that just a function of underwriting rents versus the basis that you guys have locked in or is it – or are we misinterpreting kind of the way the numbers move there?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Rich, this is Tim. I mean rents are continuing to increase in our markets generally. And so, it's a function of how it interplays with the construction costs, for sure. We are seeing some moderation in some markets on construction cost now. Land cost as you know is locked in. So, in terms of overall economics on a current basis, as Matt mentioned, we haven't seen a big change. We published the deals that completed this quarter that stabilized at a 6.4%. We've got about $2.5 billion that are under construction that we still estimate are a 6.4% and that's what most of that pipeline not really mark-to-market yet, which we would anticipate that to gravitate up. And then just the deals we've been putting under a contract in 2016, which probably has been a little bit of surprise that they've been as attractive as we – from an economic standpoint as they've been are kind of consistent with those kinds of returns. So, the assumptions are always based upon what we're seeing in the markets today and I think that's what Matt meant in terms of our underlying assumptions haven't changed in terms of how they're derived.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore ISI:
Okay. That's helpful, Tim. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Nick Joseph with Citigroup.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. Tim, you mentioned the increase to same-store expense growth is driven by utilities and the delay in tax appeals. But can you talk about what's driving the growth of the more controllable expenses? Looks like payroll, R&M and the office operations were up this quarter?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick. This is Sean. Why don't I give you an overview of the change from the mid-year guidance that we've provided as compared to what we provided last night, if that's helpful? But the growth change, if you call it combined third quarter and fourth quarter or back half of the year represents around $2.6 million, $2.7 million. About a third of that is timing related. And the majority of that ties to three tax appeals in LA County that were scheduled and anticipated to occur in Q4 that looks like they're going to slip into Q1. And then the balance of the timing-related component relates to the start-up of a co-gen facility at one our New York high-rise assets that's been delayed a little bit. So, about a third that we'll get, we're just going to get it probably closer to Q1 as opposed to Q4. But in terms of the absolute amount of the change, it's about 70 basis points if you look at the mid-year guidance we provided basically around 2.4% to where we are at 3.1% today. The major components are the utilities. It's about $1.8 million, taxes around $700,000, and then there's couple hundred thousand related to insurance and payroll. Again, that's sort of comparing back half of 2016 as compared to our mid-year reforecast. So, a big chunk of it, again, is timing-related. But those are the primary drivers of the difference as compared to what we had said earlier at mid-year.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks for that breakdown. And then when you say concessions, can you talk about if you're using concessions on any stabilized properties today, what markets you're doing that? And if it's free rent or gift cards or any other details you can provide on that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Sure. For the most part, we don't use a lot of concessions, but we do use them in certain markets. And I'd say it depends on a couple of things, Nick. Obviously, in New York, you'd probably see a greater use of concession given some of the legal rent issues that surround that market. And then in certain situations where we think there may be just a bulk of delivery that's coming through at a particular quarter or two, that sort of impacts the then current environment, and we want to take sort of a temporary hit as opposed to the full 12 months of reducing the rent when it comes to lease renewal for those customers, that we tend to use. But in terms of the concessions that we granted in the third quarter, it's about $440,000. About 50% of it was in San Francisco. About another 25% is in the Pacific Northwest, which has been a healthy market but it tends to be a market where there's just a greater use of concessions. So, we used concessions last year, we used concessions this year. It's just sort of the nature of the barter in Seattle. But if you look at the year-over-year change, about 85% of the year-over-year increase is really in San Francisco. And that's primarily concentrated at the Mission Bay assets, a little bit at 55 9th, a little bit at Ocean Avenue, which are competing with more of the new deliveries.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. A couple ones. First, on – a couple markets like – you think about New York, San Francisco. If you look at actually at Axiometrics data, it's showing that year-over-year there's been no rent growth or slightly negative rent growth in the markets. At what point does that flow into your portfolio, more so, where if market rents just aren't moving, how do you still keep up let's say positive renewals in both markets?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Nick. This is Sean. In terms of a bleeding through the portfolio, the softer market environment this year obviously has already started to bleed through the portfolio, which was our original expectation at the beginning of the year and the guidance that we provided. The rate at which it bleeds into the portfolio really is a function of a couple of different things. For the most part, it really does depend on turnover rates, because if you're turning over say 54% or 55% of the portfolio year-over-year, that's going to get mark-to-market to some degree. And then the balance of it really is in renewals. And historically, we have seen more pricing power with renewals relative to new move-ins because of switching costs and things of that sort. So, it takes a period of time for that to happen. So, obviously in some markets, we are seeing rents go down relative to this point last year, I'd say particularly in markets like San Francisco or a little bit in New York City. But we're seeing overall positive rent change currently in those markets. I'd say it's due to two reasons. One is, we probably are performing slightly better than the market average in those markets. And secondly is just the function of the renewals versus new move-ins that I described previously.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. Just second question maybe for Tim. Are you seeing any change in cap rates for where multifamily assets are trading in the private market? I mean, if we think about how much rent growth has slowed in some markets and just looking at multifamily sector overall for the REITs, we've also seen growth slowing. How – it's hard for I think some people to imagine how cap rates won't move higher to reflect this. What are you seeing for asset values today? Thanks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, Nick, I think I'll probably defer to Matt or acquisition dispositions reports to him. But obviously we've been active on the disposition side both for our own portfolio and as we wind down some of the funds and that we've been more active on the acquisition side in a couple of markets. But, Matt, maybe you can just speak to kind of what we've been seeing there from a cap rate perspective.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I think it probably does vary by market and by asset type. And really it's a function of where the capital is most aggressive. So, what we're finding is older assets are the value add story, particularly on the West Coast, it's still very, very deep. In early October we sold one asset, Avalon Brandemoor in the northern suburbs of Seattle and that was a sub-5% cap rate on an asset that was 15 years old and a good submarket but not one of the more sought after submarkets in Metro Seattle. And that's just a reflection of the fact there's a lot of value add money chasing that story, if you will. In some other locations, I don't know really. I couldn't tell you where Northern California cap rates are today. Obviously, there's been a lot of deceleration of NOI growth there. And we have not bought or sold anything in Northern Cal in a while. And I think that volumes are down a little bit there because of that. So we haven't been selling kind of real core stuff and that's where you might see the impacts felt more so. But we don't have any direct evidence to speak to that on either the buy or the sell-side?
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
All right. Thanks, everyone.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jeff Spector with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Great. Good morning. I'm here with Juan Sanabria. I guess just wanted to focus a little bit more, Tim, on some of your key points talking about moderation equilibrium the next two to three years. Obviously, this year, there were a few issues to cause management to lower guidance. How should we think about those comments in the next two to three years? What's giving you comfort that we stay there, or what are some of the assumptions behind those comments?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, Jeff, we've tried to say that in slide 9. I mean, first of all, in terms of changes in guidance, that's really a reflection of it being a weaker economic environment than consensus or us had anticipated. So, to the extent the environment deteriorates further, and we are anticipating some moderation in both in job growth and an increase in supply in our markets over the next couple of years. But I think we show on slide 9 that we think it's roughly about – and if you look at the overall housing picture, we're starting up between 1.1 million and 1.2 million units per year, about 400,000 of those are multi-families and almost all of those are rental. On a percentage basis, that's about what you're seeing in terms of rental propensities right now. It just seems like the market is producing housing that's consistent with what we're seeing from a marginal demand standpoint, which auto translates into inflation or maybe a little bit better in terms of rent growth. And I think if you're seeing tightness anywhere, it's probably more in the for sale arena where there's still seeing 5% kind of growth in value. So, we're not seeing too much supply in terms of the overall housing picture. We are seeing pockets of oversupply for sure. We've talked about those markets, and so, some will lead and some will lag, but overall, based upon on an economy that's growing at, call it 2% and jobs that are growing around 1.5% and supply that's being delivered into the market at about 1.5% of stock. That just looks like the equilibrium to us. Supply being roughly equivalent to demand.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thanks. Do you also assume that in 2018 that supply is going to really come down or no, that's not part of the thought process right now?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Modestly, Jeff. I think it may come down less for a couple of reasons. One, I think the projections for 2017 are probably going to prove out to be too high again because it's just seems like supply just gets delayed. Some of this what I think over the last couple of years, 15% to 20% of what we're expecting to hit in that year and it ended up getting delayed. So, if anything, we've been overestimating supply for the next year. And so, I suspect some of the 2017 deliveries will leak into 2018 and that you'll see a more – I think you'll see a fairly level supply picture for the next couple of years is our own sense.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thanks. And Juan has a question.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Just, if I could follow-up on Jeff's point, if you could just talk through your 2017 supply assumptions across your major markets? And in particular, maybe if you could touch on Northern California, how that comes on line throughout 2017? Is it front-end loaded or is it kind of pretty evenly distributed throughout the year?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Juan. This is Sean. Why don't I take that one? In terms of the expectations for 2017, before I kind of run through the markets, one thing to keep in mind, as Tim noted, is for the most part over the last three years, I'd say supply has been – call it stretched out if you want to think about it that way where expected deliveries are pushed off into the subsequent period. But in terms of what we're seeing for 2017 right now across our markets, the expectations were going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 2% of inventory. And the way that breaks down, to give you some perspective, is the New England market is about 2.5%; Metro New York and New Jersey, around 1.8%; Mid-Atlantic, 5.2%; Pacific Northwest, still elevated up at 3.7%; Northern Cal, mid-2%s, and Southern Cal kind of in the mid-1% range. My expectation is those are going to trend down as we digest numbers and refresh our supply pipeline when we get to January.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And one thing to keep in mind is some of those deals that are in the pipeline are projected starts, but when people start looking at their numbers and I would say construction costs, up quite a bit over the last couple of years if they've been processing a deal, and then a tightening that we've seen in the financial markets as it hits the construction lending and a little bit on the equity side as well that some of those deal prices aren't going to make.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Great. And just one quick follow-up, are you seeing any pull into San Francisco of demand that otherwise would have been in Oakland or San Jose from the discounting for the new projects?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
A little bit, but nothing that's really discernible that shows up in the data that you could call it a significant trend. Typically, it takes a period of time for that to happen. And we've been talking about certainly decelerating growth in San Francisco for the last few quarters, but it's really only, I'd say, in the last six months that it's really come down quite a bit and people on year leases and things like that. So, it typically takes a year or two for that phenomenon really to occur. If you think about the early part of this cycle, San Francisco outperformed quite a while and San Jose as well before the East Bay sort of caught up. And the East Bay has been outperforming in the last couple of years of the cycle.
Juan C. Sanabria - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll now take our next question from Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning. It's Austin Wurschmidt here with Jordan. I was just curious if you could update on your outlook for job growth. I think last quarter, you mentioned it came down 50 basis points roughly from your expectation, but just curious where your outlook is as we move into 2017?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Austin, this is Sean. Why don't I take the first and then maybe Matt would want to comment as well. But in terms of the forecast for 2016, we rely on several different jobs to kind of get aligned around where we think job growth is going to end up, that includes sort of the (33:02) consensus as well as Moody's. And right now, the numbers are sort of in the 2.3 million to 2.4 million jobs range for the calendar year. And in terms of 2017, the expectation is for job growth at least at this point to be relatively similar to 2016. So, certainly, that will be updated as the Q4 evolves and we get to January, but the expectation is that job growth will be relatively similar next year and for this year, which is down, as Tim mentioned, relative to 2015 and 2014.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
And maybe just a follow up to that, as I mentioned earlier, it's around 1.5% and our markets were expecting about 1.7%. And the only real anomaly is at Seattle where we're still expecting job growth north of 3%. The others are kind of in the mid 1% range, all of the regions.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. And then, just on D.C., it's been one of the few submarkets that's been accelerating. It stalled a bit this quarter. I know you highlighted it from a question earlier in the call. But just curious what your thoughts are and how this market – how it should fare moving forward? Do you still see acceleration coming?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. This is Sean, Austin. Yeah, the trend we believe that will occur is continued acceleration and revenue performance there. We thought it would have accelerated probably a little bit more in the third quarter and fourth quarter, but it's still kind of bumping along here. So, still one thing to realize is job growth has been much better in the D.C. metro area, but supply has still been plentiful. So, we're going to continue to see it rise, but it's going to be at a pretty moderate pace as we move into next year.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
And what are supply projections in 2017 versus this year?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
For D.C. facility?
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
For your market. Yes. For your markets in D.C.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
For the Mid-Atlantic, it looks like it's right around just over 2.5%, and that's just a little bit higher than it was this year.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Hardik Goel with Zelman & Associates.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just wanted to talk about the two acquisitions that I know you've mentioned attractive merchant deals in the past. Just wondering given the fact that you have such good economics in your own development pipeline, how did you think about the two deals there? I think if I'm not wrong, one of them was a lease-up, another one was the land swap of sorts. Could you provide more details on that and the yields you expect?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Sure, Hardik. This is Matt. I can speak to that. I wouldn't say it's either or between the two investment activities. We're really not funding acquisitions through expansion of the balance sheet. It's really portfolio management. So essentially, we are in the market when we think that there are assets that are attractively priced. And if we find assets that we like, then we can always fund those through incremental dispositions. And we've wound up this year selling more than we probably plan to sell at the beginning of the year because we have been successful in finding some interesting acquisition candidates. So, that doesn't really displace development activity from a funding point-of-view. So, that's the first thing. And then in terms of the specific deals, we have been concentrating in the Mid-Atlantic. For the most part, we sold down in the Mid-Atlantic back in 2011 and 2012, kind of saw the softness coming here. So, we're actually under allocated against our kind of long-term targets. We haven't been as actively developing in this market through this cycle either. So, the one deal we bought in South Arlington after you allocate to the retail, we think, basically, it's a low-5% cap. 330,000 a unit for concrete frame construction, it's eight or nine years old, that's below replacement cost for that submarket. So, we felt that was a pretty compelling buy. That's a submarket that's suffered some in the last couple of years and we think has bottomed out and we're starting to see positive revenue growth there again, so, we feel like it was a well-timed acquisition and should be a great investment, The other deal we bought, just completed a lease-up. It's a smaller deal in North Hollywood and that the other region, I'd say were under allocated too at this point, is Southern California. It's been more difficult there because cap rates are quite a bit lower than there in the Mid-Atlantic. But still, that deal we think it's a low 4%s cap. And after allocating to the retail, we think the basis in the residential is about 400,000 a unit, which again, is a pretty compelling basis for that location, and that's a submarket where we are looking for more exposure where we see a lot of good things happening. And we think that we're in a good point in the cycle there.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
And just as a follow-up. Those are economic cap rates, right? And it'd be really helpful to get economic caps on the dispositions as well, overall.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Those are – I would say those are – I'm not sure what you mean by economic cap rates.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
Minus CapEx, I guess. CapEx-adjusted (37:58)
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. There's kind of a typical lender reserve CapEx number in there, but it's consistent. The dispose we've been selling this year we sold about $275 million in wholly-owned assets, and the cap rates there have been in the mid-5%s. And then we've also sold some fund assets. And of course, we've sold the asset in Seattle earlier this month that's not in that $275 million. That was a high-4%s cap.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. To be clear, when we quote cap rates, we're putting them on a market convention basis in terms of how the market would underwrite CapEx, not necessarily how we might underwrite CapEx for a particular asset.
Hardik Goel - Zelman & Associates:
Got it. All right. Thank you. That's all from my end.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good morning. Sean, what were overall new and renewals in 3Q for the portfolio? And how is that trending into October?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Conor. In terms of movements in Q3, average 2.1%, renewals were 4.8% blended to the 3.5% in Q3. And in October, obviously, the call is a little bit earlier this year than last year as I recall. But basically low-2% range for October to-date. This data is as of I'd call it a few days ago basically and still running in the high-4%s on the renewals, but slightly negative on the new move-ins, which is primarily a result of Northern California and New York and New England and Boston markets. A little bit of a push on our part to get a little more occupancy as we get into the latter part of the fourth quarter. So, a little more pressure on rate in October.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. And, Sean, I know last year in 3Q, you guys were aggressive in pushing price and taking the dip in occupancy. Do you think you're too aggressive this year in dropping occupancy to get price and particularly in the mid-Atlantic?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, last year, I'd say we were relatively aggressive. This year, as the years evolve, the posture has changed. Every market's a little bit different and really every asset's a little bit different. But I'm not sure that we would revisit the decisions a lot in the mid-Atlantic. We basically put out an expectation mid-year that things would continue to improve at a greater rate than what's actually occurred. Whether you can tie that back to rate of occupancy and say that we were too aggressive, I wouldn't necessarily say that. We were trying to push a bit. But to get the rate growth, you've got to have some of the occupancy, and if the occupancy doesn't show up, you're just not going to get it. So, I think it's really a blend of both. I wouldn't just say it's a one piece or the other.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you. And then, Matt, you earlier mentioned the delay at Columbus Circle. Is that due to permitting, or is that more a continued problem with finding a retail partner there?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Conor, its Tim. I can speak to that. I mean, we've been demolishing the existing building there for a good part of the year. We're just completing that process now, and still need to get final sign-off by the city. So, it's really been probably more a function of that. And I think as we reported maybe last quarter or the quarter before, we are still considering bringing in a capital partner there. It's not necessarily a requirement from our perspective, it's something we are considering, but that isn't holding up work. And we'll probably get started with maybe some site-enabling work here before the end of the year, but between kind of where – how long it took us to get the demolition done and finishing up our plans is looking at it's just looking like right around the end of the year for the start of the new building.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. And that will be the only deal that would possibly cause you to miss your guidance for $1.2 billion in starts this year?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
We think so. We think so at this point. The others look like they're pretty much going to happen in November, early December.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Good morning. Sean, you talked earlier about the weakness in Northern California and New York City among other markets. When you're looking at supply coming on line in those markets that are directly impacting your assets or likely to directly impact your assets, if you assume job growth remains static, I mean, when is the sort of peak sort of disruption to your assets from an operational standpoint? Are we in that now? Is that sometime in early 2017? Is that back-end 2017? How are you guys thinking about that?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. And you think about two specific markets thereof in terms of New York and Northern Cal, I assume.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Yeah.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Is that what you're thinking about primarily?
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Yep.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, so, I think for the most part, if you look at it, New York, supply is actually expected to increase in 2017 relative to 2016. So, I think the pain is going to continue in New York through 2017 for certain. It's really going to be what Tim said, which is a function of job growth with that being the economic environment that will determine rent change performance and ultimately revenue performance. But supply is expected to continue. And as it relates to our specific portfolio in New York City, really, what you worry about is supply being delivered in Midtown West is impacting us. That's probably the bulk of it. There's some supply in Long Island City, but it's more downtown than on the waterfront. And Long Island City is actually performing quite well. The other market that we'll probably going to start to see more pressure is in Brooklyn. There's more deliveries in Brooklyn next year as compared to this year. For the most part, it's been a relatively light year in deliveries. It's just starting to pick up in Q4. So, that's sort of the broad picture in New York. As it relates to Northern California, also expect to see a pickup in deliveries in Northern California next year, about 40 basis points, 50 basis points as compared to 2016. It goes from about 1.8% to 2.3%. Again, we're going to be massaging those numbers as we get to December and January. A number of those deals are already under construction, of course. But for the most part, what we're seeing is that those deals have been delayed in terms of actually getting through the system, getting everything signed off, et cetera. But if you look at where the deliveries are going to be concentrated, it's sort of the same places really in terms of what's happening mid-market, south market, et cetera. So, in terms of our portfolio, the Mission Bay assets and 55 9th will continue to be impacted in 2017. I don't have the quarterly breakdown for 2018 at this point, probably a little premature to talk about it. But by January, we'll have a pretty good outline of that.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then your turnover levels look pretty sort of static. Are you seeing any material increase in days vacant between turns?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Not really. When you look at it on a quarter-over-quarter basis, it's not really changing much. I think the third quarter was around 22%, 23%. That's pretty consistent for the third quarter, a lot of leasing velocity, a lot of turn activities. So, they're not changing materially. You'll see that number increase in the fourth quarter and in the first quarter, as a result of just the seasonal nature of the market and you don't have to turn things as fast because demand is not as robust in those quarters as compared to Q2 and Q3. Therefore, you're not going to outsource turns and things like that that cost more money just to get it done faster.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then any increase in bad debt?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Bad debt has been higher than our expectation, pretty much all year, around 13 basis points, 14 basis points higher. We expect it to be around 76 basis points or so. We're running closer to 90 basis points. And really, if you look at it for the full year in terms of operating expenses relative to our original budget, we're talking about an insignificant variance. It's like 0.2% in terms of total operating expenses relative to our original budget. And the only difference really is in bad debt.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. Thanks, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Gaurav Mehta with Cantor Fitzgerald.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Yeah. Thanks. Good morning. So, going back to your comments on supply and the performance divergence between suburban and urban assets, I was wondering if you could comment – if you expect that trend to continue, meaning suburban outperforming urban for next couple of years, and supply to remain focused on urban markets?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Maybe I can – I'll start and maybe Matt or Sean will step in. I think we are expecting supply in urban markets, urban submarkets to be twice that of suburban submarkets in 2017, which is actually a larger disparity than what we saw in 2016. So, you can see on that chart, it's been about a 200-basis-points delta on rent performance over the last, call it, eight quarters. We would expect that certainly to continue into 2017, and maybe to a lesser extent, as you get out into beyond 2018. But over the next one to two years, we think that trend's going to continue.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay. And then in your initial remarks, you also talked about equilibrium over next couple of years, and disciplined approach to capital allocation. I was wondering what that translates into development starts over the next few years?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, we have a pipeline of close to $4 billion, which would suggest kind of low-$1 billion range in terms of starts assuming they continue to make sense and they get through the process, and the economics make sense. But from a discipline standpoint, I guess I'd say a few things. Once we start Columbus Circle and the Hollywood deal, we'll actually have less than $100 million of land on the balance sheet, which actually is a cyclical low and maybe lower than last two cycles. So, part of the discipline has been around managing that land exposure in terms of when you actually buy the land versus option the land. And then secondly, as we've been talking about over the last few quarters is how we capitalize the deal once we do start them. As I mentioned, we're around 85% match-funded without consideration of any free cash flow right now. So in effect, we've already capitalized what's already been started and not just in – as we get later and later in the cycle, we'll continue to be conservative with how we manage the exposure of unfunded commitments. So, it's going to be somewhat dependent on how attractive the deals are relative to the capital environment at this time. But as we said, on one of the slides, we showed one of the slides, over the last 20 years as a public company, we have demonstrated we can continue to create value through all phase of the cycles as long as you are disciplined, how you bring those deals into the pipeline and ultimately how you capitalize them.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll now take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Hey. Good morning. Just two questions here. First, on slide 15, the returns that you guys have had on the developments over time, just surprised that the West Coast has had lower returns on average than the East Coast. Would have thought that there would have been more cap rate compression to drive higher returns, so if you could just give a comment maybe it's the fact that's just land from the get-go was more expensive out there, and therefore, you just never get there but that part was a little bit surprising given cap rate compression?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. Alex, Tim here. Yeah. I guess the point here and part of the slide is being a good or a skilled capital allocator is as much about sort of timing and being tactically smart. And by the way, this is all investment, so it isn't just development, this would include acquisitions to be clear. And interestingly, our return on acquisitions aren't materially different than development, which sort of speaks to being highly disciplined sort of – in terms of investing earlier in the cycle with respect to acquisitions. I mentioned in our comments, we've made more money where we've been the longest, Northern California and Mid-Atlantic. So, part of that is just understanding the markets, having deeper relationships, being confident that you're focused on the right deals at the right time of the cycle, which only comes through experience and track record in our view. So, I think – and then the last thing I'd say is this is only through Q3 of 2014. So, I think if you looked at Seattle in particular, just given some of our recent deals that have completed, those numbers actually will go up from what you see there of around 10.3%. In the case of Southern California, you're just starting at such a low going-in yield, cap rate compression has really occurred throughout, really, all of our markets, probably through all the markets nationally. And if anything, where you're probably seeing it is there's probably a more cap rate compression on the urban product than there has been in the suburban products. So it's probably been – it probably hasn't been geographical as much as it's been sub-market focused. But again, it comes down – we're looking at managing to total return and sometimes that's investing at higher-yielding, slower-growth markets. Sometimes it's lower-yielding, higher-growth markets. And I think this chart just really reflects that.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then the second question is in response to one of the analysts' questions earlier about San Francisco and if you're seeing sort of a back flow from East Bay back into San Francisco, you said you're not. Are you seeing any change in demand in San Francisco or is it because your portfolio has a – good chunk of it is suburb that, maybe, you're not seeing – you're not feeling the impact of a lot of the two-month rent concession that's attracting renters to move around San Francisco?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Alex. Sean. A couple of things. In terms of my comment earlier about people moving from the East Bay back into the city or back into San Jose, my response is really that we've seen a little bit of that, but it's not a meaningful number at this point, given things have decelerated in San Francisco obviously pretty quickly that if someone was considering living in San Francisco at this time last year relative to the East Bay, that's a pretty expensive proposition. And whether you've started to see meaningful deceleration in the second half of this year in that market, people sign one-year leases, they typically lag a year or two before they say, okay, the rents have really come down. I think that's the right kind of trade to make. And my point was during the beginning part of the cycle, San Francisco and San Jose outperformed quite well before the East Bay caught up, and then the East Bay has been outperforming the last couple of years. So, you would expect that to occur just in the opposite direction as the market decelerates. And in terms of the comment about demand, I mean, certainly, as Tim pointed out, it is a weaker economic environment and I think many of us anticipated, which has resulted in lower job growth across the market with the exception probably of Seattle. And Northern California has not been immune from that. So, there's certainly a weaker demand profile in Northern California. It just so happens to be at a time when we have meaningful supply being delivered in San Francisco. And, therefore, you're seeing one month or two month concessions sort of the norm on all of the new deliveries in San Francisco as an example.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Sean, do you feel that you're sort of on the tail end of that or you think that we're having – you guys expect to have another year of that and, therefore, as you outline next year, you're still going to be talking about the pressure on demand and supply in San Francisco?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I still think there's going to be demand. I mean, assuming that job growth is basically the same and deliveries continue at the rate that's forecasted, which pretty much is vague at this point because those buildings are delivering now. I would expect that Northern California and San Francisco specifically, that's what you're interested in, will continue to be a weak environment. So, we saw a significant uptick in job growth. That equation might change.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
We'll take a question from Rich Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey. Good morning, guys. I just was curious about your comment about the apartments reaching sort of a steady state. And as I'm thinking about what you've put on the boards the first nine months relative to your full year guidance, it looks like to me, maybe revenue growth and NOI growth in the fourth quarter might be decelerating to 3.4% and 2.7%. So, I'm wondering if I was thinking about that correctly. And then number two, if that's sort of the steady state we should be thinking about going into 2017 or are we supposed to be more bullish or maybe a little bit more cautious? Any color or transparency would be helpful in that regard.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Rich, Tim here. In terms of Q4, I think your math's approximately correct as it relates to kind of what we're looking for the – in terms of year-over-year growth. Steady state for us or equilibrium shouldn't be a whole lot more than inflation from our perspective. I think historically, if you looked at our markets, we've been able to generate roughly 70, 75 basis points stronger growth than inflation, whereas nationally, it's been probably a little bit closer to inflation. And that's equated into a kind of high 2%, maybe just sub-3% kind of rent growth. And so...
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
...we're talking about equilibrium. That's the kind of rate of growth we expect to see. We obviously started this year well above that trend. And so, while we have seen moderation, our view has been it's been moderating more towards an industry that's starting to approach demand and supply being roughly equal after six years of really in balance. And it's kind of what you'd expect after a while in capital markets where capital should flow freely to businesses that are sustaining outperformance.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Yeah. Yeah. I mean – and to that point, and maybe taking a little bit more of a positive and longer-term view, do you characterize this supply that's coming to market as more of a bottleneck? Or looking longer term, can you make the case that we have enough apartments in the United States or maybe we even need a little bit more apartments in the United States? So I'm curious in your view as an owner of apartments...
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
...and most likely taking a 10-year view rather than a 6- to 12-month view, how do you think about that? So, said other way – yeah, go ahead.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. No. I think I followed. Our expectations, we're going to see household formation of over 1 million, 1.2 million to 1.4 million kind of on a steady state basis based upon a reasonable growth in population and jobs. And our view is that if you just look at underlying demographics in I would millennials age that we're going to see more balanced housing demand between for sale and rental. Most of the rental has been – I mean most of the multi-family that has been built has been purpose built as rental. And so, right now, you have an industry that's generating about 1.2 million houses, new units against demand that's about 1.2 million. About two-thirds of that is single family, which is the only purpose built is for sale, and about a third of that is multi-family, which is purpose built as rental. The numbers almost can't be more imbalanced than that.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Yeah, got it.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
So, we look at – we're going from an industry that's been out of balance where real housing demand has been close to 80% or more of total housing demand, kind of an earlier sort of cycle to where it seems like we've found sort of a new normal, if you will. So, that's our view.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi. Yes. Good morning, everyone. Just there's been a lot of talk recently about rent control hitting the ballot during the election season in the Bay Area. Just kind of curious what you're hearing, what you think the probability of that happening is, and what could be the potential impact to your portfolio?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yes, Tayo. It's Sean. You are correct that rent control is on the ballot in about five different municipalities in the Northern California market. Only one of the – I can't speak to exactly what's likely to pass and what's not. That probably changes from week to week depending on which poll you read. But there is support for – more of the majority support for some of those ordinances based on recent polling. There's really only one that potentially impacts our portfolio, which is the proposed rent control ordinance in Mountain View. And if you look at it, it depends on how it's actually adopted. There's actually two proposed ordinances on the ballot in Mountain View, one that's sponsored by the city, and the other that is sort of a voter referendum. And to the extent that it comes to fruition, Mountain View, overall, when you look at the assets that are impacted, it would impact around 9% to 10% of our Northern California revenue in terms of the specific assets that fit the vintage that would be governed by the proposed ordinance. And the rent increases, it is a blend. It's limited to CPI Plus but it's got a collar on it, minimum 2, max 5. And you can bank it, so you're going to get it over time one way or another in terms of what's happening in the market through (01:00:53) control, et cetera.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll now take a question from Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird & Company.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to break down New York Metro a little bit more. You mentioned that New York Metro results disappointed year-to-date relative to your expectations. I assume that's been driven more by New York City with New York suburban and New Jersey actually both showing sequential acceleration in 3Q. Did that sequential acceleration in those suburban markets surprise you or is that something that was in the underwriting?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No. We did expect some acceleration in those markets. It actually came in a little bit short of our expectations, but we did expect some acceleration in those markets. If you look at the fourth quarter, we are falling short across the geography, New York and Metro New Jersey, less so in New Jersey than certainly in New York and particularly in New York City. But for the most part, I'd say, the Greater New York region has fallen short of expectations and to a certain degree in New Jersey but just more moderately so.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
You would characterize the suburban kind of marginal weakness kind of trickle-down from what's happening in New York with new supply and people just adjusting to pricing in the market or what might be behind that?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
No, I wouldn't say that it's significantly weaker. Just we thought things would pick up a little bit more, but the job growth in that region has been weaker over the last six months. So, I think, it's more widespread as opposed to as it relates to – most people are moving from Central Jersey to Manhattan, as an example, just that trade and rent, usually doesn't make much sense. You don't see that happen. The same thing when you get into Westchester or Long Island, making the trades come into the city is just prohibitively expensive.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Okay. And then one quick one on the Downtown Brooklyn development. I noticed the completion date was away from 4Q 2016 to 1Q 2017, but it looks like the leasing statistics and stabilization date are on pace and nothing's really changed there. So, I'm just curious what's behind kind of moving the completion date?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Drew, this is Matt. It's really just – when we get into finishing a building, particularly a building of that size and complexity, when we're actually going to be able to kind of close out all the books and everything. And whether the last apartment homes' turn over for occupancy in December or January, it's going to be somewhere right around that timeframe. So, it's not a response to anything we're seeing. As you pointed out, the lease up's been doing great. So, it's just a question of it's a 440-some-million-dollar asset. So, we may keep the books open one quarter longer just to make sure we've got everything.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Hey, everyone. Thanks for taking my question here. Most have been answered already. But just sticking with the New Jersey commentary, not necessarily the answer to just the last question but earlier I thought it sounded like Jersey was specific markets where you're seeing some of that slow down relative to earlier expectations. I would presume that's sort of Jersey City Waterfront markets, but just curious if it's more widespread than that.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, this is Sean, Vincent. In terms of our portfolio, we really only have one asset in Jersey City. So, there's certainly a meaningful amount of supply being delivered there. But the portfolio performance isn't significantly impacted by just that one asset. As I mentioned, I said job growth has slowed in that region over the last six months. And I think it's more widespread and it's just representative of what you're seeing across all of those markets, whether it'd be parts of Central Jersey, Northern, Long Island, Westchester et cetera, job growth has come down across the entire region. So, yeah, that's really what you're seeing is more softer demand. The supply is sort of as expected.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Got it. Thanks. And then you really have talked about most of markets here except for LA. So, just curious if you could give us some commentary on what you're seeing there. We have seen some slowing in the same-store revenue growth for a couple quarters now, and job growth there also seems to be also decelerating. So, how should we be thinking about LA going into 2017?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, for the most part, LA is performing quite well. I mean, there's the only place where there's any pocket of weakness, really, is to get stabilize the assets let's say in Downtown LA as an example. Whether it's a meaningful amount of supply being delivered there, we only have one operating asset there, (01:05:46) that we completed earlier in the cycle. But for the most part, LA is tracking just fine. Job growth has been slightly weaker, and so that's weighed on performance a little bit. But in terms of our expectation for that market, we're tracking pretty close to what we expect in the back half of the year.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank:
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yep.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Nick Joseph with Citigroup.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Hey, it's Michael Bilerman. Tim, I'm curious as you think back to the Archstone transaction where you and EQR split up the portfolio. If assets were to come to market within your six regions, I guess, where and obviously at the right price, and at the right cost of capital, I guess, which regions or markets would be most interested to you to deepen your presence?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah, Michael. I've got couple of comments. First of all, one of the things that was great about the Archstone transaction, it basically allowed us to get roughly to a target portfolio, particularly as related to Southern California, which we sort of had always been short in. But right now, we're not significantly off kind of where we'd like to be in any one region. I think Matt mentioned it's been a little bit behind our buying in the D.C. area. But we think tactically, it's not a bad time to be buying there, and we have been a little under-allocated since we (01:07:15) bid kind of in early 2010 or earlier this decade. So, it's probably from a market standpoint, it's probably still D.C. and Southern California because those are markets where we could probably still stay in a little bit more allocation, and we don't think from a market condition standpoint and cycle standpoint, it's too bad of a time to be investing a little bit more cap loans and trimming in some other areas.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
And as you think about sort of the debt and equity capital that's out there to finance apartment transactions, obviously we've been – we've come off two years of significant activity by private equity and buying large apartment portfolios and platforms. How do you sort of look at the market today in terms of being able to finance larger deals both from a debt and equity perspective?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
I'll maybe just speak from a public market standpoint and maybe wake up Kevin over here, who's been absent in this conversation. So...
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
He gets one. He gets one.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
But you look at where the apartment rates are trading obviously relative to underlying NAV. It doesn't make sense to be using your balance sheet to finance. To the extent you see a portfolio out there looks better than what you currently own and you can finance it through some kind of asset swap or 1031, perhaps that makes sense. That (01:08:41) from an unsecured standpoint, but we wouldn't be looking – and I don't know that – I guess I'd be surprised if anybody is actively looking at really levering up to grow at this point in the cycle. And so, unless you can find a way to do it on a leverage-neutral way, I think public entities are probably at a disadvantage today to the extent something came to market. Kevin, any other thoughts? You want to say hello?
Kevin P. O'Shea - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
A comment on Southern California leasing spreads, too. So, Michael, I guess, certainly, from a financing point of view in the private markets, things are tightening up a little bit, particularly on the construction area, as many of you are well aware already. So, I think from a supply standpoint, longer term that is a bit of a headwind for those who are looking to add new supply on the private side and finance it. And the debt markets particularly for small, less well-capitalized developers, pricing and construction financing has probably moved beyond 300 basis points over LIBOR, which affects, of course, what kind of deals pencil. And then, you've got the OCC, which is – it's pushing banks to lend less on real estate. And the regulatory environment for banks has become more expensive for them to be active in the construction market and be profitable. And so, I think you're seeing that getting construction financing, particularly in some of these urban submarkets, is a lot more difficult than it has been before. For stabilized financing, the GSEs certainly have been active for the uncapped business. There is certainly availability that's mostly affordable and types of opportunities. I think they do expect a record production year. The caps have been lifted a number of times but their interest in Class A product is more modest as you're well aware. Nonetheless, banks and insurance companies have been pretty active while CMBS has been far less so due to the risk retention rules. So, I think when you step back in time to some of the comments Tim made, capital's there for deals that make sense, but it's certainly not as plentiful now as it has been in recent years on the debt market side. And I think probably a lot of – on the equity side, joint venture sources of capital have been a lot more disciplined because they like you and we have been seeing the same headlines about supply in some of the markets that are out there. So, they're probably a little bit more cautious, but at the same time, relative to some other sectors in real estate, multifamily even at trend level revenue growth does provide pretty healthy returns that one can reasonably bank on achieving over a long term.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Right. Well, I guess that's what sets up divergence between the public stock trading at discounts and whether there's enough private capital out there both from a debt and equity perspective that would find those attractive enough to – or the companies themselves saying, you know what, I don't want to trade at a discount anymore. I can monetize that spread by tapping into it. The question is is that debt and equity as excited about the multifamily business as it has been over the past couple of years, given the volume of deals that has transpired already. I'm looking for you for the answer.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah and I think it's going to be some of the function of the balance sheet as a target to the extent they're financed more through secured versus unsecured and maybe more doable than – and we've seen some recent examples of that in the apartment space. Obviously, where we had cleaner balance sheets and more unsecured, they tend to be more kind of public-to-public and where you had more secured financing and maybe a little higher leverage, it tend to be more attractive to the private side. So, I think that's probably as big of a factor as well as just kind of where private versus public market valuations are trending.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thanks for the time.
Operator:
Our next question will come from Neil Malkin with RBC Capital Markets.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one is on jobs. You've kind of made a commentary about job growth being basically in line with this year and next year. But I wonder, digging a little bit deeper, do you guys look at the types or quality of that job creation? And I ask that because if you look at the higher-paying jobs, professional business services, tech, stuff like that, in some coastal markets we're seeing slowdowns, which would auger for less traffic, especially at the high price point type of assets that you guys have. And I wonder if you've kind of baked that into your guidance, because not all jobs, not all demand is created equal. So, how do you kind of think about that particularly in, let's say, New York and San Francisco when you have job growth that's may be flat but, for example, in New York, you have a lot of hotel and leisure jobs. And I don't know if they can afford $4,000 a month, $5,000 a month apartment. So, do you guys have a view on that at all?
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Well, we're looking at jobs in a number of ways. I mean, there's pretty good data out there related to kind of mid, high and low-wage job growth. And I think actually we've gotten later in the cycle, we've actually seen stronger growth in our markets, and kind of the mid to higher-wage segments, particularly the mid-wage segments, where it's kind of early in the cycle because I think its little bit more tilted towards lower. There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect right now. Openings are higher than hires right now, which is putting – which is a good thing from a wage growth standpoint, which allows people to pay higher rents for sure. But it does seem to be that there may be a growing disconnect between what jobs are open versus the availability of labor to fill them. Certainly, if you look at college graduates, the unemployment – we're at full employment for sure, people with college degrees. And that is the majority of our residents. So, you may not see as much job growth there, Neil, for that reason over the next year or two. And I think it's likely to sort of mimic something closer to population growth, but on the other hand, it should translate into stronger wage growth than we've seen maybe kind of in the early years of the cycle.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks. And then next question is just given that new leases have slowed across the board, but renewals stay in the mid-single-digits, what is the gain or loss lease in your portfolio, and what's your comfort level on that either way as we go into 2017 or in maybe a slower or a more dubious part of this cycle?
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. No. Neil, that's a good question. One thing to think about related to that is gain or loss lease sort of moves around throughout the seasons of the calendar year. In our business, market rents grow pretty rapidly from sort of early-February up through July, early August, and then trail off in terms of what's expected for basically the latter part of the third quarter and the fourth quarter. So, taking a snapshot of loss to lease, at this moment in time, doesn't necessarily represent how you want to think about rent growth for next year. So, I think you've really got to sort of model it in a way that you look at the typical trajectory of rents from the trough late in the fourth quarter to the peak, to the following August. And then, determine how much you think you're going to get during that period of time that will then ripple through lease expirations. So, that's how we think about it more so than, we've got X percent or X dollars sort of baked in right at this moment based on today's market rent, if that makes sense, does that make sense?
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Well, yeah, I understand it goes through cycles based on peak or shoulder season. I just mean if you think about how you're rolling over sort of a trailing four quarter period, right, you would have a full cycle or a leasing season. And I just wonder, I think someone asked the question earlier, I mean, when does that start to impact potentially renewals, to essentially you don't want to generate a gain to lease that's unsustainable or that will leave you susceptible if markets turn or job growth slows more than you think.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I guess one way to describe that too, I guess if we just sort of take a snapshot of where the rent roll was today relative to what the rent roll has averaged for 2016, you're kind of in the low 1% range, 1.25% or something like that if nothing happen next year in terms of rents growing at all, you'd be delivering north of 1% revenue growth in sort of a static market. I mean, that's one way to look at it. And then you just have to apply what you think is going to happen with rent growth through the fourth quarter and then throughout 2017 to determine what you think you're actually going to really do in 2017.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Sure.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's question-and-answer session. At this time, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - AvalonBay Communities, Inc.:
Thanks, Jessica, and thanks, everybody, for being on today. And I think we'll see most of you next month in Phoenix at NAREIT. So, take care. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Kris R. Trafton - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker) Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker)
Operator:
Please, stand by. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Second Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations:
Thank you, Augusta, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities second quarter 2016 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes, thanks, Jason, and welcome to our second quarter call. With me today is Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I will provide commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. My comments will focus on providing a summary of Q2 and year-to-date results, our revised midyear outlook for 2016, our view regarding the trajectory and durability of the current apartment cycle, and lastly, a look at how current development activity is contributing to our earnings growth. So, starting on slide four, it was a solid quarter where we achieved core FFO growth greater than 8.5% from a combination of healthy same-store revenue and NOI growth of 5% and contributions from new lease-ups as we completed almost $200 million at a projected yield of just under 7%. Year-to-date, core FFO was up over 10%, again, driven by a combination of internal growth from the stabilized portfolio and external growth from stabilizing development. For the first half of the year, our same-store portfolio performed in line with budget, although a bit ahead of budget in Q1 and a little behind in Q2. I'll discuss this trend a little more in a couple of minutes. Turning to slide five and our updated outlook for the year, in short, overall expectations for core FFO are in line with our original outlook which called for core FFO growth of 9%. Our projection for same-store NOI growth has been trimmed by about 40 basis points or approximately $0.03 per share for the full year but is offset by contributions from other categories. That said, our full year outlook for core FFO remains unchanged. Projected investment and funding activity for the year remains more or less in line with our original expectation with some minor variances. Turning now to slide six, we thought we'd provide a little more color regarding our outlook for the same-store portfolio in the second half of the year. As I mentioned earlier, we performed in line with expectations for the first half of the year, although in Q2, we did not experience the seasonal strength and effective rent growth that we're accustomed to seeing. This trend appears to be largely demand-driven as economic and job growth fell short of expectations for the first half of the year, and declining business confidence and investment no doubt was a contributing factor as recent uncertainty and global events have left businesses hesitant to make new commitments. Turning to slide seven, slower economic growth impacts corporate and transient demand, which helps fuel seasonal strength in the second and third quarters for our business. A weaker corporate and transient demand affects us in two ways; first, a reduction in premium income, which typically runs 50% to 60% higher per lease; and secondly, an effective increase in market vacancy as, in effect, inventories essentially added back to the market. Turning to slide eight. As economic conditions have moderated over the last two quarters to three quarters, effective rent growth in our same-store portfolio expressed as like-term rent change has remained in the 4% range over the last six months to seven months. And while like-term rent change did improve modestly in Q2, we did not see the same seasonal lift we've seen in prior years so far this cycle. And turning to slide nine, of course, performance does vary across our regions. The fact that rent growth has moderated, most notably in Northern California and the Northeast, while Seattle and the Mid-Atlantic have been trending up, rent growth in Southern California remains healthy in the 6% range. Turning to slide 10, as you might expect, these trends are impacting our outlook for portfolio performance for the year. Again, the Northeast and Northern California has fallen short of projected budget, while Seattle and D.C. are expected to outperform. Overall, the net impact is resulting in a reduction of same-store revenue of almost 40 basis points for the full year with all of that expected shortfall to occur in the second half of the year. Turning now to slide 11, just given trends in the operating environment, we thought we'd just revisit where we think we are in the cycle. We still believe that fundamentals point mostly in favor of an extended cycle, much like we saw in the 1990s. As you can see on this chart, consumer confidence remains on solid footing at cyclically high levels, and young adults are feeling the best and leading the way. Turning to slide 12, consumer confidence is being shaped in large part by an improved employment picture, with jobless claims continuing their fall since the cycle began and job openings now outpacing hiring activities. And as you could see on slide 13, the growing strength in the labor market seems to finally be putting pressure on wages as evidenced by recent ADP reports. And combined with reduced debt burden and stronger balance sheet you can see on chart two, the consumer is in good shape and getting stronger, which bodes well for continued economic growth given their contribution to the GDP. Turning to slide 14, in addition, renter demand should continue to be supported by favorable demographics, with the largest segment of Millennials in their early to mid-20s still moving into their prime household formation and renting years. Obviously, demographics have been a major driver of renter demand this past cycle and they continue to support healthy renter demand over the next five-plus years even if homeownership rates begin to stabilize as a leading edge of Millennials begin to consider buying a home. Turning to slide 15, the supply side of the equation is encouraging as well. Apartment deliveries are expected to peak nationally in 2016 and 2017 as permitting for new projects has slowed down over the last two quarters to three quarters from the cyclical highs in 2015. This is due in part to tightening credit from multi-family construction which has become much more pronounced over the last couple of quarters. Turning to slide 16, in addition to the apartment sector remaining in balance, the picture for the overall housing market looks positive as well. Our projections for new housing production are in line with household formation over the next four years. But it's important to note that, first, these figures, the supply figures ignore obsolescence or destruction of roughly 400,000 units per year. And they also assume that housing production over the next four years increases by 30% from its current level and roughly doubles what we've seen so far on average this cycle. So overall, while we may be seeing economic growth moderate a bit, we don't see any real tangible side that the apartment or housing cycle was nearing its end. Rather, we are still seeing solid demand growth matched by what we believe is reasonable levels of new supply to meet that demand. Turning to slide 17, within this operating environment, one where demand and supply are expected to remain in balance, we believe that we are well-positioned to continue to deliver outsized growth from our development platform. So far this cycle, we've completed over $4 billion of new development at initial stabilized yields on average of around 7% are well in excess of our marginal cost of capital during this time which has contributed to strong core FFO growth over the last few years. And finally, turning to slide 18, development should continue to drive solid external growth going forward as development underway along with non-stabilized recent completions to generate another $200 million of NOI with less than $400 million of capital required to complete this basket of $3.3 billion of assets. With these assets projected to yield well above our marginal cost of capital, most of which has already been raised, we are positioned to deliver industry-leading external growth over the next two years to three years. So, in summary, 2016 is shaping up to be another strong year for AvalonBay, and we believe that the company is very well-positioned from an investment and funding perspective to outperform going forward. And with that, Augusta, we'd like to open the call for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. This question-and-answer session will be conducted electronically. We'll go first to Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Given the more muted near-term 2016 operating outlook, does it give you any pause in terms of development starts in the back half of the year?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Nick, this is Tim. No, not really. I mean, I would kind of point to the last few charts and talking about where we think we are in the cycle. We think the cycle still has room to run, the economic cycle and more broadly the housing cycle and the apartment cycle. So what would give us pause if we thought the cycle was maybe nearing its end and the cost of capital was – that we need in order to fund those commitments change dramatically. But in terms of the expected yields on that basket of communities relative to what we think we can fund them at, we think it still provides an attractive accretive growth. So at this point, I'd say no.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. And then just in terms of the markets, maybe one that surprised on the negative and one on the positive. Can you talk about what you're seeing in New England and then in the Pacific Northwest?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes, sure, Nick, it's Sean. Happy to talk about that. In terms of New England, first, it's typically more seasonal than most of our markets. And if you look at what's happened throughout the year, rent change started the year in the mid-2% range and has trended up to about 3.5%. But it's running well below both last year's rate of about 5% and our initial expectations. And I think it's largely a result of two things. One is job growth in the first five months or six months of the year has been somewhat disappointing at an annualized rate of about 1.5% relative to expectations, closer to about 2% for the full year. And then also the transient demand that Tim referred to has been pretty weak in Boston this year, which put downward pressure on rental rates in the late spring and the early summer. So in terms of New England, that's kind of what's happening there. And as it relates to Seattle, Seattle, for the most part, is all about demand. And in the first half of the year, job growth is running in the mid-4% range. I think most forecasters that we rely on had projected a slowdown in hiring in the Seattle market and it has not slowed down. There's still plenty of supply, about 3.5% of inventory, but the surprise has been on the demand side in terms of job growth. There's still softness in the sort of urban core of Seattle. We don't have many assets there. We really have two operating assets in those submarkets. But if you move out to the north end, and you move to Redmond, you move to Bellevue, revenue growth is still relatively robust. And I think the difference between Seattle and Northern California in terms of what you're seeing in performance is you really have some well-established, large, well-capitalized companies driving the hiring in the tech sector in Seattle as compared to a lot of the smaller businesses that make up a greater share of employment in Northern California that are more susceptible to changes in funding tied to the D.C. market and what's happening with IPO valuations, et cetera. So that's really what's been helping Seattle. It's really the job growth.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. And then just finally, looks like bad debt increased. Could you talk about what drove that increase and if it was in any specific markets?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. Did you say bad debt, Nick, just so I get you clearly?
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Yes.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. No, bad debt was up about 15 basis points year-over-year. We are seeing elevated levels of bad debt across four of the six regions. About 60% of it, though, is coming from a combination of factors in the New York region, really three things that I could point to. One, is the core process is slow considerably in 2016 relative to 2015, so it's taking a lot longer to get sort of judgment if you want to call it that. And our policy is to write things off after a certain period of time, if we collect it later, it will be an offset, but we're running things off more rapidly. And then secondly is we're just not getting the same level of judgments that we were seeing based on some new judges in certain courts. And then thirdly is we did have one corporate housing provider kind of go belly up on us. It was only 15 homes but it represented a couple of months of rent. The underlying client was actually still paying so it's sort of an anomaly in the system I guess I would say. But New York is about 60% of the total increase, so that (16:45).
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rich Hightower with Evercore ISI.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
Hey. Good morning, everyone. So a quick question here on the New York/New Jersey region. It does seem that the revised projection is not meaningfully below the original projection, but somewhat below. So could you break down what you're seeing in the different submarkets, whether it's Manhattan or Brooklyn or even the outlying suburbs and just where you're seeing pockets of strength or weakness on either the supply or demand side there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Rich, this is Sean again. Happy to do so. First, overall for New York/New Jersey, just to give you a sense of how it's trended throughout the year across that portfolio, rent change increased from about 1.5% in Q1 to roughly 3% for Q2. And while we've had a good progress on renewal rent change, which is in the low 4% range, move-in rent change remains pretty stubbornly low at around 1.5%. It hasn't really improved much through the second quarter or into July. And I think what you're seeing there, particularly in New York City, which I'm including Northern New Jersey in kind of this general description of the geography at this point, is while there's been steady job growth, there's just not enough high-paying jobs being created to absorb all the new supply that's all being delivered at the high end of the market. And if you look at the performance, particularly recent performance, the suburban markets in and around New York are performing better than the city. We're seeing rent growth in New York City that's sort of in the mid-2% range. But as you move into Long Island and Northern and Central New Jersey, we get up to the 3% to 4% and even 5% in Central Jersey over the last quarter. So, in general, I'd say the supply is weighing most heavily on the New York City market, so including the boroughs in Northern New Jersey, and we're seeing better performance out of the suburban submarkets.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
All right, Sean, that's helpful. And then one also final question on property tax increases. I know that they were up 9% for the quarter. I guess if you could pinpoint this, when can we expect that trend to sort of taper off a little bit, or do you think we're sort of just in for consistent mid-single-digit to high single-digit growth for a little while here?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. Really it's the taxes. The second quarter and the first half are really a reflection of prior year activity, for the most part. About 2/3 of the increase in taxes relates to supplemental assessments that were reversed last year in the second quarter. Our expectation is that by the time we get to year-end, taxes will probably be growing on a year-over-year basis in the 4% range, 3.5% to 4% range. So there's a lot of noise in there in terms of the appeal to whether we achieve something this quarter what we received in the same quarter last year, et cetera sort of muddies the comps a little bit, but call it 3.5% to 4% is the expected growth rate in Texas for the calendar year 2016.
Richard Allen Hightower - Evercore Group LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. First question, it looked like turnover for the whole portfolio was up a little bit, hoping you could put a little color behind the markets if you're seeing any markets vary materially from that trend?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. I mean, if you look at it, it's a little bit of (20:21) I would say. It's basically 61% this year and last year in the same quarter. And if you look at turnover as a percentage of expirations, because expirations do move around a little bit, turnover was actually down about 100 basis points. So, the only market where there's anything to note is that Pacific Northwest was up about 300 basis points year-over-year. It's sort of to be expected given the nature of the rent increases that we're achieving in that market that turnover's up. So other than that, for the most part, relatively benign change in turnover on a year-over-year basis.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. And then, how about concessions? Are you seeing any shift in concessions and particularly, I guess, in Northern California and in the New York City or any increased prevalence of concessions?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. There definitely is, I'd say, a trend of increased concessions primarily in the New York City market and in San Francisco. Those are probably the two places that you're seeing at. And for the most part, I think it's a direct reflection of just the lease-up activity that we're seeing in those markets. So, in both San Francisco and particularly in Manhattan, there's a fair amount of concessions at the lease-up communities. And then the stabilized assets do tend to compete based on those price points, so in many cases or market-to-market rents, but in some cases where you think it might be an aberration for a short period of time, we might use the concession as opposed to reducing the rent, particularly in New York when you're faced with communities that have legal rent caps and things like that you're trying to manage with.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. And then just lastly, as you look at your second half outlook, and I believe there's 3% to 4% revenue growth outlook, what would the pace look like through the years? Do you see the third quarter and fourth quarter relatively similar? Or do you see a shift in momentum as you exit the year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. I mean, what's implied by the revised outlook is high-3% range in terms of revenue growth in the second half. Expect it to be slightly above that in the third quarter and slightly below that in the fourth quarter.
Dennis Patrick McGill - Zelman Partners LLC:
Okay. Perfect. Okay. Thank you, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning. It's Austin Wurschmidt here with Jordan. Just up until this point really, the weakness that we've talked about has really been supply-driven and this is one of the first references I recall of being more on the demand side. So I guess I'm just curious aside from – you mentioned New England being one of the markets where job growth has come in below expectations. What other markets are you seeing demand sort of weaker than you initially expected? And then what gives you the confidence with, I guess, greater uncertainty in the world and the election upcoming that things could reaccelerate or level out?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. I could speak to maybe some of the near-term things, and then Tim might want to speak to sort of the broader cycle, which I think is what he referenced in his prepared remarks in terms of acceleration or deceleration, but in terms of current trends, as Tim mentioned, job growth overall is running below expectations across the country. I'd say with the exception of what we're seeing in terms of acceleration in the Mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest, most of the other markets are slightly below expectations in terms of job growth for this year. So given the level of supply which was anticipated and reduced job growth, that's where you see us falling short a little bit in terms of our expectations for revenue growth in the second half of the year. But in terms of the broader outlook, Tim could probably reference some thoughts on that.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes. Just to be clear, I wasn't calling for an acceleration of fundamentals. What I was saying is we believe that the cycle is not done and we're not actually going to see a continued deceleration. I think the one charge, we've seen like-term rent change be right in the 4% range now for the last six months or seven months. That's a period of time when we have seen weaker economic activity than we have anticipated. And I think job growth has been off about 50 basis points from what we had projected and I just think when there's just less economic activity and job growth, you're going to have a little less household formation. But having said that, as we said in our management letter, we do expect rent change to be in the 3% to 4% range for the balance of the year. That is at or above trend, long-term trend. That is still very healthy rent growth for our business. So we're not necessarily calling for reacceleration to cyclical highs, but we don't think it's over yet. And, again, it's one of the reasons why we compare it to the 1990s. If you go back to the 1990s and you just sort of chart what rent growth and revenue growth look like, it moved around from year-to-year based upon what was happening in that particular year from an economic activity standpoint. It does ebb and flow a bit, and that's just the way economies work. But we don't see the kind of distortions that you might expect to see. You see some weakness, but you don't see the kind of distortions that you might expect to see that results in a lot of dislocation and ultimately leads to negative economic growth of recession.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
I appreciate the detail there. And then you kind of touched a little bit on Southern California and I was just curious, that was a market that was sort of trending ahead of expectations early in the year. And now you're calling for things to soften into the second half of next year and didn't really highlight it as an outperformer versus your initial projections. Can you just give a little detail as to what's driving some of that softness into the second half of the year and then maybe a little detail by submarket would be helpful.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. This is Sean. On that topic, basically Southern California as you pointed out slightly ahead in the first half, it's basically slightly behind in the second half as a function of the macroeconomic things that we spoke about in terms of job growth, et cetera. The supply is pretty much as expected. And so I don't know that there's a great story in Southern California in terms of whether it's a deceleration other than the job environment. I mean if you look at it, we had a little bit of a boost in the Los Angeles region particularly San Fernando Valley in the first half of the year as a result of just a one-off issue which was a gas leak in that area that drove some initial demand in the first quarter boosted occupancy but we've given that back in the second quarter. So there was a little bit of a lift in the first quarter and first half as a result of that. So that's partly reflected in a deceleration I guess if you want to call it as you look to second half relative to the first half. But it's basically performing on plan. Los Angeles is healthy. Orange County has been slightly choppy but still relatively healthy. You've got some supply coming into Anaheim, Irvine and Huntington Beach creates a little bit of choppiness, but for the most part that product is being absorbed. And then San Diego just continues to perform quite well. So, I don't know that there's any unusual story coming out of Southern California other than slightly lower job growth and then the sort of one-time boost that we received in the first half of the year from the gas leak that occurred.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thank you for taking the questions.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Kris Trafton with Credit Suisse.
Kris R. Trafton - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
I'm just following up on Jordan's (sic) [Austin's] (28:03) question. Given that we're expecting deliveries to peak this year in markets outside New York and job growth continues around 150,000 pace a month, not looking for 2017 guidance, but is your thought that revenue growth could potentially bottom at the end of this year?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, I'll just go back to my earlier comments. I think revenue growth can move around for the balance of the cycle. It's very different than what we saw in the 2000s where rents went up, and then when they stopped going up, they went down. So far this cycle, I think you even saw in those two charts that we put up, one that showed the entire portfolio and one that showed the six regions. Even after you sort of neutralize for seasonality, rents have moved around a bit even this cycle, and we're saying we think that we're going to continue to see that a bit. Having said all that, we do see demand and supply becoming more in balance, which means we think we're going to get – we're moderating towards trend right now or a little bit above trend.
Kris R. Trafton - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Okay. Perfect. And then just going back to one of your slides on the job openings versus job hire slide, I mean, given like the protection of sentiment kind of in the United States and less likely to import foreign labor and the skills gap that we have here in the United States, do you think that that gap between openings and hires may kind of stick around for a while? And then do you give it any thought in terms of how that may affect demand in kind of your major markets?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes. I think it's a fair question. I mean, particularly as you get into college grads and highly skilled positions as you mentioned that there could be a shortage and what that does is it creates more income growth for a big part of our resident population which one of the things that we said we really need to have as the cycle gets longer to help continue to kind of support kind of rent growth that we've been seeing. So I think potentially it's a favorable trend for our business maybe not more probably for the economy but for the apartment business and the kind of markets that we're in.
Kris R. Trafton - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thanks a lot.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Great. Can you hear me?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Oh, great. Sorry about that. Good morning. I don't think this question was addressed, but if it was, please let me know. On the supply point, you mentioned in your management letter, you talk about supply averaging approximately 2% of your markets in 2016 and 2017. When we look at different sources of supply, and I know it's still hard to figure out for 2017, it seemed like there is some differentiation between, let's say, San Fran and New York City. But based on your comment, I wasn't sure if you feel like San Fran is going to stay elevated into 2017, because I think we were looking at stats that were showing a drop loss in, let's say, the Northern California area in 2017 versus New York is going to persist at least through 2017.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes, Jeff, this is Sean. A fair comment. I think if you look at it based on the way we look at our markets, which is different from the U.S. overall, we're not as heavily involved in scrutinizing supply in those markets. But in our footprint, we're expecting the Northern California region to decelerate slightly from 2016 to 2017 from about 2.5% to 2.2%. But if you look at San Francisco specifically, we're expecting it to increase again in 2017 from 3.1% of inventory in 2016 to 3.4% in 2017. So you do need to look at the composition of the different markets within that region to determine what's happening. And then as it relates to New York, we are expecting that to continue to be an issue through 2017. As you may know, in New York, 15 deliveries were about 1.5% of inventory. It's up to about 3% now. And when you get to 2017, it's expected to peak closer to about 3.5% of inventory in the New York market.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, great. So in San Fran, you are expecting, in 2017, an increase. What's the disconnect, let's say, between what you're projecting versus, let's say – I believe you guys look at the – I think Axiometrics is projecting a decrease. Is it just more of the submarket?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. I think all I can speak to is our process for the most part, and the way we do the process is a little bit top-down and bottoms-up to sort of meet in the middle with our forecast. The top-down sort of comes from other sources, whether it be REITs, Axiometrics or certain local market providers like Delta Associates, as an example here in D.C., or others in other markets. So we take that. But then we also do sort of a ground-up assessment. We have a market research team here in Arlington that scrubs all the local websites (33:15) municipalities in our market to understand where certain deals are in their processing for entitlement and what the expected delivery dates are. In addition to that, our local development team, where we have three to four people per office around the country, is tracking all the developments in their markets as they're competing for sites and expected opportunities in their markets. And then in addition to the development teams, the last scrub in our process is through the operations team where they know what's beginning to prelease to better predict when deliveries are expected to arrive in certain submarkets and if we needed to alter our revenue management strategy ahead of deliveries coming. So, it's a pretty thorough process from a top-down and a bottoms-up perspective as compared to just looking at the REITs' data and saying, that's what we expect. So I think our process is probably more robust on average, but given our capability and development and how important that is to our business, we just give a lot of scrutiny.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. And then I just had one question on development yields. In 2Q, yield was higher than I think 1Q year-to-date. Can you talk a little bit about those yields? And I assume that they came in above underwriting expectations.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. This is Matt. I can speak to that. You're talking about the 2Q completion?
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Correct. In your presentation, you talk about the development yields for 2Q. I think it's...
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yes.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yes. We completed three communities in the quarter, and the number is going to move around based on the specific communities, the geography each quarter, and the three we completed this past quarter all beat pro forma pretty handily. One of them was on Capitol Hill in Seattle which is our first asset in that submarket, which had just exceeded expectations obviously with the big run-up in rent since we started that deal two-plus years ago. Another one was a deal in Northern New Jersey, in Union, which hadn't seen any new supply in many years, and frequently we find a positive surprise on rents when we lease up in communities like that. And the third one was in Irvine. So, the basket moves around from quarter to quarter, but I think year-to-date it's in the kind of 6.3%-ish (35:48) range. So, obviously as we completed the prior quarter with all the lower yielding, some of those were in – one of those was a large deal in Southern Cal which tends to have lower yields. So, it's going to generally move around. But we're continuing to see yields, obviously, beat the initial underwriting on the strength of good rent.
Jeffrey A. Spector - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrew Rosivach with Goldman Sachs.
Unknown Speaker:
Hi. Good morning. This is Jeff (36:20) on with Andrew. Just to turn to slide eight of the presentation, it looks like much of the setup is like 2013 where your same-store slowed but bottomed at 3.5%. But I'm just curious, if you take this chart, what would it look like in 2001 or 2008 when things were about to fall off a cliff?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes. I think, I referenced it, they looked – I don't know if we had this exact data series – time series certainly for 2001, but if you recall we had a big run-up in 2000 in the apartment world. So we really had a rent spike that was driving pretty phenomenal performance in 2000. And then, with the tech rack (37:17) and the elimination of – you had two things going. You had the elimination obviously of a lot of technology jobs and you had a pretty – a much more dramatic expansion of monetary policy in terms of the impact on interest rates. So you had a lot more homeownership rates went up in the face of recession which was unusual. So you had a lot more demand destruction in the case of rental housing than you did actually in the 2000s where you had job losses that were actually three times what we had in the early 2000s. But we saw sort of the typical pattern where ownership rates actually went up during recession. So, as I mentioned earlier, in the 2000s, it's a little bit more of a kind of a straight-up and then straight-down curve to rent growth. But it kind of kept going up and then (38:15). And then after about 2006 into 2007, rent started to decelerate until 2008 hit us.
Unknown Speaker:
Great. Thanks. That's helpful. And then also, if you looked at cap rates by region, where do you believe the lowest and highest cap rates are in your portfolio?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
This is Matt. I guess I'll speak to that one. Lowest cap rates are still probably Manhattan. Kind of core best locations in Manhattan are probably still free caps. But outside of that, I would say generally speaking, the lowest cap rates are across the Southern California right now. I don't think a lot has been trading in Northern California recently just be it the changes on the ground there. So we've been trying to buy in Southern California, and it's been a little bit frustrating. Good, newer products in Southern Cal in infill submarkets is definitely trading sub-4% cap rate. And then the rest of the markets are kind of low 4%s to mid-4%s up to mid-5%s depending on where you are.
Unknown Speaker:
Great. That's helpful. Thanks for taking my questions.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Nick Yulico of UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. If I look at page nine of your slides where you give the rent change by market, while your market seem like they're just sort of fluctuating over a five-year average, but the chart that looks scarier there is Northern California which looks like it's in sort of freefall since last year, but maybe even reaching a bottom line on your five-year history. So what was the first half of this year like-term rent change in San Francisco and what are you assuming for the second half of the year? And maybe you can break down the performance of the markets a bit between San Francisco versus the East Bay and San Jose.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes, Nick. This is Sean. Why don't I try to address some of those comments and we can always follow up with greater detail if you're interested. Why don't I give you a sense that in Northern California, first, to give you some perspective from an overall standpoint, rent change started the year around 6%, but it continued to decelerate and is currently running around 4%, and that's made up of about 2.5% in San Francisco, 6% in the East Bay and a low 4% range in San Jose. So that's kind of where we are now. If you want to kind of decompose that even more into the new move-ins and like-term rent change by market, why don't I get that to you separately so we don't consume a lot of time on that. But I think it's fair to say that San Francisco is probably the softest at this point so just to address that one. Rent change at this point on move-ins is essentially just barely positive, 50 basis points to 100 basis points kind of range. We continue to hold renewals sort of in the low 4% to mid-4% range. So you're talking about anywhere from 2.5% to 3.5% sort of numbers on a blended basis in San Francisco. This number is certainly better in East Bay and San Jose, as I mentioned currently. But in terms of it, reaching a bottom and flattening out, as I mentioned in response to a prior question, we still expect continued deliveries at a pretty heavy level in San Francisco throughout this year and then even increasing into next year. So performance, really rent change is going to depend on the level of demand and job growth has been decelerating there. So to the extent that we see job growth level off, that would certainly help. But I think really your forecast for job growth is going to dictate performance in 2017 and whether that levels off or not certainly as you get beyond 2017. Given the nature of the product that's constructed in San Francisco, supply should start to fall off, but we do expect it to be somewhat challenging through 2017 in San Francisco specifically. So...
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. I guess just specifically the second half of 2016, is it going to be – your guidance is assuming it's worse than the 4% you've done in the first half of the year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
That's correct.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. But no specific number?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
In terms of that specific market, I can give you some general ranges in terms of what we're expecting in the third quarter and fourth quarter. I mean, Northern California, we're probably talking about more in the 3%, 3.5% range, somewhere in that ballpark for all three markets combined.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. That's great.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. The weakest is going to be in San Francisco. But keep in mind, I said Northern California is more like 6% in the first quarter and then 5% in the second quarter, so, it continues to trend down. The 4% I mentioned was more of kind of where we are currently.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. So, going back to the East Coast, the Brooklyn development project that's underway, how is the lease-up doing particularly I'm interested in the Avalon component which I know just started leasing as the higher rent piece of the project. Any changes to how you're thinking about concessions there and the ultimate yield on the entire project? Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. This is Sean again. Yes, Willoughby and – Avalon Willoughby and AVA DoBro have been performing quite well as you indicated. We're just starting to lease up on the Willoughby component. But if you look at performance through the second quarter, which represents mainly AVA DoBro, we lease and occupy 65, 60 a month which is quite strong and up from the first quarter which was around 39. So, leasing velocity has been healthy. Yes, as I indicated, it's a little too early probably to give you correct guidance about the Willoughby component. We did mark the rents up this quarter, but our expectation is that hopefully there'll be some additional lift as we move through the second half of the year. The views are pretty spectacular at the top of that building. So I'm not sure that we have seen exactly where the rents are going to settle out. But I think it's fair to say the overall project has performed quite well. In terms of the impact on yield, the only negative I can speak to is that we have had a little bit of a surprise on the property tax side that may offset some of the rent lift. But our expectation is that the yield would be essentially on par with original expectations hopefully slightly above.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks.
Operator:
We'll go next to Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Good morning. I was hoping to talk about LA. My understanding of your portfolio is that you have very little exposure to Downtown LA where there's quite a bit of supply coming over the next couple of years. I was hoping you could speak to whether or at least tangentially if there was any impact from Downtown LA supply in some of your submarkets in the second quarter.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes, Drew, this is Sean. You're correct. We have one operating asset in Downtown LA. It's in Little Tokyo, a community we constructed at the earlier part of the cycle, actually have great bases there. But, yes, there's a significant amount of supply being delivered into LA. I think it's upwards of 15% of inventory. You have to put that number in context with the fact that they're trying to create a whole new environment in downtown and it's spread across multiple submarkets within Downtown LA. But in terms of any indirect effect on the rest of the portfolio from that supply, we have not seen that. Most of the product that we own in that market is a mix of some newer communities, but also a fair amount of older communities in terrific suburban locations that are performing quite well.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Okay. You also mentioned markets like Huntington Beach and Irvine, for instance, that are seeing a decent amount of supply just in Southern California. What does that supply growth trajectory look like going into next year? Is there a fairly sizable deceleration in supply, or do you expect some continued pressure there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
In those specific submarkets you're referring to or just in the market overall?
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Yes, LA and Orange County, generally.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. I mean LA and Orange County, if you look at the supply that's coming on line, for the most part, we do expect continued elevated deliveries in Downtown LA. It's like 14%, 15% this year and it stays at that level through 2017. The other couple of pockets that you're seeing supply in LA is really Marina del Rey. In particular, there's one large development there at Playa Vista that's delivering right now and then a couple of other submarkets. As you move down in Orange County, you do see supply fall off a little bit in Anaheim from 2016 to 2017. And as it relates to Irvine, Irvine is actually projected to increase some as you move into 2017 as a result of some deliveries by a handful of developers, but in particular a couple of large projects that will be delivered by the Irvine Company. So increase there. And then a modest reduction in Huntington Beach, and in Huntington Beach, there's kind of two anchors to the supply. There's a fair amount of product being delivered right at the mall at Beach Boulevard and the 405, but there's other communities, a couple of large communities under development down at Pacific City, which is down along Pacific Coast Highway there in Huntington Beach. So, there's not much sort of in between there, but those are the two sort of anchors of supply in that market. So if you look at it, though, overall, one thing to keep in mind for Southern California is we're still talking about deliveries that are low 1% range of inventory overall. So you do have to be careful about which submarkets you're in, but if you look at it, the region is pretty supply-constrained.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Okay, great. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank has our next question.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Hey, everyone. I jumped on a little late, so I apologize if I missed this. But just in thinking about the underperformance of job growth year-to-date versus your original expectations, did you guys mention what the outlook for job growth is in the second half for your portfolio?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
We did not, we did not. We really just spoke to the shortfall so far this year which is about 50 basis points less than we had anticipated. That's nationally. And then, if you look at our markets, I think it's probably roughly in line with that in terms of the overall shortfall so far this year.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
And just one other point to comment on, Vin, I think our projection for the full year now at this point is about 2.5 million jobs, and originally we're well north of that for the full calendar year.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Yes. Okay. I'm just trying to get a sense if you're expecting things to sort of stabilize here at current levels or maybe decelerate a little bit further. I guess any color you could provide there.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yes, Vin, so let me just speak. What happened in the first half here is what's really going to impact the portfolio performance in the second half of the year. So that's all. We're not really all that – we're not as focused in terms of the – what happened in the second half of the year in terms of job growth will really play more into our 2017 outlook than the back half of 2016. You should see about a two-quarter lag impact in terms of what's happening in terms of the direction of job growth relative to the portfolio.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thanks for that clarity. And then, just another question, just in terms of looking at the like-term effective rent change's around 4% so far this year. Expect it to maybe moderate a little bit in the back half. But if we look at the first half same-store revenue growth, it's been a bit higher, maybe 100 basis points higher than that. And it looks like the July data, there's a narrowing of that gap, and I'm just curious if there's anything specific that's driving that. Is it folks trading down or just different lease term lengths than you've seen typically and just any color you have on that?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. I mean, what comes to mind is really comps. I mean in the second half of the year, certainly, we have more challenging comps, and it's really played out in terms of – if you look at granular level, it really comes down to the monthly sequential change in GP. And what we've seen in both like-term rent change, as well as the transient and corporate component, it's just not compounding as great a rate as it was at this time last year. So, to give you some perspective, as an example, if you look at the change in GP on a monthly basis, last year, we're talking about through the second quarter, on a monthly basis, moving up at 60 basis points in April, 100 basis points in May, and about 110 basis points in June. Versus this year, those numbers were 30 basis points, 60 basis points, and 90 basis points. Some of that is a reflection of the transient demand that we mentioned earlier, Tim alluded to in his prepared remarks, which does sort of turbo-charge GP growth in the late second quarter and early third quarter that we're not seeing this year. So that's certainly part of it.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
...lease growth, and how does that compare to the prior year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
I'm sorry, Conor. I think we got the tail end of your question. Would you mind restating?
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Yes. Yes. 2Q in July, new lease growth and how those compared to last year.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. 2Q move-in rent change is 2.6%, and last year at this time, we were doing – hang on one second, I'll tell you the exact number for 2Q, it was running in the mid-4%s. And then you said July? You're looking at July as well? Is that the question (53:11)?
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Yes. Yes, sir.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
So, July move-in rent change is running to 8%. And last year, actually, I don't have last year right off the top of my head here, Conor. I'll get back to you on that detail.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Thank you. And then what was the initial year cap rate on the Tustin sale?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Tustin sale, this is Matt. Let me just look that one up for you, Conor. I think it was in the low – if I can find that.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And maybe while you're looking for that, Tim, what was the new development site you added in Southern California? The new right.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
It's in the Arts District.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. In LA, correct?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Correct. Yes. I'm sorry.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. So then you have Hollywood – you have the West Hollywood deal and now the Arts District deal there. Those are your two Southern California rights, correct?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, yes. There's a West Hollywood that's under construction. There's Hollywood which has a development right, which is three quarters a mile down Santa Monica, so it's Hollywood and Arts District. Correct.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yes. This is Matt. It looks like East Tustin was 4.9% cap rate, call it.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
4.9%, and is that on – that's on about $400 a door of CapEx, correct?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
There might have been a little more deferred CapEx that's not included in that number.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Frankly, if you put in some of the CapEx (54:48) the cap rate would be lower.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill has the next question.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good morning down there. Just two quick ones from me. First, on the outperformance that obviously helped this year's guidance number and has sort of been of a hallmark for you guys, the 30 basis points. As fundamentals moderate, how should we be thinking about that outperformance? Is that something that you expect to continue, or eventually, maybe if not in the next six months, maybe in the next 12 months where trend is going, you'll just be delivering at your underwriting rather than exceeding?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, Alex, I mean, as you know, I mean, we do underwrite based upon current rents in place. As long as rents continue to rise at some level, we would expect yields to continue to go up, all other things being constant which, for the most part, they are. We generally have been able to bring development in close to budget. So, yes, you would expect that lift to moderate as rents might moderate. Now, the 30 basis points is a little misleading. If you took out the impact of Willoughby, well Willoughby's rents went up pretty significantly, so did the taxes, as Sean had mentioned. So that's actually due to the impact in terms of the yield impact. If you neutralize for Willoughby, the other deals, on average, have gone up by 70 basis points. So about a 10% lift in terms of the projected yield. So you got to look at the actual basket and some different things that may be happening with individual assets.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
That's helpful, Tim. And then the second is maybe, Kevin, can you just provide a little bit color, I don't think you addressed it earlier, but in the guidance revision, you're getting a lift from capital markets and transaction activity, a $0.02 positive variance versus your original outlook. Can you just provide a little bit more color on what's going in there, what's changed in your thinking of those two items to give you that positive benefit?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yes, Alex, this is Kevin. The $0.02 lift in expected core FFO per share coming from capital markets and transaction activity is as you'd expect. It's a mix of things going on there. It's the impact of net acquisition and disposition activity both in terms of the amount and the timing, as well as some changes to JV income – I'm sorry, some changes to the debt assumptions that we've got. We did pay off a piece of debt in the second quarter and have some benefit from lower interest rate being woven into the mix here.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. But it's not as if – because you guys haven't historically drawn your line, I can't remember actually the last time you had drawn in your line. But it is not as though you intend to use more of your line of credit; it is just timing of other activities, correct?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
It's timing of other activity, primarily acquisition and disposition activity, both amount and the timing of it. So yes, we don't expect to be a significant user of our line of credit and we haven't been throughout the year.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
We'll go next to John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on commentary of concessions on stabilized assets. Can you just quantify what percentage of your stabilized portfolio you're offering free month's rent and maybe compare that to last year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Percentage of the portfolio offering free rent, I'm not sure I have that. I think we can certainly get that back to you. But to give you some sense in terms of absolute dollars on a year-over-year basis in the second quarter, cash concessions in the second quarter of 2015 were about $75,000 versus the second quarter of this year were about $300,000 and the greatest increases were in New England, New York, and Northern California markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
And when you discussed 3% to 4% like-term rental growth in the second half of this year, is that on an effective or nominal basis?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
That's effective. That's a net effective number.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. With your cost of debt declining, have you changed your underwriting hurdles at all on your development pipeline as far as yields or IRR?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yes, hey, John. This is Matt. We do index our target investment returns to our weighted average cost of capital, assuming a 30% to 70% debt to equity mix. So, as the cost of debt goes down, it does at the margin reduce our WACC a little bit, but frankly, it's a lot more impacted by the equity. And we don't adjust it on a day-to-day basis. We'll adjust it maybe twice a year. What we've seen is that it's actually been pretty darn sticky over the last four years or five years really through this entire cycle. So, I would say, no, in general, our target returns on development have not moved in any material way over the last, really, couple of years. We're still looking at it. And when you look at where the underwriting returns on the development rights are, they've been very consistent in that kind of mid-6% range.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
And, John, this is Kevin. Just to add to that, while Treasury rates have certainly gone down, if you sort of look at our cost of debt for 10-year unsecured debt, last year, we averaged around 3.4%, 3.5%. As you know, in our May offering, we executed just under 3%. If we were to raise, do a 10-year unsecured bond offering today, we'd probably be around 3% because while treasuries have fallen, spreads have widened, essentially neutralizing the Treasury change. So, even over the last year, there's only been maybe a 40-basis point, 50-basis point decrease in our overall cost of debt. So, when you weave that through on a blended basis at 30% leverage for what Matt alluded to in the underwriting, it's a pretty modest potential impact.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
It seems like it would be higher levered return though on your development? Is that a fair assessment?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
I'm not sure if I follow. We underwrite yields on an unlevered basis. And so what we do is in our yield matrix the component that Matt was alluding to that tied to our short-term cost of capital looks at our unlevered initial short-term cost of capital which ascribes 30% weighting to debt, 70% weighting to equity. And so you end up with having essentially an unlevered or neutralized number there from a leverage point of view. So we don't look at yields on a levered basis.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Richard Hill with Morgan Stanley.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey, guys. Quick question from me on the development side of the equation, I'm curious how much of the job occupancies or job openings that you're seeing are driven by construction and if that's having any pressures on construction costs and then it would ultimately impact development yields. And I know you mentioned development yields were probably going to be stable. But I'm curious if you're seeing rising construction costs driven primarily by wage growth on that side.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, it has been driven mostly by labor, not by materials for sure. And that's been a mix I would imagine of both profitability and labor cost. If you look at the different sort of wage indices out there, construction labor is towards the top, if not at the very top in terms of year-over-year wage growth. So it's an industry that has seen a lot of skilled labor leave over the last cycle or two. And it's a challenge, it's a challenge to get skilled labor at a lot of these sites compared – and when you think about the production level, not just of apartments, but just of housing and kind of all real estate categories, the level of construction is still not that high and, yes, it's a real challenge for the industry right now. And I think a lot of that just has to do with the shortage of skilled labor.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Got it. And you're pretty comfortable that development yields will remain stable despite that?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, we continue to – whenever we look at new opportunities as well as existing opportunities, we continue to sort of re-underwrite them as we continue to best pursue cost of capital and make sure it's something we want to continue to invest where we think is sort of the highest risk capitals of any deal, which is that entitlement and design that pursue cost of capital, if you will. So the kind of yields that you see on the schedule in the release, they're consistent with the kind of yields we see in the development rights pipeline.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. And then, just one more quick question on the financing side, are you actually seeing guys pull back or developers pull back because they haven't been able to get the construction financing that they see or that they used to see?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
There's clearly – I mean part of why we've been able to replenish our development rights pipeline, I think, is connected to that. We are seeing more deal flow. I think there – if a developer has three or four deals, they may be looking to lay off one of them in terms of land and it's probably a function somewhat of the kind of reception that they're getting with some of their key lending partners. But across the board, you're definitely hearing from both banks, the suppliers of capital as well as the consumers of capital developers that construction financing is less plentiful.
Richard Hill - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi. Yes. Good morning, everyone. Just a quick question, could you talk about rent-to-income ratios in many of your key markets and if you think that's a contributing factor to – or rent fatigue is a contributing factor to some of the slowdown in rent growth we're seeing? Just want to get a sense of how much of this stuff really is supply-related versus how much is demand-related.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Tayo. It's Sean. Yes, rent-to-income ratios are running around 23% right now, so, certainly at the higher end of long-term averages, if you want to think of it that way. We are seeing income growth. Income growth from the portfolio in households that moved in, in the second quarter was up a couple of hundred basis points year-over-year. In terms of rent fatigue, if you look at the portfolio in terms of reasons for move out, it's actually come down. If you look at rent increases as a percentage of move outs, it was running close to the 20% last year; it's running about 17% right now. And as you might imagine, it's come down a fair bit in markets like New York and Northern California. So, we're starting to see pretty good signs of wage growth across the economy and in our portfolio and, as you've seen, some deceleration in rental rate growth in some of these markets. There's just not as much pressure there as there was during 2015, as an example.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got it. Helpful. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey. Good afternoon, guys. Looking at the reasons to move out, have you noticed any changes that are material?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
No. Not really. Other than what I've mentioned as it relates to rent increases being down year-over-year, for the most part, it's been pretty stable at the portfolio level. And I wouldn't say there's any significant highlight even at the regional level at this point. So what you'd expect, for the most part, relocations (67:10) of about 23% to 25% of move-outs, rent increases, as I mentioned, running around 17%, and then home purchases are running at (67:19). It's actually down about 50 basis points year-over-year and still well below long-term averages. So a little bit of movement upward in a couple of markets, but it's not really moving much in terms of the home purchases.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And looking at Exhibit 7, how much did that impact – or the lower corporate and transient demand impact the overall same-store number for the year when you factor in 2Q and 3Q?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. Wes, it's a little hard to quantify, and I'll tell you why. It's easy to quantify some of the direct effect on the short-term component in particular. So to give you an example, if the percentage of leases that are short-term is down, say, 50 basis points specifically, get a 50% premium on that, a loss of about 25 incremental basis points of GP growth during that period of time. What's hard to quantify is the indirect effect of having that inventory back into the market. So it's hard to say exactly what the impact is for the full year because of the various assumptions you'd have to make. So it's fairly easily to quantify the three months or four months which we could certainly talk to you about offline, but the broader impact is hard to quantify.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And was that pretty broad-based by the regions, both the corporate and transient or was it just isolated to the East Coast where leasing was a little bit softer?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
No. The corporate component was pretty widespread, probably slightly more pronounced in New York, as an example. And then on the transient piece, also relatively widespread, a bit more acute in New England.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Nick Joseph with Citi.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Hey. It's Michael Bilerman with Nick. I'm curious, just sticking with slide seven, as you think about I don't know whether you track this or not, but was there any change in sort of Airbnb type rentals? Were renters in your apartments accelerating the listing of their apartments or scaling that back as a way to maybe generate income to offset some of the rent expense? Is there anything there that you've been able to discern on the Airbnb front within your portfolio?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Not necessarily, Michael. We do stay connected with Airbnb and they provide us information on leasing activity in our apartment homes. Based on the last report that I saw, there was not a material shift. Some of the stuff that we see is really you have to dissect it at a very granular level to understand it. So for example, in New England, Boston specifically, there were some pretty good winter storms in the last couple of years. When we underwrite things, we sort of look at an average year. This year was a better than average year, so there were less transient demand from insurance claims for people that had damage in their homes during the winter, I guess to that level of granularity in terms of understanding that demand. So I have not seen anything regarding Airbnb at this point, though.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
And then when you think about the – so this captures about 6% of the lease volume of your rent roll between the corporate leasing and the short-term. So the balance, call it about 94%. Is there other categories that we should be mindful of that are either accelerating or deceleration? I don't know how granular you get between students, singles, couples, couples with children and how you dissect all of the data. I'm just curious whether you can share any light on the 94% relative to the 6% you showed here.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. We do dissect the data in terms of the percentage that are single, single with children, married, married with kids, roommates, et cetera. There's not been a significant movement in those numbers. It's a large population, so you'd really have to see in absolute sense quite a bit of movement to move the needle here. The reason we brought this up is the premiums are so significant on the short-term leases that it can have an impact. Again, when you're talking about a 50% premium even if it's 1% of your leases or 50 basis points or 0.5% of your leases, then it can have a significant impact on GP in any given month. So, that's why we highlighted this one in particular and the same thing in the corporate.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
And is there any change in terms of the number of people occupying a home over time that may indicate any shift in terms of affordability that would be noticeable?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
We have not seen that to date, no.
Michael Jason Bilerman - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay, great. Thanks for the time.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure.
Operator:
We have no other questions at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back to Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, thank you, I guess, and thank you, everybody, for being on the call today. And enjoy the rest of your summer, and we'll see you in the fall.
Operator:
That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co. Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman Partners LLC Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker) Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' First Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations:
Well, thank you, Aaron, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' first quarter 2016 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. I will be providing management commentary on the slides that were posted yesterday afternoon and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. My comments will focus on providing summary of Q1 results, talk about trends in the apartment market and our portfolio and lastly, I'll share some thoughts on capital allocation and portfolio management. So, starting on slide four, it was a strong quarter, this past quarter, where we achieved core FFO growth of more than 12.5%, fueled by healthy same-store revenue growth of 5.5% and same-store NOI growth of almost 8% as well as contributions coming from our lease-up portfolio from our $2.7 billion development pipeline. As we mentioned last quarter, external growth from investment activity has contributed roughly 45% of core FFO growth over the last two years and it continues to add meaningfully to FFO growth in 2016. We were active on the portfolio management front as well this past quarter, closing out $240 million in acquisitions and almost $0.5 billion in dispositions. Turning now to slide five; recent market trends reflect shifting patterns across our footprint. This chart shows year-over-year changes in effective rent for each of our six regions and for the full market, as reported by Axiometrics. A few trends worth noting include, first, effective rent growth on the West Coast continues to outpace the East Coast by about 400 basis points, running around 6% in the West and roughly 2% in the East during the quarter. Second, the New York and Northern California regions are seeing some deceleration, while our other regions remained stable or are improving. New York has been impacted by new supply while Northern California's performance is being driven by a combination of supply, a slower job growth in last year this time and tough year-over-year comps. Southern California, Seattle continue to post strong gains while DC is beginning to show modest improvement. The last point worth mentioning is that these charts really do demonstrate the apartment cycle can ebb and flow similar to what we experienced in the 1990s. With deliveries beginning to stabilize, rent growth is likely to balance around a bit, driven more by the demand side of the equation including demographic shifts, growth in employment wages and the pace of household formation. Turning to slide six, looking at our portfolio, we can see that the average rent change in the market is consistent with our portfolio and the overall market trends and remains healthy in the 4% range. This rate of growth is down from last year, but is consistent with our expectations as more supply is coming online this year. In addition, similar to the prior set of charts, our portfolio reflects markets that can be somewhat choppy across the cycle. In fact, just in this cycle, we have seen three periods when rent growth has been above the average and three when it's been below the average and during the time span of less than six years. Turning to slide seven, after having trailed in rent growth versus urban submarkets early this cycle, suburban submarkets began to outperform over the last couple of years. This trend has been driven by expanding development pipelines and inventory that began to build in many urban submarkets across our region starting in 2013, outpacing suburban deliveries during this time. We believe that this trend of suburban outperformance is likely to continue over the next two to three years, given that urban deliveries should be about two times that of the suburbs through 2017. As capital allocators and active developers, we've been talking about this over the last couple of years. We began shifting our focus two to three years ago towards suburban submarkets, particularly infill areas where we saw better value and less supply. But however, just as I mentioned, how market performance can ebb and flow across the cycle by region, the same is true for submarkets. As capital flows shift their response to these trends, we'll continue to be opportunistic in search of the most compelling risk-adjusted returns, whether they'd be in target suburban or urban submarkets. And in fact, over our 20-plus year history, we've achieved similar returns in urban and suburban submarkets across our region. We've been able to do this by taking a fine-grained approach to capital allocation, directing new investment to the highest risk-adjusted returns at any particular point in time. Now turning to slide eight, another capital allocation topic I'd like to touch on relates to our level of development as the cycle matures. This slide depicts realized and estimated unrealized IRRs of development completions sorted by completion dates through 2013. On our last quarter, we discussed strategies we are deploying to mitigate risk posed by our development efforts, including pipeline diversification, managing land inventory, and match-funding new commitments. This quarter we thought it might be helpful to look at how development has performed historically based upon cycle timing and timing of delivery. As you can see and might expect, developments generate its highest returns during periods of economic expansion, particularly in the earlier years of expansion where projects may have been started during the prior downturn or in the early recovery portion of the current cycle. What perhaps is less intuitive is our history of generating healthy returns for projects that delivered during the contraction phase of the cycle and that were most likely started during the latter portion of the prior cycle, a point in time when land and construction costs are generally peaking. Across all parts of the cycle, we have been able to comfortably clear our cost of capital and deliver NAV to shareholders through development. My point here is not that development always makes sense, but rather that we can continue to create value through this capability during downturns, if deployed in a skillful, rigorous and disciplined way that focuses our efforts and resources on the most compelling opportunities in our markets. Turning to slide nine, it stands to reason that as we pursue development in a disciplined manner, as the cycle matures, it ought to result in a diminished opportunity set as fewer deals meet required hurdle rates. And, in fact, this is the case. Since 2013, while our development pipeline as measured by total capital investment has more or less leveled off, when measured as a percentage of total enterprise value or even by the number of projects, it's declined by roughly 25% to 30%. So we believe that we can continue to create shareholder value through new development at this point in the cycle, albeit at a lesser rate perhaps than earlier in the cycle. Lastly turning to slide 10, we've been active in the transaction market recently and I wanted to share a couple of thoughts with respect to our activities in this area of our business. Over the last few months, we've purchased or cleared due diligence on three communities totaling over $300 million of total investment. Each of these communities are high quality assets with high walk scores and great submarkets, located in Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia and Hoboken, New Jersey. With many merchant built development deals completing and some investment funds unwinding, we are seeing some excellent assets come to market, much of it unencumbered by long-term debt and expensive prepayment penalties. These acquisitions are being funded in turn through asset sale proceeds from funds and wholly-owned dispositions, some of which will trade as 1031 exchanges with acquisitions. As a result, our level of asset sales will be dependent on acquisition volume. As we identify acquisitions that we believe can improve the risk adjusted returns of our portfolio, we'll pair them with the sale of non-core assets. But overall, we do plan on being a net seller of assets this year. We're just taking advantage of an active market to improve the portfolio. So in summary, before opening it up to Q&A, I'd just like to say Q1 was another strong quarter for AVB, achieving double-digit growth in core FFO for the fourth consecutive quarter. While we're seeing some moderation in fundamentals and operating trends, they remain healthy. The sector will continue to benefit from favorable demographics and living patterns of Millennials and Gen X, while new deliveries should begin to stabilize in 2016 at levels that are at or below structural demand for apartment housing. As we move into the mature portion of the economic expansion, we'll remain disciplined capital allocators and risk managers, recognizing that we can continue to create meaningful value for shareholders through new development, employing the talent and rigor that we've demonstrated over the several cycles during the past 20 plus years. And with that, Aaron, we'd be happy to open up the call for questions.
Operator:
Certainly, sir. And we'll take our first question from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. I'm wondering, in terms of operations, if you can talk about how the first quarter trended relative to where you thought it would at the beginning of the year and which markets are ahead of expectation so far and maybe which are behind?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Nick, it's Sean. Happy to do that. Overall, based on performance in the first quarter, and what we know about the second quarter thus far, we're basically in line with our overall expectations for revenue. New York is a little bit behind, but Southern Cal, Pacific Northwest and the Mid Atlantic are a little bit ahead, more than offsetting New York. And then the other two major regions, Boston and the Northern California region are basically in line with our original budget. In terms of to provide a little more color maybe on where we are in terms of recent trends, in the first quarter, rent change was 3.7%, it's trended up in April to 4.2%, which is renewals in the mid 5%s and move-ins in the high 2%s, getting to that 4.2%. And to provide some context, when we planned for the year, our expectation is that rent change throughout the year would average about 4.5%, which is down about 120 basis points from what we realized in rent change in 2015. So, based on where we are now moving into the second quarter of the stronger leasing season when rents really start to ramp up, our expectation is pretty consistent with what's happening in the portfolio. And particularly, if you look towards the stronger season and renewal offers, I think we're in pretty good shape. May and June renewal offers are out in the high 6% range. And that's basically a blend of, call it, 5% in the Mid-Atlantic and New York, about 6.5% in Boston, about 8% in Northern Cal and Southern Cal, and about 10% in Seattle. So, overall, we think we're in pretty good shape. Things are unfolding sort of as we expected, and as we look forward into the rest of the second quarter, we're in pretty good position. Occupancy wise, we're 95.7% at this point which is about 20 basis points below this point last year and availability is in the low 5%, about 10 basis points below where we were last year. So, those are numbers we're comfortable with, taking on slightly lower occupancy. Availability is about right as we start to push rents harder going into the spring season.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks for the color. And then in terms of supply in urban versus suburban, the presentation shows suburban supply decreasing in 2017 against urban. But the commentary from the other apartment peers that have reported earnings so far is focused on supply moving out of the urban core more back into the suburbs. So, I'm wondering, if you expect that to occur after 2017 or if you think supply will continue to impact the urban core more so at this point in the cycle?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Nick, this is Tim. The slide that we show, I guess it's Slide 7. To be clear, that really is focused on deliveries as we get out to 2016 and 2017. Our peers may have been, I didn't listen to their calls, they may have been focused more on starts, which obviously would impact maybe 2018, 2019. And as I mentioned before, I mean it's not, we're relatively agnostic between urban and suburban. And in terms of just even how we're focusing our efforts, if we start to see more value in the urban submarkets, we're going to, because of some of the trends we're seeing now, we're likely to maybe double back there. So, they may be right. You might see some fall off in 2018 or 2019 if starts in 2016 or 2017 come down in the urban areas, but certainly in terms of deliveries, we don't see that at all over the next couple of years.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Nick, just to give you some specific numbers based on our sort of ground up view of supply, which is a blend of the development team and our operations team and our market research team working together both with their own knowledge, as well as third party information. Those numbers in 2016 are about 2.8% of inventory in the urban submarkets. In terms of deliveries, at about 1.9% in suburban. And the projections for 2017 based on pretty much what we know right now, shovels in the ground et cetera. So, it could move around a little bit, but given the timeline, get things entitled and built probably it's not going to move a lot. Some stuff may be delayed from one year to the next but, in aggregate, probably not going to move a lot. For 2017, deliveries in the urban submarkets around 3% and suburban about 1.4%. So, that's based on what we know today. The other thing that's out there we probably need to be mindful of just in terms of total supply is there are some things happening both from a hard cost perspective, as well as the construction lending environment that may constrain that a little bit just universally. So, that's something to keep in mind.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jana Galan with Bank of America.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. I thought the public private partnership development right added in this quarter looks very unique. Is that something that you're going to look to do more of in the future?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Hi, Jana, it's Matt. I guess I'll speak to that one. It has been part of our business for a long time and we've had a lot of success with public private partnerships at certain points in the cycle, including in New York we had some very successful deals, in Queens, in Long Island City. Last decade it were so much similar, we've done some public private deals on the West Coast and some transit stations. So, it does play well to our competitive advantages we think into some of our strengths and that deal is actually a good example because we were able to be selective there as a developer, even though others may have offered a higher land value because the public authority recognized and respected that given our reputation, given our scale, our balance sheet strength everything else, that we can deliver on our promises and for them it's as much about certainty of execution. There are some schools to be built there on that side as well as the project we would own and by dealing with – and selecting us, they don't have to deal with a private developer who is going to have a separate equity partner, separate lender, separate general contractor, it's an integrated solution. So, we have – we like those deals. That particular deal, it's a pretty exciting location, 96 Street and 2 Avenue, it's a full city block, it's right on top of the new 2 Avenue subway line, which is I think the first new line in the city in many, many, many years. And the timing on that one is such that given the approvals process that's in front of us, the regulatory process, that deal actually may well start kind of early into the next cycle, which is based on some of the slides that Tim had shown before frequently deals that have very strong returns.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. And is there any updates for your upper west side New York development in terms of a retail component?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Jana, this is Tim. I think you are referring to the Columbus Circle site that we own. Currently, we actually are doing some work on the site. We are doing some enabling work in terms of abatement and demolition. I think as we mentioned before, we still anticipate starting the deal sometime mid this year, probably sometime in Q3 – late Q3. We are continuing to evaluate different strategies to lay off some risk there, including one way that you mentioned, by bringing in a retail partner. We still have people interested despite some softness on the condo side. So, people are interested in wholesaling some of the building for residential condo as well. The reality is, we've been spending time, really trying to nail down performance obligations for both types and it's ultimately got to work. Ultimately for there to be a deal because to the extent we bring in a retail partner, they would essentially be taking title at the time of which we can deliver a cold dark shell to them. And we want to make sure they're going to be there and they're going to ought to make sure that we can meet certain performance obligations, and until in effect we're almost ready to start the building, the vertical building construction, we're not going to really be in a position to finalize the deal there. Another strategy, I mean impart given the East 96 street site, we are considering essentially to bring in a financial partner, to layoff some, as another way to layoff some risk. The deal that Matt just talked about, it's a large deal, which is $500 million excluding the land lease itself. And so, as we think about New York City concentration, we may look at either joint venture in Columbus Circle, or potentially even other avenues to lay-off some of the concentration risk in a pretty short investment time period in the city. So, just stay tuned, we're exploring a number of sort of risk management strategies with respect to this deal and our overall portfolio there. And we'll keep people informed as it makes most sense.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Gaurav Mehta with Cantor Fitzgerald.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Yeah, thanks. Following up on New York, you sighted supply as one of the reasons for softness in the market. I was wondering if you could also comment on what you're seeing on the demand side?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, sure, Gaurav, this is Sean. When you think about New York, for the most part, we do think it is a supply issue. It's about – our expectation for this year is about 2% of inventory, but in New York City proper, it's about 3.5% direct supply. And then if you toss in some shadow supplier from condos and things like that, that number might be a little bit higher. On the demand side, demand has actually been pretty healthy. Job growth has been steady across the region in I think mid 1% range and it's been up in the mid 2%s in terms of the city itself. So, demand has been there, but what you have to keep in mind related to the supply is, it's all coming in at the pretty high end for the most part and if you think about New York City and even parts of Northern New Jersey, what's going to be delivered this year is about 10,000 units. So, there is plenty of demand. The demand might not look the same as what it has on last cycles in terms of percentage from the financial sector, a very, very high paying levels. So, there is probably more diversity of the job growth than what we have experienced in the past. But there has been steady absorption and steady demand in that market.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Great. And then following up on suburban versus urban that chart number, slide number seven that you have in your presentation, suburban outperforming urban. But if I look at your New York suburban portfolio, by rental it's just underperforming the urban market. So I was wondering if you could provide more details as to what's going on in New York suburban?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. So, in terms of New York, one thing to keep in mind there is the suburban sub markets in the Northeast in general, including New York and then moving up into New England are more seasonal. So, you tend to see more softness and like Q4 or Q1 in the suburban submarkets. So, that's not a surprise to us in terms of where we ended the first quarter, as well as the fourth quarter. But as you look forward and the impact on supply, to give you a sense of where it's headed, for our portfolio if you look at renewal offers as we move in through the second quarter, they are in the low 5% range, the weakest is New York City at about 4%, the Long Island is at 6%, Northern New Jersey is at 7%, Central New Jersey at 5.5%. So, we do expect those suburban submarkets to pick up steam as we move through the second quarter and third quarter relative to New York City, purely just as a function of supply for the most part. So, we expect it will play out that way in New York overall based on what we know today.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay. Thanks for taking the questions.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. It's Austin Wurschmidt here with Jordan. Just sticking with New York a little bit, could you provide a little bit of color on what you're seeing at your AVA DoBro project in terms of lease up pace relative to the expectations, as well as the rents you're achieving there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. It's Sean again. Yeah, lease up volume has been quite good there. We averaged 39 a month through the quarter, which is quite healthy considering it tends to be one of the lower volume quarters of the year. It typically ramps up in the second quarter and the third quarter. There is some supply being delivered in that submarket now. There will be a little bit more as we get further into the year. The velocity and rate have both been quite healthy. So, rate is holding a little bit above what we expected around $60 a foot and velocity has been good. So, our expectation is for that to continue. The DoBro product is a pretty unique product. It's been accepted quite well by the target demographic, and so we are pleased with the early results.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Austin, this is Matt. Just to clarify a little bit, we have marked the AVA DoBro piece of that to market and that's the number that you see updated in the earnings release, because the Avalon piece, which is the upper floors of the building, we have not yet started to lease there. Those rents are not yet mark-to-market.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
And what percent of the units there are the AVA DoBro?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I think it is about 300 Avalon and 500 AVA.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, so 500. 60% or so is the AVA.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks. That's helpful. And then just more sticking on the New York City submarket specifically. Despite the supply during sort of the typically slower season, occupancy was up 50 basis points during the quarter. And I was just curious what was driving that, if it was tactical and just some detail there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. I mean as you might know from previous commentary for us, we don't necessarily target a very specific rate of occupancy for each and every market and submarket. Our objective is to optimize revenue and so sometimes we are going to get back occupancy to get rate and/or vice versa to try and optimize revenues. So I wouldn't read too much into occupancy changes from quarter-to-quarter or even year-over-year. The only global statement I would say is over the last couple of years given market conditions, we're more aggressive on rate, all things being equal at the expense of occupancy across our footprint and every submarket is little bit different, but I wouldn't read too much into the sequential quarter even the year-over-year numbers other than the trend of last couple of years being more aggressive on the rate side and yielding a little bit more on occupancy has been okay.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thanks. That's helpful. And then just switching and last one from me to the portfolio management comments. I guess what are you guys really trying to accomplish as you see acquisitions come to market and where exactly are you seeing the best opportunities?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Maybe I'll start and then ask Matt to follow-up in terms of where we're seeing the best opportunities. There is just a lot of transaction volume right now, and there is a lot of really, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, a lot of really fine assets often times built by, merchant builders, coming off construction loans, they don't have permanent loans in place that have the prepayment penalties and therefore, sometimes sort of – that doesn't make it attractive for us in terms of assuming secured debt. So, it's an opportunity to take advantage. In fact, we have a lot of unencumbered assets, some of which are non-core that we like to trade and there is a point in time in which there is some really attractive assets that we think we can improve the overall quality of the portfolio by churning a little bit of it. So, it's a little bit of a unique moment in time we think, but in terms of – Matt in terms of where we're seeing some of the best opportunities, maybe you can just elaborate a little bit there.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. I guess I'd start by saying on the macro level regionally, the two regions where we would seek to redeploy capital the most would be the Mid Atlantic and Southern California for different reasons, but those were actually kind of more or less on target for our long-term portfolio, geographic allocation goals, but if we're under allocated anywhere it's probably in those two regions. And some of that was frankly delivered. In the case of Mid Atlantic we sold quite a bit here, earlier in the cycle kind of in front of what we saw lot of supply coming relative to the Mid Atlantic's history. So, we think it's a pretty good time to be buying in the Mid Atlantic. Values haven't increased all that much relative to all the other geographies in our portfolio which makes sense because obviously rents have been relatively flat here for quite a while. So, we see just better value in terms of just total relative to replacement cost, relative to cost, preferred cost per unit. And Southern Cal, it's always difficult there. Archstone really was a transformative event for us in terms of growing our Southern California portfolio, but we're still looking to grow there where we can. In terms of submarket locations, we are looking to upgrade the quality of the portfolio a little bit as Tim mentioned. So you look at the three that we've mentioned so far, they're all infill, high-quality, high-density infill suburbs, we would look in, in the urban cores as well based on pricing, where we see the best relative value, but higher walk scores. And then we have been looking at younger assets, which is a little different for us. We do find, sometimes, we're a very successful buyer for assets that maybe somebody else has just renovated, 12 year, 15 year old assets where the value-add players aren't going to bid those up to the same extent. So we look at those types of assets too, and arguably the Market Common fits that description a little bit. But we're always looking for ways where if we can leverage what advantages we have into, sometimes, it's unique deal structure that may drive us to get a little bit better value on the buy side. But typically we would probably be looking for assets that are a little bit younger than what you may have seen us buying in the past. And again...
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for all the detail.
Operator:
We'll go next to Jeffrey Pehl with Goldman Sachs.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Hi. Thank you. Just looking back at the Archstone acquisition in late 2012, the largest component of the purchase was in Southern California. How do you believe those assets are performing today versus your original expectations?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Jeff, it's Sean Breslin. In terms of overall performance, I think it's fair to say that the assets have outperformed our expectations in terms of our period of ownership here. And then on top of that, the other thing I would add is there's probably more opportunity in the portfolio in terms of redevelopment, repositioning those assets than we probably expected going in. Archstone did a fine job maintaining the assets, but given the balance sheet they had and the position they were tied into with Lehman just didn't necessarily have the capital to invest in the assets to reposition them. So we're trying to take advantage of that opportunity across the footprint, including significant concentration that we did acquire in Southern California. So net-net, I'd say we're pleased with our results from Archstone and values have grown considerably during the last couple of years.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Hey, thanks for the color. And just as a follow-up to that, do you believe your Southern California portfolio could potentially outperform Northern California over the next few years?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, it's Sean again, I mean, it's always a possibility given the underlying demand drivers in Southern California combined with the very low levels of supply, the lowest of any of our regions currently in terms of our expectation, sort of in the mid-1% range. It's a possibility. It tends to be a market that, over the long run, has been an outperformer with far less volatility than some of the tech markets like Northern California and Seattle. So it could certainly be a period of time where it does outperform, that would not be beyond reason.
Jeffrey Pehl - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Great. Thanks for the color.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure.
Operator:
We'll go next to Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good afternoon. Just first, you mentioned in some prior questions ago about the bank regulation on lending. As you guys have seen it so far in the banks be impacted by the Basel III coming down on construction lending, has your experience, what you've seen in the field, has there been a material cutback on the part of developers and their inability to get construction lending or is this really sort of an issue on the edges and most developers that you see in the market are still able to get the construction lending as they historically have been able to?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Alex, this is Sean, and maybe Tim or Matt want to jump in. I mean at this point, we're aware of what's been communicated to the banks, and some of the risk retention issues as well as the incremental oversight of multifamily loans. For the most part, what we're hearing is somewhat anecdotal in terms of more pressure on the underwriting, banks putting out targets that are, I'd say, either even or less than volume they produced last year in terms of construction lending for multifamily specifically. So I'd say it's still early in the game as to the eventual outcome, but there are certain signs of tightening that will put more pressure on bringing either additional equity to the table to get deals done probably is the likely answer, but different pricing as well. And Kevin, may want to comment on that as well from a bank perspective.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure, Alex, I mean as you know, we're not directly in the market, but from what we've been able to learn from being active in our dialogue with the banks who do this kind of construction financing, certainly what we have heard is that construction financing has become tougher to obtain as you point out, especially for small, less well capitalized developers. Pricing, for example, has moved beyond 300 bps over LIBOR. And in order to get better terms, often these developers are needing to provide partial recourse and sometimes making commitments to provide permanent financing to the bank post construction, and sometimes provide higher levels of deposit. So across the board, there's just been a little bit of tightening that we've seen in the end market.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Alex, just maybe the last point on this. I think the way it sort of initially manifests itself, you to start to see a little more deal flow on the land side. So as private sponsors are maybe not getting the terms or hearing what they want to hear from banks or even potentially equity partners, those deals oftentimes start to get sort of softly marketed back in the market. And we're seeing that right now on a couple of particularly attractive opportunities, where the land owner thought that they were going to develop them themselves and suddenly they're spinning a different story to the market that they've got a lot on their plate and they need to sell some of what they got. So I think it's a way you're likely to see it manifest itself at least initially here over the next three months to six months. But I think we'll probably just all kind of have to keep a watch out and see is it really having an impact at the end of the day on total start volume.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
But the point is that you guys are likely to see some more attractively priced land?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
I think we'll see more traffic in land initially. We'll see ultimately what it brings in terms of...
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
... (36:45) But...
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
On the condo side, on the Sheepshead Bay project, where you have a condo partner in there, just given all the up-talk about condo concern in New York, as far as the financial risk to AvalonBay, if the entity doesn't perform, I assume you guys just automatically take over their spot or is there some financial liability to you if they run into some financial difficulty on their own?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Alex, this is Matt. I guess I can take a shot at that one and, I don't know, if Kevin wants to chime in as well. They have equity in the deal. We are providing construction financing really to facilitate the deal because we're building the whole building. And so if they were to default on the loan, they would walk away from their equity and we would wind up with their units. I believe there is some guarantee support as well, although I don't remember exactly how deep that goes. And we have looked at that as a downside scenario. We could take their units back and rent them, and we don't think it would be a material change to the economics of that deal. I will also say that it's a very different location. You talk about there's a lot of condo supply in New York, it's not in Sheepshead Bay, it's not in Brighton Beach, it's not in that part of Brooklyn at all. So that market is its own little micro pocket there that I really think is hardly at all impacted by what's going on across the city.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then just final question. The $0.14 land gain in the second quarter, what's that relate to?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure, Alex, this is Kevin. That relates to a second phase of development that we anticipate contributing to a venture with our existing partners, and in doing so recognize a gain on that sale of the land to that venture of about $20 million.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay, cool. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Good afternoon, guys. Sean, can you talk a little bit about what you're seeing in your various D.C. submarkets performance-wise, stronger versus weaker and what's likely to be the trend over the remainder of the year as leasings continue?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Sure, Rob, happy to. In terms of the Mid-Atlantic, based on where we are to date in terms of performance, and I'll talk mainly from a rent change perspective in terms of where we're getting traction, D.C. is actually holding up the best right at the moment, kind of mid 2% range versus a 1.5% or so for suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. That's up roughly about 75 basis points over last year. I mean our expectation going forward is that it's probably going to continue to be the softest in the suburban Maryland submarket based on the supply that's being delivered across Rockville, North Bethesda et cetera. Northern Virginia probably will be sort of the second position, if you want to call it, in terms of performance. And then D.C., based on asset mix that we have, we think will probably be the leading submarket in terms of performance. And keep in mind, what's in our same-store bucket is Northwest, some value-oriented assets, a deal tied to American University et cetera. So it's a very different kind of same-store basket relative to maybe others. The majority of the supply is actually going to be delivered in the District. So if you looked at it from an entire market perspective, D.C. probably will continue to be soft and potentially as soft as suburban Maryland. But in terms of our specific portfolio and the way it's positioned, the D.C. assets are leading and probably will continue to.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then did you guys see any weakness during the quarter in your highest price point units, the sort of super-luxury or whatever you want to call it, the $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 plus price point units and stuff like that?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Any particular market in mind or just in general you mean?
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Well, I mean, I would guess New York and San Francisco would be the two that I would most target, but I guess across the portfolio as well.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say so. I mean, if I think about it like from a New York perspective, the highest rent deal we have is in the Bowery at $80 a foot or so, and it's been performing quite well. There's very little supply there to compete against. So I think for the most part, it really does depend on where your assets are positioned relative to new supplies. So we've got $50-a-foot, $60-a-foot assets in Midtown West, more value oriented, but there's more supply there, so they're struggling more, as an example. But then you go to Long Island City and it's $50 a foot, $55 a foot, and it's doing 6% year-over-year. And so I wouldn't say there is a common thread to higher end units underperforming across any of the markets at this point in time. It's really more a direct function of to supply in the submarket that you're in.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. So nothing even with like bifurcation between sort of penthouse and mid-tier sort of units within the same complex or anything like that?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Not necessarily, no. I mean Exeter at the Pru gets the highest rents, but at the high end floors. So I would say there's nothing that we see materially at this point. It'd be sort of one-off type things.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
We'll go next to Rich Anderson with Mizuho Securities.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Thanks. Good afternoon. Question on New York. Can you make any comment about how things trended over the course of the quarter? Did you notice anything improving as the quarter went on? Was March better than January or was nothing discernible there in terms of trend line?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. I mean, Rich, this is Sean, it's certainly picking up steam a little bit. I mean if you look at the region overall, rent change in the first quarter was about 2%, which was 1% New York City, about 4% in Long Island and 2.5% to 3.5% in the Jersey markets. It has picked up steam a little bit, where we're doing around 3% now instead of 2%, which is around low 4%s in renewals and 1%,1.5% on move-ins. But as I mentioned earlier, when you look at renewals, I'd say it has started to pick up a little more speed, particularly in the suburban submarkets, as I mentioned New York City is still the weakest around 4%, but it moves up quite nicely when you get into the suburban submarkets, 5.5%, 6%, 7% depending on where you are. So I'd say the momentum is positive, probably most positive in the suburban submarkets as compared to the city.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay, great. And then on your dispositions, do you have any tax protection issues that may be behind some of the motivation to also be an acquirer?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Rich, this is Matt. Yeah, no, we are planning on doing some of our disposition acquisition activity as 1031 Exchanges, but I wouldn't say that we have tax protection issues beyond the fact that we can only sell so much without redeploying the proceeds into acquisitions or paying a special dividend. So I mean we have an overall company limit on that volume, but...
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. And
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
...I don't know, Kevin if you...
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah, Rich. This is Kevin, to add on that, I mean we tend, as you know, to use dispositions as a means of funding development activity. And that certainly is our plan this year, that component of our external capital that we raise to fund development will be in the form of dispositions. At some level beyond a certain point when we sell additional assets and trigger additional gains, and you can see some very robust gains here reflected in what we've sold so far, you do run into a situation where from a re-tax point of view you would need to make a special distribution and would retain that capital. So if we want to buy assets to reposition the portfolio and fund that with dispositions beyond what we would need to sell to fund the development, then at some point it just makes sense to do that incremental portfolio repositioning through 1031 activity.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Right. I was talking about that, but also individuals that may own units and exposed to a gain.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
No. We've picked up a little tax protection, our share of that in connection with the Archstone transaction, but that's not implicated in anything we're discussing right now.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. Fair enough. And what about – just what kind of spread you're seeing inbound, outbound cap rates and to what degree is that maybe contributing to some incremental dilution in the near-term? Clearly you're looking to create value long-term, but is that something you can comment on?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yes. It's been a pretty tight spread, this is Matt again. The sales, as of last quarter, we sold (46:16) in Connecticut at a low 5%s cap and the buys were in the high 4%s. So there's maybe a little bit of dilution there, but it's relatively small. And from a timing point of view, we're doing suddenly these reverse exchanges where we're actually buying in front of the selling. So I don't think it's material.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
How far in advance can you do that? What's the rule?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I think six months.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll take our next question form Ivy Zelman with Zelman & Associates.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman Partners LLC:
Good afternoon. Great results, guys. Thank you for taking my question. As it relates to your portfolio and your concentration is more suburban as well as Class B, and you think about the inventories, how tight they are for resale and the benefit that your tenants may not be able to find something even if they want to move out or afford it or get mortgage financing and some of the challenges, how do you think about, going forward, some of the dynamics that incrementally on the for-sale side that might loosen up or more inventory will come? And in which markets are you arguably the most vulnerable or may see more pressure for move-out to buy within your footprint? Just first question, and then I have a couple more to follow up. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Ivy, just a general commentary on that trend maybe, I means move-outs to home purchase has remained well below historical averages for essentially this entire cycle. It is only 11% this quarter as an example, which is down about 150 basis points year-over-year. And typically where we're probably most sensitive to it in terms of either existing assets or new opportunities is in those markets where home prices are somewhat more affordable, which would typically be Seattle and the Mid-Atlantic, maybe a little bit in Central Jersey. And based on everything that we see, production is certainly starting to increase some, but it remains well below just sort of structural demand given the level of household formations that are expected, which you know quite better than all of us. So in terms of near-term pressure, I don't think that's likely to be a real issue for us based on what we know today.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman Partners LLC:
Got it. Thank you for that. There is not a particular market that stands out as one, I mean certainly a market like Queens or New Jersey, those markets, nothing stands out incrementally within the portfolio, the 11% is pretty consistent across the board in terms of the move out to buy?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
No, it does move around by market. As I mentioned, those two markets, Mid-Atlantic and Seattle and then New England tend to be at the higher end of the range, as compared to New York, Southern Cal, Northern Cal, very expensive markets, tends to be quite low. The only market that basically was at its long-term average at one point last year was New England, which was about 20%, 21%. It's drifted down since that time. So at this point, every market is running well below its long-term average.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman Partners LLC:
Got it. And if I may ask one more follow-up as it relates to supply in the markets where you seem to be better positioned that you're not in, the New York sort of tougher areas where all the supply is being delivered. What historically has the trickle-down effect been into Class B assets where you're seeing rents under pressure, or more concessions being offered in Class A? Can you go back historically and look at what the impact has been, if any, in the Class B suburban or within the urban Class B?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Ivy, this is Tim. Certainly, whenever there's any supply introduced into a market, it's going to have some impact on all rental housing. And I sort of think of it as sort of concentric circles, if you will. So, the stuff that's newer, more recently delivered is kind of right in bull's eye? And as you kind of go down the price, the price ladder, they're obviously less impacted. And you'll – I mean, I think right now in our portfolio we're seeing – just to give you an example, I think we're seeing Class B roughly outperforming Class A by over 100 basis points, 150 basis points in terms of rent growth. So, it's probably more significant even in the sub markets that are experiencing a lot of supply.
Ivy Lynne Zelman - Zelman Partners LLC:
Got it. Well, thank you. Good luck, guys. I appreciate you taking the question.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Thanks.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird & Company.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Good afternoon. I was hoping to take the discussion of the Bay area, a little deeper and talk about specific towns, specific areas on whether it'd be urban versus suburban, Class A versus Class B, and can you talk about which areas are most impacted by new supply, and which are most impacted by any marginal slackening of demand?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, sure, Drew, this is Sean. First, maybe to set some context for Northern California, when we provided guidance earlier this year, and Tim alluded to it on today's prepared remarks you know for the call as well, we did have an expectation that given the increase in supply across the region, which is basically around 3% today as compared to 1.5% last year, combined with a somewhat softening in demand. If you remember, at this point last year job growth across the Bay Area was running around 4% at a pretty blistering pace, as compared to about 2% today that we would see softening in performance throughout the year and that's pretty much on track, as I mentioned earlier. We are basically on budget in that market. In terms of the performance of the specific submarkets where you are seeing stronger and weaker results what I would say is, in general, more value-oriented assets are outperforming the higher-end assets across the footprint, the footprint being the Bay Area region overall. In terms of specific submarkets, San Francisco, that supply is pretty much Mission Bay kind of the submarket right there that tends to be a little bit weaker right now. Our assets, the value-oriented assets, Daly City, Pacifica, (52:43) they're all outperforming versus the higher end A assets Mission Bay and SoMa is underperforming. San Jose, the supply is North East San Jose a little bit of South San Jose and then it stretches up really into Mountain View as well in terms of supply. And then, on East Bay, there is not a whole lot of supply really in the East Bay. You have a little bit in Dublin and Pleasanton, it's a product coming online up towards Public Market (53:10), Berkeley in that area, but it's de minimis relative to what you're seeing in San Francisco and San Jose. So, hopefully that provides some context where the supply is coming online.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
That's helpful. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi, guys. Good afternoon. I did join the call a little late. So, I apologize, but at any point have you addressed updated guidance for 2016 given first quarter results and your initial take on what 2Q could look like?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure Tayo, this is Kevin. As you may recall, we historically do not provide updated guidance for the full year on our first quarter call. We provide some initial outlook obviously for our fourth quarter call in January, and then we provide a fulsome mid-year update after our – in connection with our second quarter call, so that's the plan. So, we don't have a further update particularly given that we've got the leasing season in front of us and we're only a few months from having done a full budget. So, no new news on that front. This was the first quarter that we provided guidance on the second quarter. As you can see from our release, the midpoint of our guidance for NAREIT FFO is $2.10 per share, and our core FFO is $2 per share. So, that's – and then in terms of what we did in the first quarter as you know from our release, we beat our initial expectation by $0.06, which is probably the largest beat on our expectations in the quarterly basis in recent memory. So, quite strong performance with about probably $0.04 of that $0.06 beat likely to be permanent, and $0.02 likely to reverse at some point over the course of the year.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. That's all very helpful.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Is that helpful, Tayo?
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Thanks helpful color. Thank you.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
All right.
Operator:
And we'll go next to Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good afternoon. What is your total expected disposition volume this year to fund development beyond what you're going to use for asset purchases?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
So, Conor, this is Kevin. I guess essentially what you are asking for is what's our net disposition activity. We don't provide that level of guidance because essentially that would be, as you recall, when we provided our outlook for 2016, we indicated that we anticipated sourcing external capital of about $1.1 billion.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Yes.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
And at the time, we indicated that that would likely come through unsecured debt and asset sales with unsecured debt hopefully and likely comprising the majority of that $1.1 billion. So really, it's the $1.1 billion less whatever we do in unsecured debt that would represent the net disposition activity. But it certainly represents a minority of that $1.1 billion. In terms of what we've done so far, as you can see, essentially, the acquisitions that we completed in the first quarter were basically funded through fund and wholly-owned asset sales and the assumed debt in Hoboken. So, going forward for the balance of the year, we expect to source still about $1.1 billion. And again, the expectation is predominantly in the form of unsecured debt with the balance through net disposition activity.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Thank you. And then, on East 96th, is this indicative of a more competitive land environment, having to doing a deal like this?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Hey, Conor. It's Matt. Actually, we've been working on that deal for three years already. So I would say, it's indicative in the sense that we've said for a while now that doing straight up land deals in New York is very, very difficult at today's economics. So, if we were to source new opportunities, it would more likely be deals like this. But I wouldn't say that – we are generally in the market for these types of opportunities, they are infrequent and they are complex and they tend to take a lot of time to get done. But there are opportunities that we sought throughout different points in the cycle over the years.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
And given the lengthy process both getting to this point and then to actually getting the project started, could you walk away from this deal in two years if after the approval process rents have moved or in the same way that you option other pieces of land and you have the ability to walk away, could you walk away from this deal?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I don't want to get into too much of the specifics. There is still a lot to be resolved, but suffice it to say that there are a lot – there is a fair amount of flexibility on all sides.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. And will there be an affordable component on the units?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. This is mixed income deal, it is not subject – there is no 421-a program in New York today, but because it's a public-private deal, essentially we'll be doing a private or synthetic 421-a and that's part of the negotiations and the discussions we're having with the ECS in terms of the levels, the amount, the debt, the subsidy and so on. So, more to come.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Then just last one. What level of capital is at risk on this deal currently?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. It's pretty de minimis at this current point in time.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
It's legal fees and a little bit of planning at this point in time, it's not much.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. Thank you very much.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
You're welcome.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Greg Van Winkle with Morgan Stanley.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hey, guys. You just mentioned that $0.02 of a beat in 1Q 2016 is likely to reverse over the course of the year. Can you just elaborate on what you meant by that. Is that because you've got lower expectation for New York and San Fran over the balance of the year? Just help me understand that comment?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Greg, this is Kevin. To be clear, we're not providing guidance through that set of comments. So, I was just confirming that of the $0.06 that we beat our initial expectations in the first quarter, $0.04 likely appears to be permanent and $0.02 is likely to reverse in the balance of the year. So, to give you an example of that, we received kind of a $0.01 positive variance in the first quarter from a tax rebate that we received in March that we had budgeted to receive in April. So, that $0.01 will reverse in the current month. So, that's an example of it. The other $0.01 was related to redevelopment OpEx, which was largely due to slight delays in start of some renovation programs that we still expect to start. So, that will probably reverse ratably over the course of the next three quarters.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. I see. Thanks for clearing that up. And then you talked about seeing some acquisition opportunities right now and that the big driver of that is there's a lot of quantity of deals coming to market. I'm curious also if you're seeing any change in the kind of pricing or private capital is willing to pay or how many bids that are out there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
This is Matt. I guess I'll speak to that one a little bit. I would say not yet, we are also marketing a fair number of assets, as well as in the hunt on buying assets. So, generally speaking, there is still a lot of interest, a lot of activity. Again, on the buy-side, we see a slight wrinkle in one deal that may draw less interest than others because of some profile of the deal or structure that – we view that as a little bit of an opportunity and in some cases that has worked to our advantage. But generally speaking, there might be a little bit less interest in some deals if they are kind of tertiary submarket locations, but broadly speaking there's still a lot of demand, a lot of people looking to buy property right now.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Great. And then, last one here. I'm just curious on what you are seeing in terms of rent to income ratios in your portfolio relative to what those look like historically and just how much of a concern pure price fatigue is becoming or if you're seeing any kind of meaningful uptick already and move out to the rent in any of your markets?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Greg, it's Sean. Rent to income ratios, they are still running around 22%. It's been away for couple of years now and it's at the higher end of the range from an historical perspective, but has remained relatively constant. So one thing we have said is that, we continue to expect wage growth to help support rent growth going forward, and we've seen that so far beating last year in particular and our expectation for this year. So overall I think we're in a pretty good shape. In terms of move outs to the rent increases, it's down about a 100 basis points last year, submarkets were down more than others, but in general, we're comfortable with where we are.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
We'll go next to Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hello, guys. A quick question on what you're seeing as far as traffic goes. We had a difficult start to the year with the equity markets, a lot of volatility, a lot of recession periods. I imagine some companies might have been holding back on their hiring decisions, things look a little bit better now. Don't know if you've seen an uptick in traffic, maybe a leading indicator of incremental hiring. What are you seeing at the ground level?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Wes, this is Sean. First, in terms of commentary about traffic, one thing to be cautious about on traffic is we start to influence that number as well, depending on our level of availability we may be driving marketing harder or softer to generate traffic. So, it is a bit of a manufactured number in terms of – it's based on not only organic demand, but how much of that demand we're trying to capture. In terms of overall traffic, though it was up about 3% as I recall year-over-year in the first quarter. And if you looked at it, per available apartment home, I think it was down about a 100 basis points. So, not a significant movement one way or another and I would just be careful, about how are you thinking about using that information that's all.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. And there's no I guess big difference in seasonality between the months of January, February, or March probably, but it sounds like you don't even want to use that number. Looking at the development pipeline, how much of that pipeline consists of the complex deals where maybe Avalon and maybe a few others can compete and take on a deal like the one you did on 96th East versus just a plain vanilla development?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Listen, this is Matt. I guess, in terms of – I think a lot of them are deals that probably are more well suited to our competitive advantages than others, not necessarily because of the complexity. A lot of those are deals in New Jersey, where we have an ability to crack entitlement that a lot of others don't for example. So, they all have a different story. Therefore, in suburban Boston too where we have an incredibly deep franchise that has been doing that for years. So, a lot of them are those types of deals. We do have a couple of deals, which are mixed used deals in our pipeline, including one that we expect to start here later this year in Northern California and Emeryville, which also we think plays to our strength – not just similar to the deal we did with Eden here in Northern Virginia, Mosaic or Assembly Row up in Boston which we did with Federal. So, we have a few deals like that in the pipeline, but it's really, it's pretty diverse, it's diverse by region, it's diverse by deal type. They all have different reasons why kind of from an economic point of view we thought that we have some kind of an advantage there.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks for taking the question.
Operator:
And with no further questions in queue, I'd like to turn the call back to Tim Naughton for any closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, thank you, Aaron. No closing remarks on this, other than to say we look forward to seeing you all in NAREIT in June. Have a good day.
Operator:
This does conclude today's conference. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc. Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker) Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc. Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, please go ahead.
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations:
Thank you, Craig, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As always, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q4 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. Kevin and I will provide commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. During our comments, we'll focus on providing a summary of Q4 and the full-year results and I'll spend a good part of time talking about the outlook for 2016. I'll talk about the economy, apartment markets, and operations. Then, I'll turn it over to Kevin, who'll talk about development as well as capital and risk management as we move further into the cycle. So, let's start on slide four. Highlights for the quarter and year include Core FFO growth in Q4, 14.4% and 11.4% for the full-year, which is about 300 basis points higher than our original outlook at the beginning of the year. And, importantly, we continue to generate FFO growth this cycle for the top of the sector, while having the lowest leverage. Q4 same-store revenue growth came in at 5.4% or 5.7%, when you include redevelopment as many of our peers do. And for the full-year, same-store revenue growth came in at 5.0% or 5.2%, including redevelopment. Same-store NOI for the year came in at 5.8%. We completed about $500 million this quarter at right around a 7% yield, and $1.3 billion for the full-year at initial yield of 6.7%. We started another four communities totaling about $400 million in Q4, bringing our full-year level starts to roughly $1.2 billion or roughly in line with completions this year. And lastly, we raised $400 million in new capital in the quarter, principally $200 million or $300 million unsecured debt offering. And for the year, we raised a total of $1.9 billion in capital to fund new investment and refinance maturing debt. Turning now to slide five. The $1.3 billion of new development that we completed this year that I just referenced is contributing to healthy earnings and NAV accretion. Yields of 6.7% are roughly 250 basis points greater than our initial cost of external capital raised this year, and the cost base is, of these completions at $310,000 per unit is more than 30% less than the value of our average stabilized asset on a per unit basis, with rents at a 12% to 13% higher, implying that value creation was around 50% over cost. We're roughly $650 million in net NAV created or $5 per share in 2015 alone. Turning to slide six, in addition to strong financial results, we excelled in other important aspects of our business in 2015, including
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Thanks, Tim. Turning to development activity on slide 14, we show development under construction in absolute terms and relative to our total enterprise value. So, projected for year-end 2016, and historically going back to 2004. As you can see here ongoing development activity as a percentage of our total enterprise value has been relatively stable over the past few years at around 10%, which is at the low-end of our target range. This reflects our continued discipline in allocating capital to this activity as we move further into the cycle. Moving to slide 15, profit margins on our development activity have remained remarkably resilient and healthy in this cycle. Thanks to the underlying strength of apartment fundamentals, our sector-leading development and construction capabilities, and, the decisions we've made about which opportunities to pursue as this cycle matures. Since 2012, our development completions have increased from about a $0.5 billion to more than $1 billion. During that time, development yields have been around 7%, while corresponding cap rates for those particular assets have been at or below 5%, resulting in stable profit margins on development in the low 30% range. As shown on slide 16, communities currently in lease-up continue to provide healthy profit margins. For the 12 communities undergoing initial lease-up in 4Q 2015, which represent $970 million in total capital costs, the current weighted average monthly rent for home is $115 above initial expectation. In terms of yield performance, the weighted average initial projected stabilized yield for these communities is currently 6.7% or 30 basis points higher than our original projection of 6.4%. Turning to slide 17, I'd like to talk about how we manage risk associated with our development activity. The first way we do so is by maintaining a broadly diversified development pipeline, one that is diversified by geographic regions, by product type, and by exposure to urban and suburban submarkets. As the charts on slide 17 illustrate, while our development pipeline remains diversified across regions, future development rights are biased toward infill suburban submarkets and mid-rise product, where rents, construction and land costs are more affordable, development economics are more favorable and the production cycle tends to be faster. Going forward, we expect our development rights pipeline will continue to be an important source of outsized growth in NAV and FFO per share. Moving to slide 18, another way we manage development risk is how we source and structure new development opportunities. With the overwhelming majority being controlled through long-term purchase contracts with modest at-risk deposits and relatively few being controlled through land we've purchased and hold on our balance sheet. At the end of 2015, our development rights pipeline consisted of 32 communities, representing $3.4 billion in projected total capital cost. Of these 32 communities, 25 communities are controlled through purchase contracts, while we own the land on the remaining seven communities. In addition of these seven communities, where we own the land, two account for approximately $420 million of the $485 million in land held for development on our balance sheet. We expect to begin construction on these two development rights, Columbus Circle and Hollywood in 2016, which would reduce our projected land held for development by year-end 2016 to the lowest level in more than a decade. A third method, which we use to manage development risk is substantially match funding new starts with long-term capital. A topic we've talked about a lot in this cycle. On slide 19, we highlight our funding position against the total projected capital cost of development underway. As you can see, we only need to source about $500 million in long-term capital against the $3.4 billion in development under construction or recently completed. Taking new account to $2.2 billion of capital already spent to-date, $400 million of unrestricted cash on hand and $350 million of projected annual cash flow from operations after dividends. This means that about 85% of the value creation from ongoing development activity has already been locked in for our shareholders. Turning to slide 20, we show how being substantially match-funded significantly enhances our growth in EBITDA, while simultaneously enhancing our already sector-leading credit profile, essentially making us similar to an acquisition-oriented REIT from a funding risk perspective, but with lower leverage and stronger built-in earnings growth. Specifically, the projected EBITDA from recently completed development and from development under construction totals about $216 million, as shown on the chart in the left. This represents about 18% growth in annualized core EBITDA from the fourth quarter. Even in a worse case, if all the $480 million in unfunded commitments were funded with new debt, our net debt to core EBITDA would still decline from 4.8 times to the mid-4s, after taking into account the EBITDA from new development. Of course, our actual net debt to core EBITDA will move around a bit as we source new capital to fund incremental development activity, therefore the slide isn't meant to communicate that our leverage is going to decrease to 4.5 times or that our target leverage is 4.5 times. In fact, our target range for this metric is to be roughly between five times and six times. Instead the purpose in showing this slide is to convey that due to match-funding strategy, we are optimally positioned to benefit from development activity, that is expected to be accretive both to earnings and balance sheet strength and that our credit profile is actually enhanced by our profitable development capabilities, given our funding strategy. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Thanks, Kevin. And just ending here on slide 21, before opening up the call. In summary, 2015 was a very good year for the company and the industry. We're expecting 2016 to look a lot like 2015. Once again, benefiting from above-trend growth, I think this outlook is not surprising, just given our view that we are mid-cycle with healthy apartment, fundamentals continuing, and then just the stable level deliveries and healthy accretion are coming from our development pipeline. As we move further into the mature portion of the economic expansion, we are highly focused on managing the investment and funding risk of the business. And as Kevin mentioned in his remarks, we're doing this through managing the size and diversity of our pipeline, reducing land inventory, and match-funding new commitments and maintaining leverage at the low-end of our target range. And with that, Craig, we'd be happy to open up the call for Q&A.
Operator:
Perfect. First from UBS, we have Nick Yulico.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. So, I guess my first question would be, you've talked a lot about how you've been able to deliver projects at higher yields and underwriting for the past few years, you continue to do that. But as far as your guidance goes for this year, is your assumption for development pipeline that you're basically, you know, delivering at the yield that you give on the development page? And so that if you actually beat by 30 basis points at the high end of your range, or could you just put a little sensitivity around that?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Nick, this is Tim, and Matt, feel free to jump in. In terms of the attachment that shows the development pipeline with the projected yield of 6.3%, that is based upon current rents and rents marked to market once you start leasing and you get up to about 20%, 25% occupancy. For those communities that have started construction, where there may have been market rent growth, but we haven't yet started leasing, we haven't marked any of those to market, just to be clear. And I think you can probably see, over the last few years, we've generally been beating the initial pro forma yields by 30 basis points, 50 basis points, or 60 basis points, just because of a strong market rent growth and the fact that we've been able to bring, deals in more or less at budgeted cost. I think it really is ultimately, I mean if you look at the development pipeline today, the shadow pipeline of deals that haven't yet started, the economics of that look a lot like what the economics look like on the deals that we've been starting in the last couple of years. So, I think a lot of it's going to – how you would underwrite those would depend upon, how you'd underwrite the markets ultimately in terms of where we're doing business and how you might underwrite construction cost relative to market rent growth change over the next couple of years.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
That's helpful. I guess, just related back to the guidance, should we be assuming that if you are getting the 30 basis points beating on original underwriting, is that already kind of factored into your midpoint of your guidance, or is that sort of get you to the higher end of your guidance range on FFO?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. I'm sorry. In terms of FFO, it reflects the – the budgets for each of those assets which – they would have some embedded level of market rent growth, commensurate with the markets in which they reside.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. Got it. That's helpful. And then just one other question was on, you gave your outlook for U.S. job growth, basically being similar to last year. If job growth were to be slowing here, which people are concerned about, where do you think – which of your markets have the most risk then from a fundamental standpoint?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Nick, this is Sean. There's probably a couple of answers to that question, but I guess what I'd probably say based on historical precedent in the markets is the – the sort of high beta markets. If you want to think about it that way, it tend to be the technology markets. So, Northern California and Seattle tend to have a greater reaction in rent levels relative to a given change in job growth at many of our other markets. So, the technology markets are the ones you probably would be most concerned about, that's assuming of course that any reduction in job growth is somewhat proportional. In the past, we've had some losses in the energy sector. It has not had a direct effect on our market, but there's certainly some indirect effects as it relates to a reduced amount of capital investment on behalf of those companies, it's going to ripple through the economies. So, those are the markets, I'd probably be most concerned about, given a reduction in job growth.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
I guess just one last quick question. And then maybe it's for Kevin, is that I think the concern would be that you guys – although you guys have a great balance sheet and you are mostly funded for the development pipeline today as you look at it year end, still starting more projects, and people then worried about you guys and having to raise capital a year from now. I mean, what would be your sort of answer to that, that shouldn't be a concern for folks?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, there's a few things, Nick. And first of all, as we demonstrate in 2009, if we don't think we have a reasonable access to capital, we don't have to start new project, that would be one thing to keep in mind. We don't need to keep creating commitments, if we don't think cost effective capital is available to us in one of our principle funding markets. And I guess the second thing to keep in mind is that, if we do keep a very strong balance sheet both from a match-funding perspective, but also in other dimensions including having low leverage and ladder maturities. So, that we have an awful lot of flexibility to deal with sort of an air pocket that might exist where there may be disruption of the capital markets before we've been able to sort of adjust and dial back on new start. So, I think fundamentally, we have a great deal of flexibility and the commitments we create in the capital, we're going to be able to source to deal with volatility and the capital markets and that's how we manage the balance sheet.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks.
Operator:
And next we have Nick Joseph from Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. You talked about the development rights pipeline and its current focus on infill suburban submarkets. Do you think that there's a difference in investor demand in terms of the transaction market between urban core assets and infill suburban assets? And then how do you think about that in terms of the IRR differential between the two?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah, Nick this is Matt. There is great demand for almost everything right now. I think there is a difference in cap rate, clearly urban core assets do tend to trade at a lower cap rate. How much lower depends on what you're comparing it to, if you're comparing it to, here in D.C., D.C. versus Arlington is not going to be that different versus – as compared to say D.C. versus Tysons Corner for example. But, we do reflect that in the target yields that we put out for deals. We look out where we think the cap rate should be on those assets' specific sites today, and where we think long-term exit cap rates might be. So, we do factor that in. Going forward, I don't know. It's speculative. There has been foreign capital that's probably preferred to stay mostly in the urban type of trophy assets, and that's one reason the cap rates are a little bit lower on those. But, we've got pretty strong healthy demand for both at this point.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. Well, if we were to enter into a recession, do you think there's more stickiness to the urban core cap rates versus the suburban? Or do you think they would move up together?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I don't know, I think every cycle is different, it's hard to know.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Nick, I guess, I think there is probably liquidity premium for the urban core stuffs. So, to the extent, you get into a period of more significant capital dislocation, the probability of being able to move or to monetize an urban asset, I would say, it's probably greater than a suburban asset or – and I think that's part of the premium valuation or discount cap. The discount for the cap rate is just that liquidity aspect of it.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. And then in terms of rental affordability overall, are we at a point in the cycle where rental rate growth will more closely track wage growth, or is there still room to be able to increase rents at a higher pace than overall wage growth?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Nick, this is Sean. We are at sort of the upper-end range on that metric. It's running around 22%, which is within the band of history; but certainly, at the upper-end of that band. So, there's no question and we need to continue to see income growth to support rental rate growth in the future. So, we had a certain deceleration in income growth for whatever reason, which is not what's expected. And I think we're seeing that throughout the economy now, in terms of pressure on wage growth, then there would become greater constraints on pushing rents further in the future. No doubt about it.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Hey, Nick. And just to add to that. When you look at wage growth, we talked about in the past that there is a bifurcated labor market, right, in terms of college grads and non-college grads where you get 5% for the total population unemployment, 2.5% for college grads. The majority of our residents are college grads and I – and we are seeing that they're probably getting higher than average, making higher than average wage gains, which just provides a little bit more support I think for our business, in terms of – to continue to generate decent rent growth.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
And Nick, just to give you a sense. On a year-over-year basis in the fourth quarter, lease income for new residents relative to last year was more than 5%. So, we're seeing that for our population of residents for sure.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
Next, we'll go to Gaurav Mehta with Cantor Fitzgerald.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Yeah. Thanks. Good afternoon. Going back to your funding activities, can you talk about how you are thinking about asset sales versus capital markets today?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Hey, Gaurav, this is Kevin. As we laid out in our outlook, we anticipate sourcing about $1.1 million in asset sales and unsecured debt. I think in terms of the attractiveness of those markets today, both are highly attractive; and I'd say, while we don't comment on the precise mix in part, because the capital markets and sales can be volatile and the pricing can change over time. Of that $1.1 billion, the majority of the capital in our plan is contemplated to come in the form of unsecured debt issuance.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
So, not much asset sales this year?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, it's $1.1 million. We haven't again precisely identified the actual mix, a minority of that amount will come through asset sales, the majority will come through unsecured debt is our current capital plan. Tim, do you want to add?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Just I think to add to that, I think you are a limited somewhat and how much you could sell from a tax perspective and retain the capital without having to do a special dividend. Just because of the tax gains that are embedded and a lot of the assets that would be on our disposition list. So that would impact at the margins in terms of how you might think about debt versus asset sales.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
And the other points to bear in mind, is that with our leverage being a little bit, currently being a little bit below our target level we've got capacity for incremental debt, particularly out when you give effect to this deleveraging impact of stabilizing development.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay. And then lastly, on your development pipeline, the 6.3% average yield that you have on your current pipeline, is it possible to break it down between your expectations for the suburban versus urban assets?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
We haven't really broken it down that way. It really varies by market. I mean yields are lower in New York City, or cap rates are lower. So, maybe they are a little lower on the urban stuff. Again, we think cap rates are 25 basis points to 50 basis points lower on the existing assets. I don't know that the urban yields are that much lower, but they're probably a little bit lower.
Gaurav Mehta - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And next, we'll hear from Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Hi. It's Austin Wurschmidt here. Thanks for taking the question. You mentioned the average initial cost on the $1.9 billion in capital you raised last year was around 4.3%. What are you, I guess, assuming in your guidance in terms of that cost of capital in 2016?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Hi, Austin, that's probably a little bit more specific than we've ever guided to you before. So, I don't really have any comment on that.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
So like maybe a little bit differently, when you think about the spread between the development deliveries and the cost of capital you plan to raise this year, would you think it would be something along the same lines as you achieved last year?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah. I think probably in that ballpark. I don't know, Tim do you want to...
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. I mean, honestly – I mean we said we're primarily looking to rely on debt and asset sales. And we had two debt deals this past year that we could probably issue debt at about the same pricing today on a 10-year basis around in the mid-3% somewhere and cap rates in a range depending upon which market you're selling in, probably in the low-4%s to the mid-5%s. So, to the extent that we're more weighted towards leverage, which we're likely to be, this year. I think it gets you probably in the low-4%s, again like we were in 2015.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
That's fair. Thank you. And then just separately, given your guys' focus a little bit more on increasing your development exposure to suburban markets, and you've talked a lot about the growth in the 35 year old to 44 year old age cohort. Just curious about your thoughts given we've kind of seen that homeownership rate within that segment tick up here more recently, and how you're thinking about that in terms of renter demand moving forward.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
This is Matt. I guess I can speak to that on a little bit and then I don't know, Sean or Tim, you want to chime in as well. The demographic trends are long trends. I mean the great thing about is, you can see it coming five years, 10 years down the road. And so, as we think about how we want to position our portfolio where we are seeing the best risk-adjusted returns, opportunities to invest out of program communities for the future. It's driven by some of those big macro trends. So, I don't think a small movement in the home ownership rate on the margins is going to impact that when you look at just overall numbers coming through. It's a pretty dramatic shift that's going to occur here. So, I think things have to change a lot before it changes our opinion on that.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
And I guess the only thing to add is you really start to get the leading edge of that active boom in that. If you look back – a lot of people don't realize this but if you look back over the last five years to 10 years, the drop in home ownership rates are most pronounced in that 35 to 44 segment more so than the 25 to 34 segments. So, you have a lot more people moving into that segment. They drop by like 1,100 basis points, something like that. And even if it ticks back up, I saw you're talking about lot more rental households over the next 10 years coming from that segment. And it's impacting how we're thinking about product right now in terms of providing – I think we've talked about the signature package in terms of a higher level of finish and some larger units than we've maybe been doing over the last few years, and certain deals in it, it impacts how you think about amenities as well. So, we do think it's going to be a pretty big source of demand and it represents that that extra core represents about 20% of our residents today, whereas the under 35 cohorts maybe 40%, 45%.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thank you. There was a recent article that Facebook was offering employees $10,000 to $15,000 to move closer to its headquarters in Menlo Park. I'm wondering if you had heard other Silicon Valley companies doing this and if you've seen any impact in your properties?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
John, this is Sean. We're not specifically aware of a, like I saw, call it a global offering like Facebook made. Obviously, there are other companies out there recruiting people across America that provide incentives for them to relocate. So, we don't necessarily track that. It's very episodic in terms of how it occurs, it's just part of the normal fabric of the process on a daily basis. So, there's nothing material out there that we're aware of other than the recent Facebook offering and we're not hearing about it in a way that it's influencing our data in any form or fashion.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. And it sounds like Northern California may decelerate in revenue growth this year. Can you comment on markets that you see may have the best chance of accelerating growth this year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. Sean again. I guess, what I'd say is, at this point, you've properly identified Northern California is one of the markets, where there is probably a little bit of concern about slowing, just came up a couple of different times. But in terms of markets that have some upside, certainly the Mid-Atlantic is one that has some potential upside in terms of – we're at a point of cycle where we know that supply is about 2% last year. It's going to increase about 2.5% this year. But more importantly, as we're getting pretty good job growth out of the Mid-Atlantic now, up and below 2% range. And it's starting to have a nice effect on occupancy and rent change across the markets here. So, the expectation is that there is potential for some upside in the Mid-Atlantic. I would now describe it as opportunistic and that there is significant upside. There's still a fair amount of supply coming and it's not a sort of high bid market as I described in the Northern California and Pacific Northwest region. So, you tend to get a moderate recovery and we're seeing that here in terms of recent trends, where rent change is up about 100 basis points in the first quarter as compared to the first quarter of 2014. So, there is nice momentum there. And then the other market that may have some upside, I'd say is Boston. Boston has been performing well, job growth has been steady. And supply is projected to decrease this year relative to 2015. So, there is probably a little bit of potential upside in Boston and in the Mid-Atlantic are the two that probably stand out the most I'd say. Southern California has been increasing nicely and we expect that to continue, but I wouldn't think it falls into the potential surprise category, like the others do.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Thanks for that. And finally, on Edgewater, on your settlement in January, can you remind us what you plan to do with the proceeds? Are you planning to potentially redevelop the asset or just repay the mortgage?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
John, this is Kevin. The mortgage we repaid last year, we've already, as we've indicated in the release, received $44 million in proceeds that was back in 2015. We anticipate receiving another $29 million in final, additional proceeds in the first quarter. And so, part of that is meant to compensate for the lost income on the project. And so, essentially it becomes source of cash for us in 2016 and that's from a funding point of view how we view it.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I'm sorry. John, I had just to add, this is Matt. We are planning to rebuild and we've been having conversations with the local jurisdiction there and are expecting to file rebuild plans shortly.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Looks like the settlement amount came in close to your last point of book value. I'm just wondering where you see it versus replacement cost?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well. Maybe I should just correct you on the first piece. It – we wrote off the book value last year and even after having done so, the $44 million of proceeds that came in reflected. We had a causality gain. So, the proceeds receiving last year exceeded our remaining book value in the destroyed building. As I indicated a significant portion of the proceeds about $20 million relates to compensation for lost income due to the business interruption of losing the building. So, that's one little point of clarification.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. In terms of the cost to rebuild, I don't think we know yet exactly what's going to cost to rebuild. We have to finish the plans and bid it out, but relative to the overall recovery, it would certainly be less, right?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah. And overall we received $73 million and about a little more than $50 million that's related to destroyed building and our sense is that, that was meant to cover the replacement costs for that building.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Got it. Okay. I was looking at the replacement on the book value in your 2013 10-K. Thank you.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
That's probably also included the other building that was not destroyed.
Operator:
And next we'll move to Jana Galan with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. You mentioned rent as a percent of income is kind of at the upper end of historical ranges. Any submarkets where you're above the prior peaks and how do you think about maybe millennial budgets where they might not have a car?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Jana. Good question. In terms of markets where it's, I guess constrained, it's not necessarily any one market that's well beyond historical ranges. You've got certain markets that are more expensive, but obviously you got people making substantially more income. So, there is nothing that's on the extreme outlier side, if you want to call it that. Anyhow, we do try to take into account millennials and the choices they make, so those numbers tend to be higher in some of those urban locations where people don't have cars, using metro or the subway, or whatever it might be. So, we do find that in those cases, people are in a position where they can tend to spend a little bit more of their income on rent in other geographies, so it's a fair point.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And then maybe just on your outlook for your Metro New York, New Jersey portfolio, can you maybe talk to the different submarkets, as certain submarkets are seeing much more supply than others?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. In terms of the Greater New York, New Jersey market, I mean if you look at it across say New York City, Northern New Jersey, Central New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester, it's a pretty diverse geography. A lot of the supply is concentrated in New York City and Northern New Jersey. So, if you're looking at Hudson County and then you spread throughout the boroughs, you're going to see that. Supply as a percent of inventory still on Westchester, Long Island, Central New Jersey is pretty insignificant. So even though you have demand in those markets that identify with greater supply, there's a lid on growth next year as a result of it. So, there's not a wide variation. For the most part, New York-New Jersey is going to be probably in the mid-to-high 3% range. There is not one market that's in the low-2%s and other one in the 5%s, to give you some perspective if that helps. It's a pretty tight range.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
Next from Janney, we have Rob Stevenson.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Good afternoon, guys. Sean can you do more or less the same for the D.C. submarkets, in terms of fourth quarter performance, was there any bifurcation by sort of submarket in the D.C. Metro? And then in terms of your 2016 outlook, any material differential in expectations between D.C. proper, Northern Virginia, et cetera?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. As it relates to the – I'll call it sort of recent momentum including the fourth quarter and spillover into early 2016, I'd say the laggard across the Metro area has been suburban Maryland. Job growth has been okay, but the supply has been heavy and steady throughout that region, particularly Rockville, North Bethesda, Chevy Chase has been inundated with supply. So it's been the softest. The strongest has been in and around D.C. So, D.C. proper as well as the close-in sort of RB (42:50) corridor and things like that, towns and submarkets that are close in to D.C. And then I'd say the rest of Northern Virginia kind of falls into second place. So, call it, the district and immediately adjacent submarkets, Northern Virginia and then suburban Maryland being the laggard as kind of recent conditions. In terms of expected performance in 2016, what we have is overall for the Mid-Atlantic, probably be in the mid 1% range. And again, it's relatively tight I'd say, when we're talking about suburban Maryland probably, right at the midpoint there. We may see a little bit better performance out of D.C., just given the nature of our specific assets in D.C., which is the Gallery Place, Foxhall, stuff in the Northwest Corridor that's older and rent controlled. When you look at it from a market perspective, I would say that one thing to be cautious about is, the greatest amount of supply to be delivered in 2016 is in the district, because depending on the distribution of your portfolio within the district really will dictate what's your performance is going to be. So, the way I think the market would probably look at it is, D.C. people would probably expect to be a little bit softer, given the nature of the deliveries. Infill suburban submarkets probably perform – in Virginia performing better. And then, western Fairfax, I would say and suburban Maryland probably be in the laggard.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then, can you also talk about expectations for the three main Southern California submarkets in 2016 and how you see that sort of shaping up and, any type of issues in any of the individual markets that you're worried about from a supply standpoint?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, happy to talk about that. In terms of – again, recent performance rolling forward, I'll try to keep it relatively brief without going on too long here. But, where we've started to see some supply impacts is in Orange County. Orange County softened up a little bit. There is a fair amount of supply coming into Irvine, there's some in Laguna Hills, there's supply in Anaheim, there's been supply in Huntington Beach, a little bit in Costa Mesa, so that's softened a little bit. And our expectation for 2016 for that market is for it to trail the other regions as well because of the same issues. San Diego and L.A., we expect the lead going into 2016 and continue throughout the year. And for the most part, that's not only the nature of the market, but how our portfolio is positioned, which is for the most part it's the asset in suburban submarkets across San Diego, which is relatively small portfolio, but that's where the majority of our assets are located. And Los Angeles, same thing in terms of the distribution of the assets within those submarkets. We don't have any same-store assets in Downtown L.A., as an example, which is getting supply now that's equal to double-digit percentages of existing inventory. So, you're going to have softness in some of those submarkets like Downtown L.A., where you're getting a heavy amount of new deliveries. So, I'd say for 2016 overall, if I'm going to see L.A.-San Diego leading and Orange County lagging, just given the nature of our portfolio, but also just from the market perspective in terms of where the supply is concentrated.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. Very helpful. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
Next up we have Ian Weissman with Credit Suisse.
Unknown Speaker:
Hey, guys. This is Chris for Ian. Obviously, you don't do a lot of acquisitions. Can you talk a little bit about the motivated you to do the Avalon-Hoboken and then what's the forward cap rate on that asset?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. Chris, this is Matt. You're right, we haven't done a lot of acquisitions historically in this cycle. So, at this point, what we are doing is we are trying to – we're always looking for opportunities to improve our portfolio where we can. And, that happens to be a very unique opportunity there in Hoboken. We weren't per se looking to add in New Jersey on a net basis. But, we're always looking to improve our submarket exposure. It's a highly supply protected submarket. So, one of the few parts of New Jersey, we have not been able to penetrate through new development. The cap rate is about 5%, which is pretty attractive for an asset. It's only seven years old. The average unit size there is about 1,000 square feet, so it's actually more targeted at families and necessarily at young singles. And that's what – in that part of Hoboken, it's kind of interesting to see how it's evolving in that way as Hoboken kind of matures as a desirable location, not just for people kind of right out of school, but for people; married couples, who're a little bit older as well, there's a super market right next door. So, it was just a unique opportunity and we feel like we're able to, based on some unique characteristics of the way the asset was marketed, get it at price it was more compelling than most of the acquisition opportunities we're seeing.
Unknown Speaker:
Great.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, maybe just to add to that, maybe implicit in your question too. I mean we're not looking at acquisitions as a growth platform right now to be clear. But, we are seeing a lot of volume and we see it as an opportunity to potentially upgrade the portfolio. And so we do look at sort of mid cycle. We see a lot of volume. We're focused both on asset management and portfolio management to try to upgrade and improve the portfolio as we can. And as I mentioned earlier in one of the other questions, that we are somewhat limited in terms of how much dispositions we can do before, you can't retain the capital anymore, but we do see that as – we do have some assets we like to sell and we're seeing an active transaction market, where we see assets, we preferred our own and so we're trying to do some fair trade along the way as well.
Unknown Speaker:
Got it. That's helpful. Then the 5% is how much CapEx per units does that have in there?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah, normally when we quote cap rates, it's just kind of typical market convention. So, I don't know the exact number; but this is again a fairly young asset. So, my guess is something like, 400 units or 500 units something like that.
Unknown Speaker:
Okay. Great. And then, I appreciate all the color on the risk mitigation (49:13) you guys do on the development pipeline, but just wondering if you can give us some perspective of where cap rate spreads were on new starts before the market entered a downturn last time around? And then, where those spreads ended up, and then I guess at the 250 basis point cap rates spread you've got now, is that enough cushion to kind of stay profitable as things turn?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. This is Tim. I would say, we're probably looking at development yields around, what we're looking at today mid-6%s. There was a year or two where it ended up, they came in around closer to 5% in terms of actual performance. Conversely, I would say, cap rates will probably in the mid-4%s, where they are today and that really, as you know, there are hardly any trades at all; but to the extent there were trades, it probably went north of – it probably went north of 6% for a year or two. But hopefully that's help – but if you look at the deal that we were building in 2009 and 2010 that ended up stabilizing initially at 5%, those are more or like 6.5% and 7%s today, just to put it in perspective. So, they are fine assets. We're not going to make the same kind of return that was made on deals that we started two years later, for sure. But still find outcome, given the kind of recession we went through.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Chris, this is Kevin. Just to add to that, looking at some of the data that we have here internally in terms of original projected yields and initial stabilized yields by vintage of completion. And going back to that time period, yields fell about 100 basis points. So, that's their initial underwriting.
Unknown Speaker:
Got it. Okay. Thanks a lot, guys.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah. And, that's a great point, Matt's alluding to, the match-funding is what's the most critical thing because comparing sort of, you had to really compare the yields on the deals that have started with the capital that is sourced in the same period of time. That's the virtue of match-funding, you walk into NAV growth right now at this point in time.
Unknown Speaker:
Perfect. Thanks.
Operator:
And our next question is from Ryan Peterson with Sandler O'Neill.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Yeah. Hi, thank you. Just on your Columbus Circle development, could you guys provide an update on any plans to monetize a portion of that through either retail or condominiums?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. This is Matt, I can speak to that a little bit. We are working on it. The program is getting set. As an example, I think when we first bought the land, we thought we were going to do about 50,000 square feet or 55,000 square feet of retail there. The programs that we have now is more or like 67,000 square feet or 70,000 square feet of retail. We were able to add some retail in a seller level and a sub-seller level. So, it's now matured to the point that we have a pretty good definition of what the offering is and we have been talking to folks and we'll keep you updated as we make progress on that.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Great. And then my second question is just, what your thoughts are on 421-A, whether that will be resuscitated or whether you think that will kind of severely curb development in New York?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. I think it's obviously too early to tell. It is a program that's been around for a long, long time. And it is important for to make rental production work for the most part in the city, in New York City. So, I think our local folks would say, probably there will be a program in some form of fashion. It will come back at some point. These things get snagged in politics and in New York, there's kind of this unique situation, right. It's not just the city, but all the new – the state legislators involved as well. So, as it relates to our portfolio specifically, it doesn't really have much impact, the deal we're just talking about Columbus Circle, we're never intending to put that deal in the program. So, our plan is not to have any affordables and not to have any tax abatements from the start. And, the other deals that we have done in New York, it's already been vested. So, it might impact the land market until things settle out, but it's too early to say what this impact might be going forward.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Great. That's it for me. Thank you.
Operator:
Next from Zelman & Associates, we have Dan Oppenheim.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates:
Thanks. I was wondering just if you can talk a little bit in terms of what you're thinking about for, you said you'll start Columbus Circle here in 2016, any thought in terms of timing for that, or just finalizing in terms of the retail offering and overall plans?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Our current expectation is we've started in the second half of the year. I think we're starting demolition right now. So, we've got some work to do there. And, we're just finalizing the plans, but it's in the plan for the back half of the year.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates:
Got it. And then, I guess relatedly, on page five of the slide, you talked to basically show the, where you're getting in terms of the rent and the capital costs for the development projects that were completed in 2015, basically showing some of the, call it, higher gross yield relative to the stabilized portfolio. How do you think about that in terms of the growth rate? I mentioned Columbus Circle, look at that a couple years from now, almost going to look the reverse in terms of lower yield, but likely thinking about a higher long-term growth rate, and so wondering how you think about the growth on this or what you've started in 2015?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, Dan, it's Tim. I mean in terms of – we've talked to this in the past, every deal has a target yield that's impacted by what we think the projected growth profile, cash growth profile. That asset will or that submarket will deliver, so something like a Columbus Circle, we think we'd have a higher growth profile than the average field in our – our portfolio. We would expect that to have a lower go-in yield and that's pretty much how land markets and development markets price. So, it's a fair point because we do have a couple large deals that the – and Hollywood deal as well, which is an L.A. deal which – usually California deals are lower cap rate and higher growth. So that will impact the projected initial yield, if you will, because we are expecting to get, basically the same IRR but more of it through residual and cash flow growth.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates:
Okay. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Sure.
Operator:
Next, we'll go to Vincent Chao from Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Hey, good afternoon everyone. I just wanted to go back to some of your job growth outlook, especially the New York, Metro New Jersey area, just hearing some other forecasts calling for some deceleration there. Looks like you're looking for things to pick up in 2016 versus 2015. I was just curious if you could comment on what's driving that, if it's really your expectations in New York City or if it's some of the suburbs?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, we really rely on third parties for our job forecast. I guess I would start there. There is some chat, I think partly what's been going on in the equity markets whether some of the economists and consensus is going to drift down a little bit, in terms of GDP and job forecast in general to the extent that it, they changed it related to the equity markets. I guess it would be logical that maybe New York, New Jersey might be more impacted than the average market. But now, we used some judgment, but when we're quoting job growth, we are relying on third parties that we have found to be most helpful in the past.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. That makes sense. And just one other question, just in terms of L.A., it sounds like expectations for Southern California overall are going to be for continued acceleration, but it did seem like same-store revenue growth here in L.A. slowed a little bit, and I was just wondering if there was something specifically that kind of weighed on growth here this quarter, understanding it's still 6%, which is good, but...
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, this is Sean. There's nothing specific that we're concerned about as it relates to L.A. I mean every asset has different characteristics in terms of lease expiration profile and things of that sort. You're trying to push rate in some cases and then in other cases, trying to gain occupancy. So, you just kind of get in the quarter-to-quarter noise and I don't think there's any concern about L.A. at this point at all.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thanks.
Operator:
Next we'll go to Dave Bragg from Green Street Advisors.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Thank you. Good afternoon. I had a couple of quick ones for you. The track record of the cycle on development is clearly compelling, as you laid out on 2015. Thinking about it from the profit margin perspective that you laid out, what level of profit margins are you targeting on incremental starts?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, Dave, as we mentioned, we typically do start with the cost of capital and add some accretion factor to that. I mean it ends up being in the 150 basis point to 200 basis point range in terms of premium from a target perspective. And we've been able to meet or exceed that certainly the cycle. We put the slide up there that showed the – with the average deal was crossing about $310,000 just using your data, if you just sort of extrapolate that out, using the rent premium that those deals are getting, they would suggest an average value about $470,000 for that book of business. And if you look at the pipeline, the shadow pipeline that has an estimated cost about $350 a door today with honestly a bit more urban-oriented product, with probably has a little bit higher rents on average, slightly higher rent. So, it's still pretty healthy looking margin based upon what we know today which are today's rents and today's cost.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you. And, Tim, you've mentioned a couple of times, or you've alluded to a limit surrounding your disposition potential in 2016. Could you put a number around that?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, it depends which assets you choose to sell at the end of the day, but it's not atypical. It's probably, the assets we're looking to sell have more than a 50% embedded gain on the proceeds. So to the extent, you've got, call it $200 million or $300 million of capacity before you start getting into requirement just to distribute, you could sell 2x there, but it depends on the mix. And I don't know if you've got anything you want to add to that?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure. Just a couple of things in that. Probably tax is not an area people are overly eager to get into a deep discussion on to be sure. There's really two issues, one is just the special dividend obligation associated with the fact that we are a tax paying entity, but for the fact that we have the dividends paid deduction. But there's also excise considerations as well. So, I think from our standpoint, when we look at using asset sales to fund development, we have a fair bit of running room in terms of being able to sell assets. Before we had to worry about a special dividend obligation, we would probably more likely encounter situation where we might have to pay an excise tax, which is sort of a little bit of a 4% tax payment on excess income over distributions. And so, it becomes sort of kind of almost like a transaction cost, if you will. That get added to selling assets to fund development. So we certainly have a reasonable amount of ability to continue to sell assets to fund development, but what we'd run into first is probably haven't pay an excise tax, which is just an extra transaction cost, if you will, which we'd rather not incur, if we can avoid it, but it's something that's probably more relevant.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
All right. Thank you for that. One last one for you, Kevin. You suggested that you'll lean on unsecured market as it relates to the sources of funds. What are your latest thoughts on 30-year money?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, we don't really have 30-year unsecured money in the balance sheet today. We do have fair bit of about $1.1 billion of tax exempt debt, that's secured in and has probably on average about 21-years left to run. So, that's something we have done in the past and we like that form capital, though it's far or less available today. In terms of 30-year unsecured debt, since we don't currently have it. You have to ask yourself what's it in substitution for. I think probably it's been a little bit more of a compelling equity substitute for those who want more leverage than a compelling substitute for 10-year debt when you do the breakevens. For us, we might be willing to entertain doing it. I guess probably, one guiding principle would be, if we will look at the total amount of debt, we're going to issuing in one year, there's only so much we want to issue in the form of 10-year unsecured debt before. In the future period, we would have more debt coming due than we prefer, which – as we talked about before, we try to target having level maturities that are on balance less than or equal to our projected amount of dividend. And so, if we felt we're going to be issuing a certain amount of debt in the unsecured markets. In a given year that might be more than we want to have come in due in 10 years. We might think about doing the excess in the form of a 30-year note offering.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And next from Jefferies, we have Tayo Okusanya.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yes, good afternoon. I was just curious, just given all the market volatility concerns about a recession, are you seeing your tenants reacting any differently when you gave them new acting rents in January? And when renewals were coming up, whether they are being much more, you know, aggressive about trying to get a rent cut or decline or some type of relief, just kind of given the overall nervousness in the economic backdrop?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Tayo, it's Sean. I mean to answer that directly based on the data, the answer is no, in terms of the actions they're taking. For example, rent increase is too high and move out to rent increase doesn't really move that much on average, it has the certain markets. And so I think you probably have to go market-by-market to figure out where that's most pronounced. So there's certainly been pushback in Northern California, that's above historical averages. But that's the market where we've seen pretty significant rent growth in the last three years, so you sort of expect that when someone get to a third, 8%, 9%, 10% rent increase, wages have been growing, but they are not growing that quickly, there's some pushback, but I'd say it's part of the normal process. There's not as significant shift to one direction or another that we're seeing across the portfolio.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
And from Robert W. Baird, we have Drew Babin.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Good afternoon. I was hoping you could talk about a couple of your larger developments out there, the Willoughby Square, AVA DoBro asset and North Station in Boston? And where those yield expectations stack up kind of relative to that 6.3% and what gives you confidence for those assets in particular that, you know, targeted yields will be achieved either from a cost control standpoint or market fundamentals?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. Drew, this is Matt. I can start on that and Sean, if you want to chime in anything. Those are two big urban high rises and again, we think about the target returns starting out relative to kind of what the spot cap rate is – would be on those assets is one thing we look at as well as objective growth profile would be, to kind of get from different potential starting target yields to target IRR, which is more similar across different deals. Those two deals were underwritten in kind of the high fives based on the rents that we're in place when we started those deals. We have not marked either one to market yet. The Willoughby Square deal is a very large building. So, it will be a while before we have kind of 20% lease, which is typically when we would market-to-market. But I think we're feeling pretty good about the capital budget there and we're feeling pretty good that based on what we've seen so far, the market is certainly a little bit above where it was pro forma and Sean...
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Drew, this is Sean. As it relates to Willoughby/AVA DoBro, which is really – as you may not know, it's two components to the building as an AVA component and then Avalon component. We have product in the AVA section of the building right now, which delivered late in the fourth quarter after a few delays with the MTA in their space. But early returns are good. We haven't marked it to market, but face rents are in the $60 a foot range. So, I think pro forma was around $55, and at $60 a foot that's a kind of slow leasing season, Christmas, January kind of rates. So feel pretty good about that in terms of how that product is positioned in Brooklyn. As I mentioned, we don't have the Avalon component yet, but it's – those would be the nicer units at top of the building. So, our expectation is once we open those up probably mid-year, we're going to see a nice pop in overall rates for the building.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Hey, Drew, this is Tim. And just to add maybe on the cost (01:07:29). So we feel pretty good about the cost. I mean we do access our own GC, sometimes with the CM, construction management firm, but we hold the contracts. And so, we typically have better visibility than if we are working with a third party in terms of any cost pressures on deals. And we feel pretty good about – as Matt mentioned, – we feel pretty good about these deals right now in terms of bringing those online in the – for the budget amounts that we've laid out on our schedule.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Great. That's helpful. One more. Should there be any slowing in employment growth in the Bay area, how do you feel that the San Francisco MSA kind of stacks up against Silicon Valley against the East Bay area, either from a supply standpoint or just – what are the dynamics on the ground in terms of setup if things get slowed down?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, sure. Drew, it's Sean. Couple of thoughts on that, I mean in general across that market, when things soften up, the most expensive price point product tends to suffer first. So, if you had the most expensive high rises in the city, you're going to see some reaction to that. If you – that's just a macro comment. It sort of depends on when it occurs, and what supply is being delivered. As we go into 2016, there is more supply concentrated in San Jose than there is in either the East Bay or San Francisco, as an example, that's across San Jose, now it's concentrated in Northeast San Jose. If you play that up in the Mountain View, certain submarkets is about three or four submarkets there. It's up in San Francisco, there's fair amount of supply being delivered into Soma. So, if you're exposed to Soma, you're probably going to get hurt just as much. So, it sort of depends on when in the cycle that occurs and what supply is being delivered at that point in time. But generally speaking in the higher price point assets tend to suffer first. And what you tend to see is, people will migrate as things become more affordable, they'll migrate back towards into the city and the cycle kind of repeats itself. So hopefully, that provides some broad perspective about what happens in the market.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
That's helpful. Thank you. That's all I got.
Operator:
And next, we have Rich Anderson with Mizuho Securities.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Thanks. Sorry to keep it going here. But I had a question, looking at the development pipeline, do you develop eaves product? Are they all kind of retrofit from current assets?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah, Rich. This is Matt. I wish we could, but those are all renovations or...
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. Okay. So that's – I get it. I thought so, because there's none listed there. And that's my recollection. But then I noticed that you also have been selling some of these product. I'm just curious how that brand is doing relative to AVA.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Rich, it's Sean. One way to think about it is just how the portfolio eaves communities are performing relative to Avalon or AVA, that's typically a story of which market is actually in, if it's in Northern California, obviously it's been very strong versus say, Westchester. But generally speaking right now within the market footprint, our eaves communities are pretty synonymous with B communities, as you refer to Axium metrics or Reese (01:10:47) or any of those. And eaves communities tend to be outperforming right now. To give you some perspective in the fourth quarter for our portfolio, the B assets or the eaves assets, which is for the most part of B assets, were about 70 basis points ahead of how the A assets were performing. As you look at Axium metrics, this is a pretty similar pattern there in terms of the outperformance. So this part of the cycle well positioned value-oriented communities are outperforming. To the extent, we're selling one of those communities. This typically is related to either submarket specific or asset specific either issues we have or concerns about concentration in terms of other activity, we might have in the region that typically drives those disposition decisions as it relates to, pretty much any community, but eaves as well.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. And then bigger picture on the development pipeline, in light of the fact that you're projecting your land position to decline in 2016, 26 projects under development, about 10% of your asset base is tied up in development. If you were to kind of roll forward three years or four years from now, would those numbers be materially lower than they are today, if you had to hazard a guess?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Rich, this is Tim. I guess they'll be lower. How materially, it really kind of depends a bit on the opportunity set. We've been a little surprised honestly over the last let's say year and year-and-half, but we continue to see, we think are pretty compelling opportunities at reasonable land prices. So to the extent that things get – start getting too expensive or too distorted which they have on a limited basis for instance in the Bay Area, we're – it's tough to make the numbers work in the Bay Area. So all the markets start to looking like the Bay area, we would deplete the development rights inventory pretty quickly. But that's something I guess, I mean typically the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic could be a little bit more stable, and I would expect – the expected case would be, it would start to draw down a bit over the next three years.
Richard Charles Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay, Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And gentlemen, your final question of the day comes from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey, Guys, it's actually Neil on for Wes. Just a question on occupancy. It looked like this quarter you saw pretty strong drop in occupancy across the board, particularly in Northern California. Just wondering if you can comment on that. Was it a function of just seasonally weak or lower leasing, a function of you switching your expiration to the middle, higher volume, higher velocity times of the year, pushing rent too hard? Can you comment on that?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Neil. This is Sean. One thing to keep in mind is our occupancy was down on a year-over-year basis. If you look at it on a sequential basis, we were actually up 20 basis points, and there were a couple of markets at the end of 2014, particularly Northern California and the Greater New York region, where frankly availability was a little lower than we had wanted it from an ideal perspective in terms of pushing pricing and occupancy drifted up a little heavy. So we're not too concerned about the year-over-year change, sequential change, we're perfectly fine with. We're well-positioned today in terms of where we sit, we are basically mid-95%s, in terms of economic occupancy it's down about 30 basis points, 40 basis points. But it's right about where we think we should be. As we look toward to the spring, we want to try and put pricing as much as we can and availability is in the mid-5% range, it's up 30 bps, 40 bps from last year at this point in time. But, as I mentioned, we thought we were probably a little bit on the low side at this point last year. So, we think we're in a pretty good shape and here just looking at a year-over-year comp that's creating that change in occupancy.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks. And then lastly, are you seeing any evidence that in the Bay area for some of your rentals on the higher end that people maybe are pushing back or maybe seeing some softness in renewals or new leases, that would lead you to indicate that there may be something more than a temporary blip going on in that market?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Good question. I mean obviously Q4 is typically is a slower period, I would say it was a little beyond seasonal adjustment in the fourth quarter, whether it continues to soften a bit, just to be seen. But, I think as we indicated earlier, we're expecting chart growth to slow in that region, deliveries will be accelerating in that market. So, we are expecting it to soften a bit as we move throughout the year, whether that for a sign of it in the fourth quarter not just to be seen. But, we did expect some softening, we realize that and the question going forward here is, what's the basis job growth since we know what supply is going to be. So, our expectation is that market will moderate through 2016, given just the fundamentals that are in place.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
All right. Fair enough. Thank you very much for taking the time.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
And, with no more questions, I'd like to turn things back to Tim Naughton for any closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, thank you, Craig. I know people are busy, given the time of the year. I just want to thank you all for being on today. And, enjoy the rest of your day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen that does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman Partners LLC John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker) Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - Senior Director of Investor Relations:
Thank you, Robbie, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' third quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO, for his remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q3 call. Joining me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. Kevin and I have a few comments on the slides that we posted this morning, and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Starting on slide four, overall, results in Q3 were very strong driven by favorable operating fundamentals and healthy absorption of our lease up portfolio. Some highlights for the quarter include Core FFO growth of more than 11.5% with year-over-year same-store revenue growth of 5.4% for Q3, which accelerated 70 basis points from Q2 and 110 basis points from Q1 and is the strongest rate of growth since 2012 that we've seen in our same-store portfolio. Including redevelopment, same-store revenue growth was 5.7% for the quarter. Sequentially, same-store revenue growth came in at 2.6% or 2.7%, when you include redevelopment from Q2, which was actually the strongest sequential growth this cycle and in more than 10 years in our same-store portfolio. So, overall, we experienced very strong momentum in the operating portfolio this past quarter. In addition, we're continuing to see strong external growth from our development portfolio as we remain on track to start and complete around $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion of new development this year with average yields in the mid to high 6% range. Most of the development underway is already funded with permanent capital including over $600 million of capital raised in Q3. Turning now to slide five, we have updated our outlook for the year by modestly raising Core FFO by a $0.01 at the midpoint from our mid-year update and raising same-store revenues by about 20 basis points to a midpoint of 5%, or 100 basis points from our original outlook and more than 100 basis points from what we actually experienced in 2014. Same-store NOI growth is tracking at around 5.6% for the year at the midpoint, up 20 basis points from the mid-year update and 130 basis points from our original outlook. Moving to slide six, our revised outlook is being driven by favorable trends in the operating portfolio as we're seeing same-unit rent growth remaining strong throughout the quarter, tracking above 6% or about 180 basis points above what we saw in Q3 of 2014, and new movements and renewals are both showing strength through the quarter with renewals running at right around 6.5% and new movements just under 6% for the same-store portfolio. Now performance does vary across regions and this can be seen in slide seven. Starting in the upper left there, Northern California and Seattle are still generally leading the way although rent growth did moderate a bit in Q3. While job growth remains healthy in these markets, we are starting to see an increase in new supply and would expect that we'll continue to see some moderation in rent growth as a result. In the upper right, New York and Boston are stable with same-unit rent growth of around 5%, very healthy levels, driven by healthy job growth in the 2%-plus range in those regions. And then lastly, at the bottom of the page, Southern California and Mid-Atlantic are in the earlier stages of their recovery and/or expansion cycle with growing strength most visible obviously in Southern California. But the outlook for the D.C. market continues to improve with job growth rebounding in recent quarters and deliveries starting to stabilize. Moving on to slide eight, now, as we look out over the next couple of years, we do expect, and I think we've talked about this the last couple of quarters, we do expect performance to start to converge across regions. In general, most regions are expected to experience job growth roughly in line with new deliveries. The exceptions would include Seattle, if technology job growth slows a bit later in the tech cycle and economic cycle as expected, and Southern California, the region expected to have the strongest fundamentals over the next couple of years with modest level of new deliveries expected. Moving to slide nine, within the regions, suburban supply is expected to only grow at about only half the rate of urban supply. In fact, suburban supply is not expected to outpace urban supply in any of our six regions over the next couple of years. While urban housing demands, on the other side of the equation, may be stronger than suburban, as we've seen in recent years, we do believe that the difference in demand is likely to be muted somewhat by the leading edge of the Millennials aging into their 30s where housing preferences start tilting more towards the suburbs. I'd now like to turn it over to Kevin, who will provide some highlights on investment and capital activity for the quarter.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure. Thanks, Tim. Turning to slide 10, we highlight the current performance of the nine communities in lease-up under construction during the third quarter that was more than 20% leased, as of mid October. As you can see in the slide, the performance of communities undergoing initial lease up is strong and exceeds our original underwriting expectations. Specifically, for these nine communities, which represent $780 million in total capital costs, the current weighted average monthly rent per home is $100 above initial expectations. In terms of yield performance, the weighted average initial projected stabilized yield for these communities is currently 6.7%, or 30 basis points higher than our original projection of 6.4% for these communities. Turning to slide 11, with U.S. multifamily transaction volume exceeding $130 billion over the past year, the transaction market continues to benefit from strong buyer demands and remains a compelling capital source for funding development, for harvesting value from our Fund platform and from improving the asset quality of our portfolio. As you can see at the bottom left of the slide, we sold an asset in suburban Northern New Jersey last quarter and have sourced a total of $215 million year-to-date to be a wholly-owned dispositions with those assets being located in the Northeast and averaging 10 years of age and a 5.1% cap rate. To further take advantage of current favorable transaction market conditions, we also opportunistically increased sales out of our limited life Fund platform, adding three additional Fund II sales in Q3, all of which sold at a compelling pricing of mid-4% cap rate. On the bottom right, you can see that in our cost of capital heat map our three principal sources of capital range from being reasonably priced to very attractively priced today at least relative to their historical precedence with asset sales and unsecured debt screening as our most attractive sources of capital to fund ongoing development at the present time. On slide 12, we highlight the company's funding position against the total projected capital cost of development under construction. As you can see here, we have only about $500 million in long-term capital left to source against the $3.3 billion in development under construction after taking into account capital already spent to date, unrestricted cash on hand and projected annual free cash flow of about $300 million. As a result, in addition to our strong balance sheet position we enjoy a strong funding position on our external growth activity with about 84% to 85% of the value creation from ongoing development activity already locked in for our shareholders. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Tim.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well thanks, Kevin. Just a couple closing thoughts. Obviously 2015 is shaping up to be another strong year. We are seeing double digit growth in Core FFO for the fourth year out of the last five and total Core FFO growth, as you see on slide 13, since 2010 has been almost 90% versus the sector median of right around 50% which equates into about 500 basis points of outperformance and growth compounded annually over that five-year period. Just given that all markets to some extent have experienced a healthy recovery, the differentiator really has been capital allocation which has really driven the outperformance. As we estimate that, about roughly 45% of this growth has come from external investment activity and about 55% from organic growth from the existing stabilized portfolio during that time. Importantly, we believe we are well positioned to continue to outperform given that $6 billion to $7 billion development pipeline of compelling development opportunities. Much of that that is currently underway is already funded and a balance sheet that provides a great deal of flexibility to accretively fund future development. So with that, operator, we'd now like to open the line for questions. Operator, Robbie, are we opening the line for questions? Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Yes. Sorry. And we'll go first to Nick Joseph with Citigroup.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. In your investor presentation last quarter you had a handful of slides indicating that we were in the middle of the cycle both in terms of U.S. economic conditions, as well as apartment fundamentals. Has the economic volatility and performance of the credit markets in the last three months changed your view on either of these?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Nick, Tim here. Obviously just looking at the slowdown in job growth and some of the volatility we've seen in the credit markets it makes you – you keep an eye on it. But no, I mean, fundamentally it hasn't changed our view in terms of where we are in the economic cycle and how long the apartment cycle is likely to play out.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. And then can you talk more about what you're seeing in D.C. and if you expect the modest recovery that you've seen this year to continue into 2016?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Nick, it's Sean. Based on what we've experienced this year and the outlook for job growth, as you look forward into 2016, the expectation is there will be a continued but modest recovery across the market. Obviously, it depends on where you are within each market in terms of the supply considerations as to whether that recovery is moving on along a little faster, a little slower. So, for us, what we've seen most recently is that D.C. has been performing relatively well, given the positioning of our assets that we have, with very little exposure to some of the heavier supply sub-markets within the district followed by suburban Virginia and then suburban Maryland. But as you move into 2016, the supply characteristics sub-market by sub-market starts to shift. So it really depends on the competition of your portfolio and what your exposure is to new supply. In general, though, we expect the entire market to get modestly better as you move into 2016.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. And then just last question on the cost of capital heat map, I'm a little surprised that the equity doesn't screen a little better given that's based on a stock price of $185, which is 5% premium to consensus NAV and pretty close to an all-time high price. So I'm wondering what goes into that equity component of the map?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure. Nick, this is Kevin. In terms of the equity temperature, as we've talked about it in the past, there are four components that load into that with different weightings. About half the weighting relates to how our stock price looks compared to other investor choices, that is, the S&P 500 yield and the BAA bond yield. And against those two items we're in the kind of the mid-60% range. If you look at the other half, which is really more of a corporate finance perspective or an issuer perspective, we prescribe about 40% weighting to how we compare to consensus NAV. And on that basis we're about 55% in terms of a percentile ranking. But to your point, in terms of the attractiveness of the absolute pricing, that's reflected in our AFFO yields, which is about 10% of the weighting. And on that dimension, we're about an 80-percentile ranking.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. Appreciate the breakdown.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. I was hoping, first off, you could talk a little bit more about the expense pressures you faced in the quarter. And looking at your guidance it looks like it's going to – expense pressures get easier in the fourth quarter. Maybe you could talk about what's driving expense pressures easing and how we should think about some of that heading into next year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Nick. This is Sean. I mean, if you look at the quarter, there's a fair amount of noise in there. So just kind of walking through it, 60% of the year-over-year increase in the quarter really related to two items, insurance and taxes. Taxes were up about 8.5% or $2.9 million. About $1 million of that relates to supplemental assessments that were accruals reversed in a prior period in last year which created obviously a headwind in terms of the year-over-year comp. And then the balance is rate and assessment in different markets across the country, particularly the East Coast markets and a little bit of a pilot burn off in New York as well. And then on the insurance side, we had the property renewal and then you have the timing of claims and recoveries in insurance, which is extremely volatile, that was up 20%, 21% if you look at the third quarter. But our expectation for the full calendar year is that's going to thin out and be closer to probably 10%, 11%, as an example. So we're going to see that trim out. And then on some of the other topics in the quarter, repairs and maintenance being up is a couple of things. One is the timing of maintenance projects during that particular season when you're doing a lot of roof work and other things, as well as turnover costs during the quarter, which is sort of by design. We talked about last quarter shifting our lease expirations around to take advantage of the rental rates we thought we could achieve during particularly June, July, August but even heading into September, which we did realize in the form of our sequential results which were quite strong. But obviously we incurred more turnover costs during that period of time to actually get those units turned and get people into them. And to make one other comment just on the marketing side, the year-over-year increase and really the year-to-date increase as well on marketing relates to a couple of different things. One is in the third quarter a little more concentrated Internet advertising cost, which obviously relates to shifts in lease expirations and needing to spur more of a demand in the third quarter of this year relative to the third quarter of last year. And then the other component that goes in there is customer service incentives related to either heavy CapEx at a building or when you have unexpected events, floods or otherwise that an apartment becomes uninhabitable and we had a little bit of that in the third quarter. And one thing to keep in mind, on a year-to-date basis is, we're still carrying the costs from the first quarter from the winter storms, which included repairs and maintenance, snow removal, other things. So all that's reflected in either repairs or maintenance or marketing costs. As indicated in the release, we still expect to be within the range we provided and tighten that range so the midpoint is still 3.5%. And what you're going to see is, as I mentioned, there are things that occurred in the third quarter related to our shift to lease expiration strategy that won't materialize quite as much in the fourth quarter. Lease expirations were down about 10% year-over-year in the fourth quarter. In addition to that, there was a lot of noise in taxes in the third quarter. As I mentioned, we still expect property taxes to be in line with our original expectation for the year which probably is in the mid-3% range. So if you put all those pieces together in terms of the shift in activity in the fourth quarter versus the third quarter and some of the one-time events, particularly related to taxes and insurance, you'd solve to getting sort of into that mid-3%s in terms of expenses for the full year.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
All right. That's very helpful. Just one other question on your development rights page. Can you break out for the Metro New York-New Jersey region how many of those projects are actually in New York City proper? And then whether you would at all think about perhaps selling some of those projects since there is such a strong demand to build or to find land in New York City and yet it's hard for people to do so, meaning that those projects would have some pretty good land value today.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure. This is Matt. I can speak to that. I believe we only have one development right in New York City itself right now, which is the big Columbus Circle site. So that's a big deal but most of those 14 development rights, obviously everything else is not in the City itself. And that deal, as we've talked about, we may sell a piece of it, either the retail component and/or we're exploring different options including for sale condominiums there either directly or through others. So one of the great things about that site is it's incredibly flexible, the zoning is very flexible, we're not planning on pursuing a 421-a there, so it'd be 100% market rate. So we have a lot of options there. But generally speaking, we generally aren't in the market to kind of buy and flip land as a general rule and really not equipped (19:56) to do that as a REIT frankly.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
All right. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll go next to Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks, guys. I was just curious how you guys are thinking about your development funding plans today given that leverage has come down half a turn. So it seems like you have some debt capacity but you did mention that asset sales are a more attractive source of funds. So how should we think about the balance of those two going forward?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure, Austin, this is Kevin. A couple comments here. First, in terms of the timing of our – describing our capital plan, we're still in the budget process and we won't really have a precise guidance in terms of net external capital needs for 2016 until we get to the fourth quarter call in January. But that said, in terms of how we look at pricing today, as I indicated, asset sales and unsecured debt screen as most attractive. The common (21:03) equity pricing is attractively priced from an issuer or corporate finance perspective, as reflected in my earlier comment, where on an AFFO yield basis our share price is in the 80th percentile. However, asset sales screen as relatively more attractive today based on sort of the percentile ranking that you see in the heat map, which was the 96th percentile. So that's how we look at our capital choices today. Of course, capital market conditions change continually both in terms of the absolute pricing as well as the relative pricing. And so that's why we don't really comment with precision in terms of our future capital or transaction market activity. But that said, there are sort of two points to think about as you fine tune your models for what our funding might look like over the next year. The first you pointed out, which is at 4.9 times net debt to EBITDA our leverage in the third quarter was tracking a bit below our target leverage, which is 5 times to 6 times net debt to EBITDA. And so we do have capacity for debt issuance at that level, particularly when you consider the de-leveraging impact of continued market rent growth and stabilizing developments, which serve to drive that number down, all else equal. And then the second point to think about when you come up with your assumptions for our funding next year is that next year we have below average level of debt maturities with about $280 million of debt coming due next year compared to about an average level of $500 million to $600 million. So, all-in-all, our net external capital need next year is likely to be a little bit less than it is and has been in recent years and our need for equity, whether it's in the form of asset sales or common equity issuance is likely to be a little bit more modest than it has been in recent years.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Thanks for the detail there. And then just curious what are the metrics or components that make up that 96% today on the heat map?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
It's basically a measure of current pricing relative to the trend line, and we have dataset that we use – it goes back to I think about 2001.
Austin Wurschmidt - KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc.:
Great. Thanks for the detail.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next questions from Jana Galan with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. I was wondering if you could share a new and renewal rates for October and renewals for November/December?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Jana. This is Sean. As it relates to October, we're basically running at a blended rent change at 5.6%, which is renewals running at 6.8%, which is slightly higher than we achieved in the third quarter, but new move-in rents starting to trend down as they typically do at this time of year into the low 4% range. And then in terms of renewal offers for November and December, we're basically in the high 7% range, and as we typically indicate, as you move into the fourth quarter, you probably see that the spread between initial offers and where they actually settle somewhere it's between 100 basis points to 150 basis points.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. And on the supply side you provided on page nine, I would think it looks like a good run rate for you through 2017. But particularly in your markets, the rate to build in these suburban markets are very difficult. Do you see this favorable supply-demand outlook going further than 2017?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Jana, it's Tim. It's obviously a function of the macro environment on the demand side. As we've talked about, we're about 20 quarters, 22 quarters into this particular expansion. The 90s lasted 40 quarters. So we do think the economic cycle, the macro cycle could last into 2019, just looking at historical precedence. But on the supply side, we talked about that last quarter. It bears watching. There are a lot of people, builders, homebuilders, commercial developers, who are doing a little bit more in the multi-family world, the multi-family space. So if you look at it from our perspective, if anything we probably expect it to trend down a little bit, just based upon opportunity and being later in the cycle and some markets just getting a little bit distorted where pricing gets out a little bit ahead of fundamentals and just makes less sense from a capital allocation standpoint to take that kind of risk. So we're geared to do about $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year right now for the next two to three years. I think it kind of remains to be seen after that. But if I had to guess, I would suspect it would trend down from there.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from Greg Van Winkle with Morgan Stanley.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hi, guys. I just wanted to get your thoughts on your Connecticut portfolio. One of your peers announced they're selling all of their Connecticut portfolio and we've heard some reports that the market is slowing down there a bit. What are your expectations for that market? And would you consider trying to do some opportunistic pruning yourself there?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
First part of that question...
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Greg. This is Sean. Maybe I'll take the first part and then Tim can comment on the second part. In terms of the Connecticut portfolio, for the most part the way we think about it is indirectly it kind of moves as New York moves a bit in terms of job creation. There's certainly – Connecticut has some of its own job centers, of course, if you're in Stanford or depending on where you are. But it tends to run sort of slow and steady for us is the way I'd describe it, typically trailing the New York region. But it's not uncommon to see rent change in that market running – New York is running say in the mid-5%, Connecticut's probably running around 4%, typically lagging 100 basis points to 150 basis points. Now it tends to be slow and steady and adds some diversification benefits to the portfolio in some form in terms of the slow and steady nature of the portfolio in Connecticut for the most part. And as it relates to trading activity there, Tim, do you want to talk about that?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah, sure. To the extent we were to do more asset sales in Connecticut or frankly any part of suburban Northeast, it's really more strategic rather than I would say opportunistic and it's much a function of kind of where we are from a portfolio management standpoint and the opportunity we have to continue to build in those markets and just not getting overweighted in those markets. Having said that, we wouldn't rule out doing something that's opportunistic. Where we think there's a portfolio of premium that might exist just through the transaction structure itself being a large portfolio and you might think that right now just given the wall of private equity capital that's out there and/or just an arbitrage opportunity where we just think the market value has got ahead of intrinsic value for a variety of reasons. So it's not just kind of a slowdown in a market. To us it's much about whether we think it's going to slow down more than maybe the market thinks it's going to slow down and that's what creates sort of the arbitrage from our perspective. So that would be how we would look at it from an opportunistic standpoint. But increased sales activity there would likely be really more strategic in nature from a portfolio allocation standpoint.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And that kind of leads into my next question, what are your thoughts on asset pricing? And generally how sustainable this low cap rate environment is as we move into 2016? I know you don't necessarily need to do, from a funding standpoint, any kind of big portfolio deal but what would your appetite be for doing something like your competitor did where you sell a sizable portfolio even if there isn't something you necessarily identified to deploy the proceeds into?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Maybe I could start on that last part because we've gotten a lot of questions offline about that. First of all, obviously our peer did announce a large portfolio transaction yesterday. And obviously, we thought it made a lot of sense for them, just given sort of a large non-core basket of assets and markets, around $6 billion I think it was. And just given what their strategy has been, which is to transform their portfolio and move to fewer more urban markets. So, from our standpoint, it's just a question of timing if that's our strategy, and it's hard to argue that it's not a good time to sell non-core assets today, just given the liquidity and activity in the private equity market. But for us, the same set of circumstances aren't really true. It makes less sense for us. It's not out of the question. We have much smaller basket of what we would consider non-core assets. I think you can just think about what our strategy has been over the years that makes sense. We've really built our portfolio more organically over time through the development process and one-off acquisitions where we are an investor builder. We're not a merchant builder to be clear. We're building a market that we intend to own for a long time. And we've really used the disposition lever, if you will, really to prune the portfolio over time. We've sold $300 million to $400 million a year, typically cap rates around 5%, unlevered IRR is at 12% to 13% over the last five years, closer to 14% over the last 10 years. So we try to be smart about that when we're selling but we've really been able to do it really kind of in a more measured way, in part we don't have – we're not an UPREIT. We're not a heavy secured bar. We just don't have the same kind of frictional costs that maybe some others in the sector might do. So it's not out of question doing something opportunistic but I think it's just less compelling for us just given kind of what we've already done to date and just kind of our business model.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Yeah. That makes sense. And then last one quickly on Seattle and Bellevue, you guys have obviously stated you kind of have a strategy of preferring suburbs right now broadly. Bellevue is a suburb where we're expecting to see a lot supply growth over the next couple years. And I think I'm right that most of your exposure in the Seattle area is in that Bellevue submarket. Is that still a market where you like being more suburban exposed or could that be kind of an exception to the rule where you wouldn't mind shifting some of that exposure to the more urban core in Seattle? And, I guess, just your thoughts generally on how Bellevue is set up to weather the supply over the next couple years.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Let me start with that more broadly and then I'll turn it over to Sean to talk maybe more specifically about Bellevue itself. Just to be clear, our investment strategy is focused on great MSAs with great structural advantages and we favor certain submarkets within each of those MSAs, some urban, some suburban. And we think urban, just to be clear, has been a compelling opportunity over the last cycle. We created a new brand around it, particularly as it related to the Millennial segment. But as it relates to when we make bets, I mean we're agnostic. It depends on where we are in the cycle and how urban is pricing versus suburban and it's going to vary across markets. And while generally we're seeing more supply in urban markets, there are some suburban markets like Bellevue that you point out where we're seeing a lot of supply. Having said that, downtown Seattle is still seeing a lot of supply from a comparison standpoint. But, Sean, maybe you can just talk a little bit more about Bellevue and what we're seeing there.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Greg, just to give you some perspective, certainly we're going to see an increase in supply in Bellevue as you move into 2016 but it hasn't been zero. As you look back over the last 12 months to 18 months, instead of running probably in the 4%, 4.5% range, supply is projected to increase up to 7% to 8% of inventory next year across Bellevue. And the one thing you have to keep in mind is Bellevue is a pretty broad market. You have sort of what you might think of as the CBD of Bellevue but then there's a lot of suburban neighborhoods where there's product coming online as well as it bleeds over towards Redmond. But if you think about what the supply is today that's been coming online, we're still doing rent change in that market that is on the renewal side 8% to 9% and if you look across the Bellevue assets, they've been holding in right in line there with the rest of the East side portfolio that we have over in Redmond or anything that we have up in Lynnwood. The laggard has been the downtown sort of Queen Anne market in terms of rent change, which has been in the 4% to 5% range, as compared to 8% to 9%, 10% across the East side and the North end. So, as you look forward, there'd probably be the expectation for some slowing in Seattle overall including what's happening in the Bellevue, Redmond and other East side markets. But if our recent experience is helpful in projecting next year it probably is going to hold up better than people think.
Gregory A. Van Winkle - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
All right. That's very helpful. Thanks a lot, guys. I'll pass it on.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from Dan Oppenheim with Zelman Associates.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman Partners LLC:
Thanks very much. I was wondering a little bit about the Chino Hills development, where, I guess, the western edge of the Inland Empire, but normally would expect developments for you to be a little bit more coastal. Wondering how you think about that in terms of just reflecting some of the challenges in getting sites in Southern California, and particularly just wondering, given whether it's Chino Hills or a little slightly east in Eastvale, the for sale market is not so expensive there, so there can be some opportunities and issues with turnover.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Hey, Dan, this is Matt. I guess I can take that one and Sean may want to chime in as well being a native of Southern California. But we just saw that as a good development opportunity. We do have an appetite to continue to do more in Southern California. It was a very low risk kind of structure in terms of the deal. It had already been approved. So it was entitled. It's a very simple three-storey block-up product, it's a very low execution risk and assets are trading in that sub-market at cap rates that are still significantly below where we see the yield on that deal. So we think there's reasonable value creation there. It is in a great school district and actually single-family values right around there are in the $500,000 to $800,000 range and even north of there. So it's actually a pretty attractive living environment, good retail. We probably aren't looking to go further east certainly but we think it's a fine deal.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
The only thing I'd add is that – I mean, what you've seen from us is certainly a focus on some of the coastal sub-markets and more infield locations, whether it's Huntington Beach or along the coast, just down towards San Diego or up in Hollywood. But we have looked at opportunities in what we think are some supply protected sub-markets that some people may think of as sort of B sub-markets, but there is demand for some of the higher end housing that we can provide in some of these markets. So if you look at our development attachment you'll see sub-markets like Glendora, obviously you referenced Chino Hills. We completed a couple of properties in San Dimas and sub-markets like that where we think we're producing pretty good value creation at a relatively supply protected sub-market that may not be a target for a lot of other competitors.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman Partners LLC:
Great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thank you. I had a question on the change in your lease expiration strategy resulting in the occupancy decline this quarter. It sounds like that you believe the occupancy dip is just a one-off, and I just wanted to clarify that was the case. And also if you could just update us on the percentage of your portfolio that you expect to expire each quarter?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, John. This is Sean. A couple comments. One, in terms of occupancy, occupancy has rebounded and we're back up in the call it 95.6% or 95.7% range in terms of physical occupancy. And we would expect it to hold probably in that range for the quarter, maybe slightly higher, slightly lower depending on how things evolve here. One of the things you have to watch for is lease breaks which typically represent somewhere around 30% of all move outs that we tried to adjust our lease expirations to make sure that when you include lease breaks, the volume of inventory that we're supplying to the market is appropriate, given what the demand patterns are in each market, and each one a little bit different from a seasonal perspective. When you move into the fourth quarter, as I referenced earlier, we expect expirations to be down about 12% year over year. And one thing to keep in mind is managing lease expirations is sort of a continuous process because you have lease breaks and other things that occur, as I referenced. So you're always trying to figure out what are the offers that you need to make to people versus not make to people so that things stay where you sort of need them to stay. If you think about it, generally speaking, what I'd say is across the quarter it is typically about 20% in Q1 and then up to 28%, 32% and then back down to about 20%. That's been the historical average. To give you some perspective, the activity in the third quarter was closer to about 36% of inventory, and the fourth quarter we're expecting, depending on lease breaks again, which we'll know at the end of the year what exactly it was, probably closer to 17% or 18% of transactions in the portfolio.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Great. And then on the stabilized development yields on slide 10 of your presentation, it dropped a little bit this quarter to 6.7% versus that same number in the second quarter presentation. I know some of this is due to mix, but I was wondering if there was anything else driving this number?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
This is Matt. No. It really is – the basket changes every quarter, and I can't remember what rolled off last quarter, but we had – we're always adding new deals and old deals rolling off, so as the geographic mix changes, that's going to move around a little bit.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. So nothing on the cost side?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
No.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. And then finally for me is can you provide some more color on the sales on Value Added Fund II this quarter, either IRR or economic gains? It seems like it's lower than what you achieve in your wholly owned portfolio and if there's anything we should read into that?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
John, this is Kevin. It's a private vehicle, so we don't disclose unlevered IRRs for that vehicle. The gains and the performance of that second fund has been robust, nothing short of robust and a lot of that is driven based on the timing. We had our final closing on that fund in April of 2009. So those assets were bought in 2009, 2010 and 2011, so they all enjoy and have enjoyed to the extent we've harvested those assets, significant gains.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
So given that success, are there any plans to raise additional funds?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
That's a topic we've discussed before in the past. We certainly have liked the fund business, but from a strategic perspective it does raise some complications. In particular when we have a fund actively investing in new product, it does tend to represent our exclusive acquisition vehicle which prevents the wholly-owned company, the parent company from buying on our own account. So it does create a little bit of a conflict there that is something that is a bit of a challenge. And from a relative size point of view it's a smaller business relative to where we are now and tends to not to move the value creation needle quite as much. So while we've liked the business and certainly have benefited from it, we're not actively involved in trying to raise another fund right now.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll go next to Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good morning. Tim, just a first question. You were talking to, in response to one of the earlier questions on dispositions, whether large scale or small, that you guys view it more tactically. And I'm just sort of curious, is that because there's sort of asset base that you guys seek to maintain to support the development program vis-à-vis your credit metrics, or is it more fundamental thing that you wouldn't want to sell more and have to – or actually get your thoughts on selling more to pay a special dividend, if within the current Avalon structure and funding the development program, if there is enough room to do something large to return capital to shareholders, and clearly you guys have created, between your development spread and where the assets trade in the private market.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. There's quite a bit in there. Let's see where to start. In terms of the volume that we can do just from a tax and sort of capital efficiency standpoint, what we're doing today basically is the level that you can do before you start getting into an issue of potential distribution, so, of gains to – through a special dividend. Now as I mentioned before, I mean, that doesn't mean we wouldn't do one. I'm just not sure that from our standpoint the conditions are such that it makes sense in terms of pricing today. For instance, relative to just NAV, where we think most assets trade relative to intrinsic value. And then we just don't have that much non-core. Again, I think what our peer did made a lot of sense just given kind of where they were positioning their portfolio. We've been basically in the same markets for 20 years. And so for everything we do is either additive or is really about pruning and managing the portfolio at the margin rather than kind of wholesale, making wholesale transformative changes at this point. It's how we looked at the Archstone transaction. For us it was additive. We had to raise a lot more external capital as part of that transaction even though we were the smaller part of that transaction. Again, because we weren't looking at some of our existing portfolio as trade capital, to be honest. So there's always some conditions which it could make sense to do a special dividend. We did it back during the credit crisis when asset sales were kind of another way to sort of tap the secured financing of the GSE market beyond just debt, and there was always some unique conditions that you might – you have to be open to. I'm just not sure it makes as much sense for us as it might for others in the sector...
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then Kevin, in response to one of the earlier questions on explaining the cost of equity, why it's the lower of the three, you mentioned, if I heard correctly, something about relation to S&P valuations and corporate credit. If you could just expand on that, because I would think that the big driver would be where your implied cap rate is and FFO yield and the value creation of investing the capital versus how Avalon's stock relates to other corporate public companies.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure, Alex. Yeah. I probably should have explained it a little bit better. We've talked about the heat map in the past and – so maybe a little bit of review is in order. In terms of the equity pricing there are four components that have their individual weights that we use to drive the overall percentile ranking, which in this case is 62% for our equity temperature. Two of the components, as I mentioned are really more from an investor perspective, while the other two relate more to a corporate finance or an issuer perspective, which is I think the point you're making. And this is just simply how we've constructed it. We find it to be relatively informative to look at both sides of the equation, if you will. In terms of the components that relate to how our share price might look from an investment perspective to an investor who can invest across different asset markets, we look at how our share price, the relative earnings or AFFO yield on our share price relative to the earnings yield on the S&P 500 and that's a 25% weighting, and then also against Baa bond yields. We look at that spread between our AFFO yield and Baa bond yields and that's a 25% weighting. And we find that to be pretty informative. And basically what those tell you today is that, that our stock in terms of its current pricing today relative to those two markets is somewhat attractively priced but not terrifically so, and as the temperature screens in kind of the mid-60 percentile ranking for those two items. I think what you're really getting at is trying to understand how we look at things from a corporate finance or issuer perspective. And there the two metrics we look at are how our share price trades relative to NAV. And for the purpose of this exercise we compare it to consensus NAV. From an actual corporate finance perspective we compare it to our own estimate of NAV, of course, but we don't publish that. But to give investor's insight into our thinking on that we compare it to consensus NAV. And so that measure really today gets a 40% weighting because it matters a whole lot to us how we think about it because fundamentally when we're sourcing equity, we can either issue common equity or we can sell assets. But we also want look at how our share price trades on an AFFO yield basis to get a sense of kind of our earnings multiple and how attractive it looks like on that dimension and that gets a 10% weighting.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Hey, Kevin, if I could just maybe because, Alex, I don't think sort of fully answered your question. I think sort of broadly underneath it is really kind of getting at the heart of capital allocation. And obviously I think with the sales of a big portfolio, it just raised a lot of discussion around that issue and certainly at least within our space. And certainly asset sales are just one – as is raising equity, but asset sales one lever that we have. But from our standpoint, I mean, capital allocation is really so much more than that. It's about raising capital and how you deploy it, which Kevin's talking about how we raise it. Just look at it in a very disciplined way in terms of the options we have available to us, how you deploy it, whether through acquisitions, whether through development, whether through re-development, which market you're deploying it, how you grow it. To grow NAV and residual value and you can recognize, as a public entity, it can be recognized or materialized through a number of ways. Certainly through selling assets and showing attractive unlevered IRR, through growing free cash flow, which as we point out on the slide we've been able to grow Core FFO by around 12% compounded this cycle versus 7% for the sector. It's how you grow dividends which we've been able to grow for 5.5% kind of on a compounded basis over 20 years, its total shareholder return that could be recognized that way. So there's a number of ways that it could be recognized, but there are opportunities every once in a while as we understand it, it's arbitraged just pricing in different markets and try to take advantage of it. We measure ourselves by the results on all those metrics, not on any one of those and – but it's about doing all these activities well that ultimately allows you to outperform from our perspective. And as I said earlier in my prepared comments, capital allocation really is the differentiator. It's really kind of you look across all markets. Other than the West Coast which has dramatically outperformed, we've had a really healthy recovery. And so I don't feel like I maybe did a good enough job at the beginning, but I think that's really what kind of occurred, as I sort of reflected on your question.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. I mean, it definitely creates some good NAREIT conversations, but it would seem like there's an odds between what investors find your stock attractive when it's super cheap, whereas you guys find it attractive when it's fairly or healthfully valued, so that would seem to be a tension between the two, but probably that's good for a NAREIT discussion. So, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from William Kuo with Cowen & Company.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Hi. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on the urban versus suburban discussion. With your increasing focus developing in suburban albeit infill transit oriented and your comments about favorable supply trends and your prepared remarks about the demographic wave that might move further out into the suburbs. Is it your view that over this next apartment cycle that these suburban markets might outperform urban, especially versus kind of prior cycles?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
To be honest we think it ebbs and flows, to be honest over the course of a cycle. And again it's one of the reasons why we say we're agnostic. We do think there are points in cycles where things just get either overpriced or undervalued and we – it's our job to trade on that just like it is the investor's job. They may like a number of different names in the apartment sector, but you allocate capital based upon price, price has to enter into the equation. And if everyone sold stock today, everyone would get the same price but everyone would have a different return and it would depend on when the price and timing of that investment, that investment was made. And just like investors are on this call, we're trying to trade on our business intelligence in our markets, in part that has been developed over 20 years of having a presence in these markets. And while we can like a thesis a lot, we like it at a value and at a price. So, over the next couple of years, would I expect suburban to outperform urban? Yes. I would, largely based upon what's happening on the supply – the supply dynamic and to a lesser extent on the demand side. If you look at just – what's going to be growing over the next 10 years is that 35 to 44 aged cohort, their propensity to live in urban environment is less than the 25 to 34 cohort, which is going to start to flatten in terms of its growth. We're actually expecting to see twice the rental housing demand from the 35 to 44 cohort than the 25 to 34 cohort, and they have a higher propensity to live in the suburbs. And so that was really kind of what was behind that comment. We do think there's been a little bit of a secular shift to urban living, all other things being equal to living in a urban an environment, but you can't ignore the demographics and life stage that people are in.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. That's fair. And then maybe just switching gears here, I wanted to see how you guys thought about to the extent that companies like Airbnb have had the effect of adding to hotel supply by potentially removing housing supply, have you assessed the impact of the passage of Prop F in San Francisco, the impact that would have on supply and how that would affect your internal outlook – internal growth outlook for that market?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Hey, Bill. This is Sean. Really few things actually, one maybe as a follow-up to your last question, and then I'll address the Airbnb. Yeah. Tim was talking about the performance of urban versus suburban over the next couple of years. Just as a follow-up to that, we are seeing that difference occur now in the markets. We highlighted that a little bit in the last quarter call, and we continued to see pretty good spread between urban and suburban performance. At this point, just to give you some sense, in our portfolio the suburban assets are running on a year-over-year basis closer to about 6% as compared to the urban assets that are in the low fours. Some of that's a function of geographic mix, but even if you look at the performance of the assets within the respective markets, for the most part we're seeing the suburban assets outperform and in some cases it's a reflection of sort of the lower price point B assets in certain markets, but also just to even some of the newer wood frame deals in some of our suburban submarkets as compared to the urban environment, where you are seeing a fair amount of supply, whether it's the core of Boston, downtown Seattle, downtown LA still a lot of inventory, South of Market in San Francisco, et cetera, et cetera, so just to follow up on that for you. And then as it relates to Airbnb, yeah, there's obviously a lot of chatter out there in the hotel space and it's sort of bleeding into our space, at this point, in terms of the impact of Airbnb on various businesses. There is a number of initiatives out there including what you cited in San Francisco. It's being taken up in some other markets as well. It's hard to know exactly how that's going to play out. There's a lot of money being thrown at it from both sides. I would just say that we're continuing to evaluate the potential impact on our business in terms of listings that might be occurring at our communities, what opportunities we may or may not have to participate in it. There's a lot of land use regulations and zoning issues involved in it, there's tax issues. So I think it's going to be several quarters before this is fully resolved and we understand the potential impact on our business. It's probably a little easier to understand on the hotel business at this point than it is in our business, but I'd say the industry overall is still studying the potential impact given the listings that we're seeing. It's creating more inventory and supply in some of our markets and Tim may have a few...
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. This is a broader comment. I mean, it's a disruptive technology, right? When you look at all disruptive technologies, whether it's Uber or others, the regulatory framework always follows and it can take a long time to play out. It may not be a couple quarters. This may really be playing over the next 5 to 10 years in terms of the impact on our business. And there's potentially ways for us to play it that are both potentially positive as well as potentially it could be detrimental in terms of the customer and the resident experience for those who aren't necessarily looking for transient demand right next door to where they live. So I think it's really not even in the first inning at this point in terms of the impact ultimately to the apartment space, but I think it's going to be a while before it fully plays out.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Great. Thanks so much. And then maybe just a quick housekeeping thing, you gave renewals and new rents in October of 6%, 8% and 4%. What were they October 2014?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
October 2014, I don't have those right in front of me. I'd be happy to send you notes later with that data if you'd like it.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. That'd be great. Thank you. That's all I had.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll take our next question from Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Yes. Good morning. I may have missed this earlier on, but could you talk about the cap rate for the Lyndhurst disposition?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure, Tayo. This is Matt. That was the low 5s%. I think we said it was about a 5.1%.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. 5.1%. Okay. That's helpful. And then, in regards to operating expenses, thanks for the outlook on 4Q 2015. (58:45) parts of that that you guys can control, but I'm just curious how, again how confident do you feel like things like the property taxes and the insurance start to come back in the quarter? Or how possible is it to kind of get another negative surprise as it pertains to some of those line items?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Tayo, this is Sean. As I mentioned earlier, on the property tax side I mean different things can happen, of course, but the level of an unknowns at this point sitting in October is far less than what it was certainly last quarter. And in terms of the change in taxes as an example I wouldn't say that was unexpected. We had the supplemental assessment reversal on the accrual in Q3 of last year. So we knew that was coming and we expected third quarter to be a bit of a spike in taxes. On the insurance side, we sort of know what the premiums are. Now, at this point, that's big, just the timing of recoveries and claims and things of that sort, so there's a little bit of noise in insurance and taxes potentially, but not nearly as significant as what we experienced in the third quarter. And then the other categories, do reflect sort of our expectations based on lease expirations being down, turn volume likely being down. So unless you had a significant spike in lease breaks, you should see some of the R&M numbers sort of trend down. And then typically you're going into a season where some of the scheduled projects that we have on the maintenance side start to thin out because a lot of that's done in the summer time. So we have reasonable visibility, it's not 100% confidence, that's why we provide a range. But we have reasonable certainty as it relates to the range we have provided.
Omotayo Tejumade Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll go next to Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey. Hello, guys. Can we go back to the Airbnb topic real quick? I know you mentioned you might want to take part in the benefits of having Airbnb in your communities. But what is your view on having a tenant run an operation currently? And is there any incremental liability for Avalon?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Still really too early to tell in terms of kind of all the implications. I mean, when I was talking about on the positive side, there's potential we could share in some of that revenue. And I mean, honestly, when you look at some of the markets we do business in, and particularly in some of the urban markets, they are having sort of a virtual roommate. It allows people to pay more potentially for in terms of rent if they can off load some of those costs. What we do know is generally people aren't taking in somebody that's taken a couch or an extra bedroom. They're usually taking a whole unit. I think more than 85% are taking a whole unit and it tends to be a lot of international travel right now and it does violate a lot of zoning codes in terms of staying. So for the most part we – we've talked with Airbnb and they've been very transparent about it. But for the most part, it's being done under kind of a cloak of secrecy by the resident who's meeting somebody at the coffee shop around the corner. And that will play itself out. It's sort of the regulatory sort of world, sort of starts to sort itself out, and we develop our own strategy in terms of how much we want to embrace it and/or frankly not facilitate it. So like I said in my first remarks, we're not even in the first inning in terms of sort through that.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. That's fair. I think everyone is trying to get a handle on the topic. Looking at rental rate increases, are you seeing any markets where there's price sensitivity or an increase in bad debt expense?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Wes. This is Sean. In terms of price sensitivity, I guess, what I would say to that is given where we are on the cycle with above trend rents, there's certainly more price sensitivity than if you look on average over time. Every market is a little bit different in terms of sensitivity. I'd say the markets where it's probably most pronounced are the ones you might expect, which is Northern California and Seattle, where you've had high single-digit, double-digit rent increases now for two to three years in some cases. So there's probably more price sensitivity there. But if you look at it from a global perspective, on a year-over-year basis, average income in our portfolio of our residents is up about 6.5%. And if you look at that as it compares to year-over-year change and sort of affected move-in rents running in the mid 6s is sort of a parity at this point. So if you're seeing that kind of income growth out of our markets, we should be able to realize above trend rental rate growth on a sustainable basis.
Wes Golladay - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Okay. Thanks for taking the question.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yep.
Operator:
Thank you. We'll go next to Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
Good afternoon. Just wanted to dig in more on the 35 to 44 demographic. It's obviously a demographic that tends to prefer the suburbs because school districts become relevant. But in this cycle, given kind of the Millennials' desire to be in the city and the amenities that come in the city, the move to the suburbs, do you think that just given that there aren't as many amenities in the suburbs, do you think that that demographic is more inclined to just buy a home at that point than rent in the suburbs?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
They might. It's interesting. If you actually look at behavior of the 25 to 34 segment, which most people would consider kind of the heart of the Millennials, they've actually changed their behavior less than the 35 to 44 segment in terms of urban living. In fact, their – I mean, a lot of it just comes back to affordability. In fact, their behavior, it hasn't changed hardly at all in the last five years in terms of the propensity to live in – it's like 30 basis points. Conversely, the 35 to 44 segment, that's where – and I think it's really in the 35 to 40 segment if I had to guess, they've changed their behavior the most. And I think part of that is they're getting married a lot later, they're having kids a lot later, they're not at the school decision until maybe sometimes into their 40s when their kids are 5 or 6-years-old. And so, I think they're the ones that have probably been – and the data shows, that they've been extending their stay in an urban environment later. I think a lot of it ultimately, like I said, I think a lot of it ultimately turns on schools and some of the options. People usually move sort of three big moves in their lives. One is after college. One is when the kids are getting ready for school, and the other is retirement. And there's certain things that can happen in a community that can help shape that. Certainly just urban environments being a more livable place. Some of these emerging neighborhoods be transit, the quality of transit improving and everything else has helped stimulate some demand within that age cohort, but ultimately if schools don't get better, I still think there's a double back to the suburbs for most of that population.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
That's helpful. And, secondly, just on (1:06:12) going into next year, 2015 for the most part, obviously your West Coast markets have outperformed the East. I expect that to probably be the case again next year, but as you look at your East Coast markets, supply does look to be dropping off some in D.C. and Boston in certain areas of the New York metro area. What markets or submarkets on the East Coast are you most excited about kind of qualitatively going into next year?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Sean, you want to maybe take it?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Hey, Drew. This is Sean. I'd make a few comments as it relates to the East Coast and I think it ties in really with what Tim referenced earlier in terms of the difference between suburban and urban in that if you think across even the East Coast markets, maybe starting up in New England, and you talk about supply, we're in a lot of very protected suburban submarkets in the Boston region. And if you think about what's happening there, supply is certainly starting to moderate in the urban core, but you're talking north of 5% in 2015, close to 3% in 2016 as compared to the suburban submarkets in Boston, 1.5% sort of this year, next year. Feel pretty good about basically the suburban portfolio in Boston performing well. New York, it probably depends on really where you are. In terms of our portfolio, we don't have a lot of stabilized assets in Manhattan but the supply protected pocket really for us is probably up at Morningside Heights. There's not much going on there. That property that we have there has performed well. Midtown West is getting a fair amount of supply, so some expectation for that to be a little bit soft. And then if you expand outside Manhattan into the Boroughs, we've get two large towers, Long Island City and Queens that pretty much the supply has been delivered there, performing well. Brooklyn is going to have some supplies. We probably need to be a little bit careful there. We have one deal delivering at this point, a little bit early, which is good but there's going to be more supply next year. So in and around New York City, it sort of depends on where you are and as you get into the suburbs there's very little supply in the suburban towns and there's been great development activity for us there in terms of value creation opportunities from a development perspective. In terms of the operating portfolio, as I mentioned earlier, as it relates to Connecticut, suburban New York is sort of the same in terms of slow and steady 3%, 4% kind of numbers probably in terms of rent change relative to being in Manhattan, it might be 6%. I referenced that earlier. So, certainly it depends on where you are but overall the suburban market should do fine. As you come down to the Mid-Atlantic, it's really, again, a function of position in the portfolio but expecting supply next year to be about the same. The expectation for job growth is about the same as this year, but you have other effects that we've talked about in terms of unbundling and stuff that's supporting better revenue growth. But I still expect the D.C. metro market to be in a slow pace of recovery as compared to a spike recovery. I don't think anyone is expecting that in D.C. given the nature of the job environment here, what happens you're going to have churn obviously as you move forward into next year with an election year, but I don't think anyone is expecting the Mid-Atlantic to spike in any form or fashion. So hopefully that gives you a quick rundown on some of the East Coast markets.
Drew T. Babin - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker):
That helps. Thank you very much.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
You got it.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question will come from Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Good afternoon. I was hoping if you guys could quantify the impact of property tax abatement burn-offs over the next couple of years?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Conor, I'll give it to you right now. It's running about 45 basis points in terms of impact on property tax year-over-year growth. And we haven't run all of our numbers for next year, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in that relevant range.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. So 45 basis points on total expense growth and – correct?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
No, 45 basis points of property tax growth.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Of property tax growth?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah, yes.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you. And then where did you guys add development rights this quarter, the three?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. Hi, Conor, it's Matt.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Hi.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Those were all actually in New England and they were all kind of infill suburban. Two of them were actually kind of in transit locations, all wood frame.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Okay. And then following up on that, Tim, you mentioned earlier that some markets are screening relatively unattractive for development. Could you identify those markets or maybe not sub-markets but more broadly?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. We're certainly more cautious in Northern California, Conor. Again, just given where a combination of land pricing, construction cost have been and then just aggressive behavior on the part of market participants and willing to take entitlement risk and where our view kind of risk and maybe long-term return have gotten out of sync and just sentiments gotten ahead of longer-term fundamentals. You know it well, Northern California and Seattle, to a lesser extent, are much more volatile markets and you have to take that into account in terms of your investment and your development strategy in those markets. It's been their history since – I don't know maybe since the gold rush in the 1850s and I'm not sure it's going to be a whole lot different when it's serving the part of the economy. It's kind of on the leading edge. It's always just going to be a little bit more volatile in terms of its underlying demand fundamental. So Northern California probably more than any other, I'd say Seattle to a lesser extent but we think it's probably got a little bit more – a few more stabilizers in that market relative to its size. But it's prone to deeper cycles and certainly being very cautious about taking on any kind of new development risk, particularly if we can't get really a pure option on those opportunities. So in Northern California the focus has really been in a couple places, really trying to intensify existing low density wood-frame assets where in some cases you really have jurisdictions that are willing to work with you just given kind of the housing shortage in that market and try to take advantage of that from a public sentiment standpoint to generate some entitlements that you may not be able to generate in other parts of the cycle when they're less friendly to development sponsors. But hopefully that gives you a sense. And I'd say, the New York, Manhattan, I'd say we're pretty – we're actually very cautious on right now just based upon supply and pricing, both land pricing and construction costs.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
That's helpful. Thank you. Then last question, as you guys look at the supply picture in your suburban markets, how do you factor in the impact from rehabs and redevelopments closing that spread between B and A?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
In terms of...
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
I mean, would those serve as competition for you if we have rehabbers coming in and bringing things up closer to the rent levels where you guys are?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. It depends on what you're talking about. I mean, people rehab assets at sort of all different tiers. So, people are making Cs, Bs and Bs, B+s that kind of thing. So we track it at the submarket level in terms of what's happening and the potential impact on our portfolio. We benchmark our performance quarterly compared to our competitors, using ICO (1:14:12) data and others. They'll have to take that into account in terms of what you expect them to produce. So it can create some competitive conversions, if you want to call it that, in certain submarkets, but it's really a sub market by sub market discussion. And Conor, I don't think it's any different, whether it's urban or suburban. There's always going to be some percentage of the assets are going to go through development just like there's some assets that are really atrophying and kind of losing their competitive posture within the market. And a lot of it's going to depend on the business model. Ultimately the owner or the sponsor, in terms of whether they're in a position to – from both a financial capital and the human capital standpoint to invest capital at the right time to keep an asset competitive, at least within the segment they think is kind of optimally positioned. So it's going to be a mixed bag, but I don't think it's terribly different whether you're talking about suburban and urban.
Conor Wagner - Green Street Advisors, LLC:
Great. That's helpful. Thank you.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And with that, I'd like to turn the call back over to Mr. Tim Naughton for any additional or closing comments.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Okay. Great. Well thanks, Robbie, and thanks for everyone being on. I think probably a lot of you've dropped by now, but we look forward to seeing most of you in Las Vegas, next month. Take care.
Operator:
That does conclude today's call. Thank you for your participation.
Executives:
Jason Reilley – Senior Director Investor Relations Timothy Naughton – Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Matthew Birenbaum – Chief Investment Officer Sean Breslin – Chief Operating Officer Kevin OShea – Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Steve Sakwa – Evercore ISI Nick Joseph – Citi Ross Nussbaum – UBS Jeff Spector – Bank of America Austin Wurschmidt – KeyBanc Capital Markets Chris – Credit Suisse Rob Stevenson – Janney Dan Oppenheim – Zelman and Associates John Kim – BMO Capital Markets Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley Vincent Chow – Deutsche Bank Ryan Peterson – Sandler ONeill Tayo Okusanya – Jefferies Drew Babin – Robert W. Baird Wes Golladay – RBC Capital Markets Conor Wagner – Green Street Advisors
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Christine and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' second quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy Naughton:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our second quarter call. Joining me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. We'll each provide some comments on the slides that we posted earlier this morning, and then be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will include and focused on summary of Q2 results and the revised outlook for the full year. We’ll provide an overview of fundamentals and portfolio performance and lastly we’ll touch on development activity and funding. Starting on Slide 4; overall results in Q2 were better than expected as apartment demand continued to strengthen. As a result of an approving macro-environment along with housing fundamentals that continued to favor rental housing. Highlights for the quarter include, core FFO growth of 10% or about 250 basis points higher than last quarter, as rent growth continued to improve to the peak leasing season. Year-over-year same store revenue growth was 4.7% for Q2, up about 40 basis points from Q1 and when you include redevelopment that came in at 4.9% on a year-over-year basis. Sequentially revenue growth came in at 2% or 2.1% when you include redevelopment from Q1 and was the strongest sequential growth in Q2s that we've seen since 2010 and one of our strongest second quarters ever. We completed three communities this quarter totaling $275 million at an average initial yield of 7.3% and started another four communities this quarter totaling about $400 million. Year-to-date starts are right around $0.5 billion and from a funding perspective we are active in the second quarter as well, raising over $600 million through a combination of unsecured debt and asset sales. Much of the capital going to payoff secured debt, which Kevin will touch on later. Turning to Slide 5, as a result of stronger fundamentals and increasing operating performance, we’ve updated our projections and outlook for the full year. Core FFO growth per share is now expected to increase 11.1% at the midpoint of our revised range or about 270 basis points above our original outlook from the midpoint. More than half of this increase is coming from our operations and the balance from a combination of favorable capital markets activity and lower interest expense. Same-store revenue growth is now expected to come in at 2.5% to 5% or about 75 basis points at the midpoint above our original outlook. NOI is expected to come in at about 5% to 5.75% or up over 100 basis points from our original outlook at the mid-point. Development starts are largely unchanged and more or less on track to start about $1.2 billion this year at share, and capital funding is up about $200 million from what we had originally dissipated, largely to fund additional – refinance additional secured debt. Now moving on to Slide 6; this operating environment is benefiting from improved economic conditions. Jobs continue to grow at a pace of north of 200,000 per month with growth increasingly in the mid-to-higher wage jobs. Our job openings are now outstripping hiring as you see in Chart 2 in the upper right, which combined with our higher-quality jobs is leading to stronger wage growth. As you see in Chart 3 the employer cost from employee comp survey now reflects wage growth north of 4% nationally. When you combine the stronger job picture with lower debt burdens, as shown in Chart 4, this is driving consumer confidence and is providing a strong foundation for a healthy housing market, which is evident when you turn to Slide 7. Annual net household formations now appear to be recovering from prerecession levels of about – and are now running at about $1.5 million per year after having languished below $1 million really over the last several years. Meanwhile, housing starts are not keeping pace as you can see in the upper right coming in at 1 million, maybe just over 1 million per year as of late. And this is balance is even more severe once you consider the impact of housing attrition around 300,000 to 400,000 homes annually. No surprise then that housing inventories continue to be depleted as evidenced by following rental vacancy rates as you can see in chart 3 in the lower left. And for sale housing stock, which is now less than five months of inventory, a level that is considered to be quite tight for the for-sale market. Moving to Slide 8, the picture is even more favorable when you look at the apartment sector. Young adult job growth continue to outpace the rest of the population by about 100 basis points, which is leading to strong rental housing demands and is particularly tight with unemployment rates for college graduates of less than 3%, which we think bodes well for higher end rental housing and new lease up performance. Our homeownership rates continue to decline since the recession with reductions pronounced in young adults under 35, but also those ages 35 to 44, which is also a significant part of our rental rates. The one area that Bay is watching is new supply as you can see in the lower right after multi-family starts had leveled off over the previous 18 months and the mid 300,000 range; we saw it increase to over 400,000 in Q2. Some of the increase can be explained or maybe explained by the threat of the potential expiration of the 421-a program in New York City as many developers have rushed to get deals permitted and started. But with real demand fundamental still healthy and housing inventories falling, the market may simply be increasing production and be strengthening demand. Any event it’s a trend worth watching and particularly in relation to total housing production and what’s happening in the single-family market. Turning to Slide 9 you know, perhaps we ought to be looking at the rental housing market through a different lens this cycle than we have past cycles. Here are just the couple of exercise from recent research published by Moody's in the Urban Institute that suggests one that the economic expansion may be far from reaching its end according to Moody’s, particularly when you consider, but that’s for the recession and the moderate level of growth we’ve experienced since then. In fact, Moody’s and many other believe that this cycle is far from over which we think will benefit cyclical industries like housing. And second the researchers at the Urban Institute posit that rental housing demand is actually in the midst of a generational surge, that still has 15 years to run, a period when they anticipate that five out of every eight new households will be rental households. So we have been looking back over the last couple of cycles to draw a comparison as to how this cycle may play out for the industry, but maybe we need to start asking whether this cycle really have a president when you consider the confluence of trends that are positively driving rental housing demands. Indeed when you turn to Slide 10 you can see that effect of rental rate growth has recently reaccelerated despite what is still a moderate economic expansion. If we are in the middle of a prolonged economic and housing cycle this decade, it may prove to be the best we’ve seen in our industry and our markets, even surpassing the 1990s when cumulative rent growth reached almost 60% over a 10 year period or more than twice what we've seen so far this cycle in our markets. And now I’ll turn it over to Sean who can provide some color in terms of how our portfolio is performing given this favorable environment.
Sean Breslin :
Thanks Tim. Turning to our portfolio results on Slide 11. We’re certainly experiencing the acceleration Tim highlighted in the previous slide. Same-unit rent change during the second quarter averaged 6.2%, about 80 basis points greater than the first quarter and 250 basis points greater than Q2 2014. All of our regions are experiencing greater rent change as compared to last year including the mid-Atlantic, which is up about 100 basis points, so roughly 1% as compared to basically flat last year. July is generally consistent with the second quarter with achieved rent change as of earlier this week as 6.4%. Turning to Slide 12; our results in the first half of the year combined with the current positive momentum in the portfolio supports our increased outlook for the full calendar year. We increased the midpoint of our same-store rental revenue outlook by 75 basis points to 4.75% excluding our redevelopment activity. We expect better revenue growth from four of our six major regions; the exceptions are the greater New York and New Jersey and mid-Atlantic regions, which are expected to be within our original range. In the mid-Atlantic, better job growth is supporting the higher end of our original range; in New York and New Jersey which is expected to be at the lower end of original expectations, New York City, Westchester County and Northern New Jersey are performing as planned, but both Long Island and Central New Jersey are coming in below original expectations. New England supported mainly by Boston, and the West Coast markets, especially Southern California are expected to outperform our original expectations for the year. As we highlighted last quarter momentum in Southern California remains quite positive. In the second quarter, rent change was about 7% in LA and San Diego and almost 8% in Orange County; and San Diego rent change is running about 200 basis points above last year, while in LA and Orange County it’s between 300 basis points and 400 basis points greater than last year. Turning to Slide 13, we believe the positive momentum in our portfolio supported by our allocation to many supply constrained infill suburban submarkets, this slide Axiometrics shows the year-over-year effective rent growth in urban and suburban submarkets over the past several years, while urban submarkets certainly outperformed in the early part of the current cycle, new apartment supply, which takes longer to deliver in urban submarkets given the nature of the product is now beginning to keep pace with or has surpassed demand in many market. As a result, urban growth rates have slowed, while the suburban submarkets have improved. Moving to Slide 14, this suburban urban trend is highlighted in a couple of our markets. On the left is year-over-year effective rent growth in Boston for both suburban and urban assets. While every asset is unique and performance varies depending on where your portfolio is located within a certain submarket, the general trend over the past year has been improved performance in the suburban submarkets, while the urban core has moderated due to increased supply. We are certainly experiencing this trend in our Boston portfolio. On the right-hand side of the slide is the same data for Seattle, which is experiencing a similar trend given the significant amount of supply being delivered in the urban submarkets relative to suburban submarkets. Overall, Seattle is still a really healthy market given the very strong job growth that is being produced in the region, but on a relative basis suburban assets have started to outperform recently. Turning to Slide 15, I thought I’d like to highlight a relatively recent shift in our operational strategy; one that we believe has improved our performance over the past year and will continue to do so. The two charts on this slide represent our lease expiration profile throughout the calendar year in 2014 and 2015 for both Boston and Seattle. While many of you are familiar with the seasonal nature of our business, the demand patterns in these two markets are much more seasonal than the rest of our footprint. In Boston, the seasonal weakness in the fall and winter is driven primarily by the weather. In Seattle, it somewhat relates to the use of contract workers in the high-tech industry, a percentage of which leave the country during the holiday season. And both regions experience greater demand in the summer from short-term rentals, corporate hires coming out of college et cetera. Over the past year we changed our inventory management strategy to better align our supply of available units with a highly seasonal demand patterns in these two markets. Specifically we’re pushing even greater percentage of our lease expirations into the months for the best demand and highest rents. In New England we had 20% more expirations in May through July compared to last year, while in Seattle it’s about 40% more. We reduced contracted inventory in the fall and winter months in both regions when demand softens and rents typically decline from their summer peak. By further reducing expirations in the fall and winter seasons when demand is lower, we’ll have less inventory to lease and therefore either higher rents for the unit that are available to rent or fewer transactions and lower rents. We continue to identify opportunities to enhance our operational execution and including these refinements to revenue and inventory management practices and believe they will produce dividends for us in the future. With that, I’ll turn it back over to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks Sean. I’ll now ask Matt and Kevin to take a few minutes to development activity and funding, which together helping to drive outsized core FFO and NAV growth in 2015, and we believe over the next few years. So, Matt?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Alright great. Thanks Tim. Turning to our development activity you can see on Slide 16 that our lease-up communities continue to post impressive results. As a reminder, our general practice is to report rents on an untrended basis on our development communities until we open for business and at least enough apartments to get a good sense of where our current market rent levels are compared to where they were when the deal broke ground. This quarter we’ve mark to – rents to market on 10 of our 29 development communities and the rents of those 10 communities are running $200 per month above the initial underwriting, which in turn is driving 50 basis point increase in the yield on those deals to 7.1%. And importantly, we’re achieving those rents while getting absorption of on average 29 leases per month in the second quarter, which is actually the strongest pace – lease-up pace we've seen so far this cycle. With cap rates wrestling mid-4% range across our markets, this provide significant NAV accretion as these developments come on line. Turning to Slide 17, we broke ground on four new development communities last quarter, representing approximately $400 million versus new investment. Many of our starts this year have been transit oriented infill suburban locations, picking up on the theme Sean had mentioned as we’re seeing better rent growth in those submarkets due to less supply, but our largest start so far this year is actually AVA NoMa community in the North of Massachusetts Avenue district Washington DC. This project should have a pretty compelling cost basis of less than $340,000 per unit, in addition to benefiting from $7 million 10-year tax abatement provided by the District of Columbia and it’s also a good example of our multi-brand platform provides us with a wider variety of product and service offerings to appeal the different customer segments. This community was originally acquired this land as part of the Archstone acquisition and Archstone had designed it to be the second phase kind of companion to the First & M community next quarter. We were able to reprogram it to provide, but we expect will be a very different living experience with different price points, floor plans, amenities and services, as well as the different style and sensibility that will reflect the contrast between our Avalon and AVA brand. This is similar to the approach we have taken at our downtown Brooklyn, West Chelsea and Somerville sites where we diversified a concentrated investment in a single location by building multi-brand communities. On Slide 18 you can see that our local teams have also been busy backfilling the development pipeline and identifying new opportunities for future development. Our development rights pipeline, which represents sites which we control mostly under option contracts has expanded over the past few quarters after bottoming out late in 2014 and now stands at $3.7 billion. The pie charts on the lower part of the slide also show how the future development pipeline is migrating a bit towards suburban transit infill oriented locations. And that’s just reflection of the fact that we’re finding better risk-adjusted returns in these submarkets at this point in the cycle, which is not surprising given the concentration of new supply in the urban cores and a higher cost basis of high rights construction, which tends to make urban development more profitable in the early part of the cycle. And with that I’ll turn it over to Kevin to talk about our activity on the right hand side of the balance sheet.
Kevin OShea:
Thanks Matt. Turning to Slide 19, we highlight the Company's funding position against both our updated capital plan and our development activity underway. As you can see on this slide, company remains exceptionally well funded in both areas. Specifically for our updated capital plan, we now contemplate raising $1.95 billion in external capital. Through June 30, we raised about $1.4 billion including $570 million in remaining proceeds under our forward equity contract. In the second half of the year, we expect to raise another $580 million in external capital through a combination of asset sales and the issuance of unsecured debt. As for our development activity, as of quarter-end our development underway of $3.8 billion was nearly 100% match funded by the combination of $2.6 billion in capital spent to date, plus over $1 billion from cash on hand, projected free cash flow and remaining proceeds under our equity forward. As a result, we’ve eliminated nearly all funding risk, while locking-in significant value creation as these communities are completed and stabilized. On Slide 20 we show the evolution of a few key credit metrics since 2010, in order to highlight how we have further improved our already strong credit profile through recent refinancing activity. During the second quarter, we raised $620 million in external capital including $520 million in 10 year unsecured debt at about 3.5%. And we repaid $580 million of secured debt with a cash interest rate of 6.2% and a GAAP interest rate of 3.7%. As a result of this activity, our unencumbered NOI percentage is now 76%, up 700 basis points from year-end 2014 and the highest it’s been since before the financial crisis. In addition the composition of our debt significantly improved such that 56% of our debt is now unsecured, up 900 basis points from year-end. Further, since 2010 our weighted average GAAP interest rate has steadily declined by 130 basis points to 3.9% today, while we’ve reduced the amount of unamortized debt premium from the Archstone transaction down to $60 million today from about $150 million when we closed that transaction. The next two slide highlight the contribution that development provides both to our earnings growth and to our NAV growth and serve to underscore the merits of our time-tested development capabilities. In Slide 21, we depict the components of our projected growth in 2015 core FFO per share. Of the $0.75 in projected core FFO growth this year $0.37 is projected to come from development and redevelopment activity net of financing costs. Of this $0.37, development is projected to contribute $0.34, while redevelopment is projected to contribute $0.03. Thus development alone should add 500 basis points to our growth rate this year and account for nearly half of our overall earnings growth. In Slide 22, we highlight developments contribution from an NAV perspective and over a longer period of time, by estimating how much NAV per share we’ve created or we expect to create through development thus far in the cycle. Specifically, development starts and completion since the beginning of 2011 totaled $6.1 billion; of this about $4 billion has been completed or is undergoing initial lease-up and has produced or is producing an initial stabilized yield of 7%. Applying this 7% initial yield to the $6 billion in starts and completions and then capitalizing the resulting NOI to current market cap rate of 4.5% produces an implied value creation above our cost of $3.3 billion. This in turn equates to an estimate of $30 per share in NAV accretion from development starts and completions since early 2011. So in sum, through our development capability AvalonBay has provided and continues to provide significant incremental earnings and NAV growth for our investors, while at the same time adding new and exciting apartment communities that enhance the quality of our portfolio and our product offering for our customers. With that I’ll turn it over to Tim.
Timothy Naughton:
Well thanks Kevin. So 2015 is shaping up to be another strong year. Core FFO growth is expected to come in at more than 11%, driven by strong same-store portfolio performance you heard from Sean, with same-store NOI expected to be north of 5%, a healthy external growth from development as Kevin just touched on, and finally a strong and a flexible balance sheet that as long as the fund and support this growth with attractively priced capital. And with that Christy, we’d like to open the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.
Steve Sakwa:
Hi, good morning. A couple of questions, I know you guys are not providing 2016 guidance and just revised the 2015, but if you just kind of look at the trajectory of rent growth that you've kind of seen over the course of the year and you look at where you are sending out renewals, is it a fair assumption to think that absent the real occupancy change that revenue growth will next year at least equal to 2015 kind of from a directional standpoint? And I guess the other question would just be for I guess Kevin there was I guess on Page 20 of the supplemental, there was a little change it said in expensed overhead and it almost sounded like that might have sort of retarded how much the FFO would've gone up this year. I'm just wondering if you could sort of expound on that and kind of quantify that for us.
Timothy Naughton:
Okay. Maybe I’ll take the first question Steve and certainly others can join in and maybe Kevin take the second question regarding overhead. As you saw on one of the slides, we’ve been saying like-term rent change north of 6% for the last few months. It's been positive in terms of its trajectory this year and that’s obviously a leading indicator in terms of portfolio of performance. And as Sean mentioned, we’re expecting to see same-store revenue growth you know 5% or north of 5% in July and just imply from our guidance based upon what we did in the first half of the year we’re expecting 5% range for the back half the year. We have said, we think we’re you know, we've got another two, three, four years of – potentially above trend growth and the question is how much above trend then, it’s a little bit depending upon the ebb and flow of markets. We don't anticipate that Northern California will continue to grow at 10%, but on the other hand we don't anticipate the DC area to continue to languish roughly flat rent growth. So Steve it’s going to be a function ultimately of different markets, but when you look at just from a macro standpoint, particularly I guess the point I made about the end of production of housing and we think sort of a stronger employment picture in terms of the quality of the jobs and we’re starting to seeing decent wage growth, we expect we’ll continue to see good healthy above trend growth and that fundamentals would continue to pay warehousing and specifically rental housing, you know whether that translates into 4%, 5% plus growth, more to come on that.
Kevin OShea:
So Steve, this is Kevin. Just to answer your question on overhead and I guess to begin by providing a little bit context for everyone on college, you referenced on Page 20 of our supplemental or our attachment 13 we provided our outlook for the year at the bottom of that, we indicate that our expectation now is for expensed overhead, which comprises corporate G&A, property management and investment management, we expect that that will increase year-over-year from initially 0% to 5% to now 6% to 8%. Just to give you a little more color there, we now project total overhead to increase by about 7% this year versus basically a 3% increase at the beginning of the year. This 4% increase represent about $4 million of which about $1 million was recognized in the first half of the year and $3 million is expected to be recognized in the second half of the year. The majority of the increase is tied to increases in expected compensation based on expected performance to date and expected performance from the year. In terms of the underlying 3% growth that we initially expected for the year, about half of that was driven by legal settlement in 2014 that’s not present this year and the other half was driven by severance costs recognized in the first half of the year.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Nick Joseph with Citi.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks. For the lease expiration management, how do you think about the benefit from having more leases rolled in the peak leasing season versus the risk of being concentrated too much at one time, and then do you expect to keep tweaking from here as the portfolio currently optimized?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah Nick, this is Sean. Just talking about it a little bit, we highlighted the two markets where it matters a lot, which is the New England and Seattle they tend to be the two more seasonal markets in our footprint. So we have applied the same basic strategy to the rest of the portfolio, and you know when you think about it in our portfolio typically what we've experienced is we’re optimizing revenue when occupancy is somewhere in the that mid-95% to 96% range, every market is a little bit different by the way in terms of what sort of average market occupancy is, but that’s been our experience. So as we looked at what was happening with demand patterns across the portfolio we felt like we continue to push more expirations into the second quarter and through July, and to the extent that we could drive enough traffic to the portfolio to continue to push rents at the pace that we have actually experienced. We think we're in pretty good shape and it allows for us to I guess if you want to call, this growth have an appropriate glide path as we go into the fall because expirations were up in second quarter about 7%, 8% that actually peaks in July, which is up about 14%, but then it comes down in August and September 7%, 8% and 4% or 5% in the fourth quarter. So, we expect to be able to continue to maintain pricing power at a pretty healthy cliff as we go into the fall and winter season, probably more or so than we've experienced in the past, as a result of the expected lower supply of inventory that we’re going to have during those periods. And in terms of the balance between occupancy and rate growth, we think we’re in a pretty good position right now as it relates to what we did in the second quarter, what we expect in the third quarter, but it's always a little bit of dance in terms of whether you experienced too much availability and you have pricing pressure or not, we did not experience that in the second quarter. And based on where we sit today, we think we’re in pretty good shape, our 30 day availability peaked around 6%, now it’s down about 50 basis points to 5.5%, physical occupancy is mid-95, it’s going into a period where we’ll have low expiration. So I think we’re positioned pretty well and this strategy we pursued was the right one. In terms of whether we’re sort of done, you know lease expiration management is something that is sort of a continuous activity, you have lease breaks, you have short-term rentals, lot of things that occur in the portfolio and so you’re always adjusting what allowable leases you’ll offer to a customer, at what price points for those leases to make sure your profile stays optimized. So, might be a little more detail than you like, but I thought maybe it would help in terms of providing context to everyone about our strategy.
Timothy Naughton:
Hey Sean, if I can just add to that too. Obviously, the models dynamic is always responding to – adjusting demand as we see it, but it’s also for an understanding what the market is doing, what the rest of the market is doing in terms of expiration management, and so that alone is going to make us try to maneuver to optimize the opportunities. So for example if the market is smooth – starting to smooth its expirations relative to where we think demand patterns are, then we’re going to benefit from concentrating more expirations in the peak leasing season, the opposite could be true as well. So it’s going to be a dynamic process in terms of how we manage through it in part because there is always demand dynamic, but also supply in terms of how the rest of the market is using revenue management.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks that's very help. And then just in terms of capital needs looking out to 2016, it seems like the spend in terms of development will be similar to this year, so would you do another forward equity offering at this price?
Matthew Birenbaum:
Obviously Nick, we don’t comment a lot about future activity in the capital front. And I think we’ve been asked a number of times what our views are in the use of an equity forward, so I guess just to kind of provide everyone that answer again I guess, you know we’ve know about an equity forward as a tool in our tool kit for probably five or six years, we’ve used it only once. It takes sort of a special confluence of events to justify using it, it’s a good tool to have. And it really is a function of what one has elevated funding needs, what ones capital position is at a given point in time and what one expects capital pricing might be as well as availability in the coming period. Given where we are now we feel like we’re in a really great shape from a balance sheet point of view with net debt to EBITDA in the mid-five times range, and we’re potentially nearly 100% match funded against the development that is underway. So we feel good from a capital standpoint even if as it might turn out that spend next year is roughly on par with the share, we’ve haven’t gone through the budget process, so we don't have – we have some visibility on it, but we don't have – call it final visibility on what spend levels would be next year, but they’re likely to be meaningful, just given the level of start activity. But in terms of the capital choices we might make they often involve naturally what capital pricing is and at this point today, if I were to rank order or track – based on attractiveness the choices we have, asset sales are much more attractive as the source of equity than is common equity at this point in time. So I would rank them asset sales, then unsecured debt and then followed by common equity issuance. So as we stand here in July it’s far too early to say what our capital spend might be for 2016.
Nick Joseph:
Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ross Nussbaum with UBS.
Ross Nussbaum:
Hey guys good morning. Tim you commented a little bit in your slides about the uptick in starts and permits over the last few months obviously the 421-a situation in New York has put some noise into the numbers, I guess I’m curious if you had to sit back and say on a scale of 1 to 10 how nervous are you that we're moving into a new threshold or new level of supply in the multifamily business. How would you sort of rank your level of concern how that compared maybe where your head was six to 12 months ago?
Timothy Naughton:
Yeah, that’s obviously a question on everybody's mind, as I said I think bears watching. But you know maybe to start with the demand side of the picture, I think as the industry – I think investors and honestly developers and sponsors are looking at the demand side of the picture as being stronger than they may have a year and two years ago, and the cycle maybe play out a little bit longer. So I think there's probably some truth that there is just more confidence, more investor confidence, more developer confidence and there is probably good reason for that, when you look at demand. So I think there is a decent probability that supply will move up from here. I think it needs to move up in order for the market to be anywhere close to being in balance. We’re seeing how it can get distorted in places like Northern California and Seattle, even Seattle where we’re delivering over 3% deploying it, you would continue to see 7% revenue growth. I think what’s interesting though, and probably my biggest concern is who would provide the supply, but if you just look at our kind of our outlook we’re looking in terms of constant dollar volume roughly in 2015 that we started in 2014 and 2013 and 2016 won’t be materially different. It’s actually a smaller unit count. And as you go around and you talk to some of the more experienced, it’s kind of a similar story, you hear, so the additional supply I think will likely come from new entrants oftentimes who I think sometimes, you know muddy up the market a little bit. So I think that's probably as worth watching as much as anything Ross where the supply coming from, who is – where the net new kind of add is if you will. So there is somebody who is developing an apartment community, at least the land that they’ve owned for a long time. For the first time – commercial and retail developers are doing this for the first time and have other objectives in terms of providing additional supply to the market. So – and that’s a little bit of a long-winded, I think it's a decent chance that it will occur. I think it’s, the market can absorb it when it probably needs it, just based upon household formation and just the balance of demand between rental and for sale.
Ross Nussbaum:
Okay thanks. And just a question on the second quarter turnover ratio. I think you guys did a good job of explaining that, I think you intentionally had higher turnover because you accelerated where the lease expirations are. Were there any markets where the turnover surprised you, maybe as a sign that you might've pushed too hard on the rent gas pedal or was it all kind of intentional?
Sean Breslin :
This is Sean. Good point about being somewhat intentional. Turnover rate was certainly up, but if you look at it as move outs as a percentage of expiring leases, it was actually down about 120 basis points year-over-year. All the markets were down with the exception of Northern California which was up about 120 basis points. I wouldn’t say it was necessarily surprising given the level of rent growth in that region, but Northern California is certainly the one outlier where there is continued pressure on rental rates and driving more turnover in terms of the existing residents, but still being able to replace them with high quality residents and higher incomes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jeff Spector with Bank of America.
Jeff Spector:
Good morning. Just a follow-up question on previous comments on where we are in the cycle Tim and your comments today just given the better first half of the year acceleration, expected to continue, you know do you think we're still in mid-cycle? I mean have you, do you feel that maybe obviously things are stronger than you were expecting that we're still in earlier stages or still mid-cycle, but longer? I just want to clarify those comments and how that ties into the increasing you know the decision to increase the development pipeline.
Timothy Naughton:
Yeah, Jeff thanks. I would say somewhere in mid-cycle. I don’t know if I could be more specific than that, as we said, we think it’s probably, both this economic expansion and this apartment cycle probably feel more like – more like the 90s, when you just look at sort of the economic drivers that usually start to portent that maybe the expansion is starting to slow down it’s just not present right now, and you know when they start becoming present, usually it often has another two, three, four years before you see any kind of economic correction. So things that change, but just based upon sort of the underlying fundamental it just seems like this has a few years to play out from our perspective economically and from a real estate cycle standpoint. Now, how does that impact us in terms of this, I would say in certain markets it’s probably, we’re probably more – a little bit more confident in other markets we’re probably as gun shy as maybe we’ve been over the last six to nine months. For example in Southern California we bought a $100 million piece of lands and six acre site and Hollywood where it’s kind of a unique opportunity to build 700 apartments on a dual branded site, that we felt, you know we felt pretty confident about. On the other hand if that opportunity had been infill Northern California where rents have already increased 50% this cycle, and to when the auction you might have to assume they’re going to grow another 50%, we probably would've been bold enough to take a piece of land down that side. So I think it’s going to be a little situational and we’re probably going to be a little bit more in press key in markets like Southern California or DC, just fundamentally a different part of its real estate and expansion cycle.
Jeff Spector:
Okay. And can you comment, specifically on New York City and especially on the supply front the numbers we’re seeing for 2016. How do you feel about New York City?
Timothy Naughton:
Well we are expecting supply deliveries to go up in 2016 as you know. I think the big question are all these permits going to translate into starts, you know last time we saw the threat of the 421-a expire, we did see a bit of spike a couple of years later, so that risk is out there. I think from a land market and a construction cost market you need to be extremely careful in New York City today. I think there's a chance that some of this will translate into starts, which is going to put additional pressure on construction cost. I think there's a chance that the land markets get a little noisy for a while, and that you might be, you might benefit from standing back a little bit and just kind of seeing where the dust settles and take advantage of opportunity that's permitted and after a point at which markets, construction markets maybe have a chance to settle down or replace a little bit. So I think it's going to create – I think anytime you see uncertainty around regulation that creates more distortions and uncertainty and you know that will create its own set of opportunities, I just don't think it's today right now.
Jeff Spector:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Austin Wurschmidt :
Just given the continued momentum that you guys have seen into August and September, and sort of that 8% range on the offers, should we expect that you guys are going to continue to run at that pace or would you anticipate you’d dough that back a little bit and look to rebuild occupancy as traffic could slow later this year?
Sean Breslin :
Yes Austin, this is Sean. 8% is what we've got out there at this point. You know we haven't necessarily doughed-up what the offers are going to look like for the fourth quarter. I guess I’d just maybe refer back to the common I made earlier is that based on our lease expiration strategy with fewer expirations beginning in August through year-end, our expectation is that we'll be able to hold better pricing power potentially than we have in the past during that season. 8% is a pretty healthy level. And so our expectation is that as availability has come down, pricing power has remained healthy naturally just through lower expiration volume we would expect fewer move outs and better occupancy. But how that plays out in terms of what the rent offers might look like going into the fourth quarter is hard to comment on at this point.
Austin Wurschmidt :
Thanks. And then I guess just touching a little bit on homeownership, look like that declined another 30 basis points in the second quarter, as we get sort of to one standard deviation below the historical mean nationally, 2 plus standard deviations looking at sort of the primary rendering cohorts, how does that stack up today versus in your markets versus the historical average?
Timothy Naughton:
I think when you look at homeownership in our markets versus historical average, I think it's obviously lower because our markets have lower homeownership, but I think they're running at around 53. Right now for our market, if you look at the four quarter average, it’s about 51% right now as compared to the previous peak it was 58%, so we’re down about 700 basis points in our market at this point.
Sean Breslin :
The 58% wasn't the norm because nationally the peak had gone up about 500 basis points from 64% to 69%. So I would guess that it was pretty consistent in terms of that trend.
Austin Wurschmidt:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ian Weissman with Credit Suisse.
Chris :
Hi guys. This is Chris for Ian. Congrats on the great quarter. It makes sense that you’d be developing more in the suburbs given where we are in the cycle, but just curious about your thoughts on the volume of those starts, especially as you work through the shadow pipeline. It sounds like there's some good value creation there, but just concerned about adding to aggressively to the suburban markets, particularly in the Northeast any concern there?
Matthew Birenbaum :
This is Matt. Actually if you look at what under construction today, it's actually more urban than our portfolio as a whole, so kind of our urban percentage is going to rise here in the next year or two. But the shadow pipeline is more suburban focused that I mean ultimately when you play that out five years from now, our portfolio just based on that probably kind of those proportions don't change a whole lot. It's a big portfolio. The other thing that we find is we can shape the portfolio much more aggressively through dispositions and potentially through acquisitions really on the development front most of the time what we’re looking at is where we find the most compelling opportunities where we can add value through what we do so well. And it is true a lot of that is in those northeastern suburban submarkets and you will see us tending to sell more out of those locations to keep the portfolio balanced. We did sell one asset that’s here for example in Stamford, we sold an SOS here in Danbury. So those are the types of locations where we're probably more likely to sell.
Chris :
Okay that makes sense. I guess just thinking kind of recovery loss as long as we’re kind of talking about now a few more years that would be giving you the ability to kind of work your through, all the way through the shadow pipeline and if you did that you'd kind of increase the suburban exposure, but it sounds like you just sell out of your – some of the older assets in those same locations is that kind of what you're saying?
Timothy Naughton:
Yeah, I think that's fair. It's also important to note that the character, not all suburbs and not all suburban locations are the same, and a lot of the character of what we’re focused on now is pretty high density infill job centers suburban, so as compared to say a Danbury for example, when you look at what some of the infill suburban starts that we've had recently or we have coming up whether it's great neck, which is North Shore Long Island where we’ve been trying to get in for years and years very close in or we have a big development start coming probably early next year in Amityville in the East Bay or even some of the stuff we’re doing in Seattle, which is kind of in the infill suburbs, Mosaic district at Merrifield that’s this corner, those are some pretty exciting locations as well. And it will be great long-term investments too.
Q – Chris:
Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Rob Stevenson :
Good morning guys. It looks like the redevelopment [indiscernible] drop in the supplement, can you guys just talk about how many projects are in there and what the additions to the pipeline and expected returns look like for the rest of the year?
Sean Breslin :
Sure Rob, this is Sean. In terms of the redevelopment activity right now there's, as noted about $123 million underway at seven committees, it’s about 2,800 apartment homes. The mix does continue to shift. Our expectation will be as expressed in the past is we plan to start between $100 million to $150 million per year in redevelopment activity. And as you look at our track record, the track record is actually been quite healthy in terms of returns from that activity where if you think about redevelopment there is two components to it, there is certainly some capital that does not earn a return that sort of end of useful life activity whether you’re replacing roofs and things like that. But there's also the enhancement component, and the enhancement components for us we typically underwrite somewhere in the 10% to 12% range. We've actually been hitting probably more mid-teens in that activity. So I think you’re going to expect it to be somewhere again running in the $100 million to $150 million range and the kind of return profile that I expect, we don't expect to ramp it up dramatically North Sea has softened up materially over the next few quarters.
Rob Stevenson :
What is that $100 million to $150 million mean on a per unit basis?
Sean Breslin :
You know it varies a lot. We have deals that run anywhere from I’d say a low of 15,000 to 20,000 up to about 50,000 a unit. The average in the portfolio now is probably running somewhere in the neighborhood of about 40,000.
Rob Stevenson:
Okay. And then are you guys seeing any meaningful difference between the operating performance over the last six months in the various suburban DC, suburban Maryland district and even into the district?
Sean Breslin :
Yeah. I’d make a few comments on the submarket. So out of the three major markets, here in Metro DC, best to be in the district suburban Virginia and suburban Maryland. Suburban Maryland has been the weakest I’d say over the past quarter. A lot of supply being delivered in Rockville, North Bethesda, a little bit in Gaithersburg, so that's certainly been the softest. In suburban Virginia it’s probably holding out relatively well and western Fairfax as an example. The submarket, sort of the softest in Northern Virginia or the RBC corridor in old town right now, and then in DC, it’s a function of positioning first off, but I'd say geographically the softest points are in NoMa as an example. And we've also had some softness around gallery place. And keep in mind for us, we don't have a material relative to the whole portfolio in DC. So our experience is relatively small sample size, but that's what's happening in the district for our portfolio.
Rob Stevenson:
Okay. Thanks guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Dan Oppenheim with Zelman & Associates.
Dan Oppenheim :
Thanks very much. I was wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the Northern California about the rent growth, as given the difficulty in terms of just incomes keeping pace with the rent growth as it is. What are you doing in terms of thinking about obviously a good problem to have in terms of the rent growth at these levels here, but are you doing anything in terms of the tenant screening upfront in terms of looking at residence, some central residence thinking about if you're getting 8%, 9%, 10% rent growth, it can quickly mean that the residence will qualify today won’t be able to handle a year or two from now, are you doing anything to think about that in terms of how to minimize the turn over the next couple of years?
Sean Breslin :
Dan, this is Sean. In terms of that point, I mean obviously you're talking about a topic that is somewhat regulated if you want to think about it that way, in terms of how you screen people and who you can turn away and who you can’t. So for us it's a pretty disciplined process, hasn't really changed. People qualify based on their incomes today you know they're going to move in. We tend to keep an eye on it, just to know what the opportunity is to push rents on those folks in terms of who's in the existing portfolio. But it's hard to sort of size people up to say you can afford this today, but can you afford it year from now I’m not sure. The question really is that if people are moving out can we continue to replace them with enough demand to pay the higher rents and the answer thus far this cycle has been yes.
Dan Oppenheim:
Got it. And then AVA Theater district in Boston, looks as though certainly the rents in that submarket moving up, and I think you're expecting now nice and higher rents, but keeping the stabilization timing as – probably in terms of pushing the rents more than leasing out faster than you would plan with the construction cycle, and how are you thinking about that overall?
Sean Breslin :
Yeah, this is Sean. I’ll make a couple of comments and Matt or Tim can add on if they want. Theater district first off very – not surprised, we’re very pleased with the rent profile that we've experienced thus far. But I'd say for two reasons we've pushed rents, but probably are leaving a little bit of gas in the tank if you want to call it that. The two issues are; one, the seasonal nature of Boston which as you get into the fall, it falls off pretty quickly and then as you get into the winter it can be pretty quiet. And then secondly there's a fair amount of supply being delivered in the urban submarkets there in Boston and more to come, so our strategy with that asset has been to rents to market based on where we see today, but making sure that we're continually adjusting them to reflect the supply demand dynamics in that market to achieve targeted velocity each month. And thus far we been able to do that, but given the seasonal patterns that we experienced in the supply we probably aren’t going to push too hard on that and we’ll probably opt slightly more for velocity than rate, as we move through the fall and the winter in Boston.
Dan Oppenheim:
Great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John Kim :
Good morning. I had a question of your disposition guidance because it looks like your net gains will be at the highest level this year other than maybe 2011 or 2013 on a GAAP basis. So I wanted to know if you could provide us some guidance on the gross proceeds you expect for the year, and if these proceeds are already characterized as capital already sourced on Slide 19 of your presentation.
Kevin OShea:
John, this is Kevin. I'm not sure if I fully understand sort of the thought process in terms of your comments on gains. But in terms of dispositions for the year they really come in two types; wholly-owned dispositions and fund level dispositions. Wholly-owned obviously being much more meaningful here, so I’d focus my comments on that. In the first half of the year, we sold one asset Stamford Harbor for about $115 million. We had some additional asset sales lined up for the second half of the year. Earlier in my comments I talked about what our remaining capital sourcing activity was for the second half of the year, we expect to source about call it roughly $600 million of capital in the back half of the year, and probably about roughly half of that we expect currently will come through the issuance of unsecured debt and the balance through asset sales. So in terms of – I’m not sure how you triangulate on gain activity, but if there's comments that the question you have on that, let me know.
John Kim :
Sure. It’s just on your outlook for the year, you have net gain on asset sales of $1.69 to $1.83 for the year?
Kevin OShea :
Right.
John Kim:
So just backing in for that, just the full year number?
Kevin OShea:
Yeah, I mean, this is – I'm not sure it's necessarily a cyclical high, it’s certainly not cyclical high in terms of the dollar value of assets that we've sold so far this year, but some of the assets we’re selling have a fair bit of gains associated with them. The case of an asset like Stamford Harbor was an asset that we built a long time ago held through quite a bit, and had a lot of built-in gain based on profitable development activity and that's true for a couple of the other assets we expect to sell in the second half of the year that come from more of a suburban market profile that we did long time ago.
John Kim:
Okay. And then just sticking to your guidance, your capitalized interest for the year has increased, but your development spend is pretty much unchanged and your interest cost have declined. So can you just elaborate on why the increase in capitalized interest?
Kevin OShea :
Yeah. There's a couple of pieces there. Overall we expect an additional $6 million in capitalized interest expense for the year. A portion of which or about $0.02 is included in the capital markets and transaction activity in the table shown on the earnings release. So – and that relates to additional investment in land that would be held for development. As Tim mentioned, we bought $100 million parcel in Hollywood California, so that's part of that. The remaining $0.02 to $0.03 that flows from that variance in capitalized interest is included in the interest expense line item and is driven by a mix of variables related to calculation of capitalized interest, but primarily due to slightly higher projected CIP balances throughout the year.
John Kim:
Okay great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Haendel St. Juste with Morgan Stanley.
Haendel St. Juste:
Good or I guess good afternoon now. So a couple of quick ones here. I guess Kevin, one is for you looking at the debt maturity schedule, it looks like there's a couple above market unsecured tranches high five coupons set to mature in 2016 and 2017. Pretty well above the 3.5% you recently issued 10- year [ph] paper. So I'm curious as to what's your current thought here how are you weighing the opportunity to perhaps replace these slugs given the rate risk and versus I guess that debt prepay penalties?
Kevin OShea :
Sure Haendel. You know we've got about $250 million [ph] maturing next year, its unsecured debt high five coupon. And it's something we'll take a look at as we roll forward here, nothing planned as yet in regard to that. But it's a relatively modest maturity for us. We have $6.4 billion of debt, probably about $5 billion of it is maturing call it the next 10 years or so. So an average maturity year for us is about $500 million. So that makes 2016 actually a pretty light year with only about $250 million, probably the $280 million if you put some amortization on top of that maturing next year. But there may be an opportunity there for us to act on, but nothing that's in the plan as yet. In terms of 2017, that's a larger tower about $950 million. Most of that is represented by secured debt of about $700 million that is in a GSE pool that we assumed in connection with the Archstone transaction. Much of that is in place to help support some tax protection obligations that Archstone had made and that we inherited. That matures as we indicated in 2017 it has two extension options, so we can extend it for one or two years based on our election before that point in time. So we've got some financial flexibility about how we address that. But given that it's tethered to some tax protection obligations, it's less likely a candidate for early action for retirement – retiring that debt. I guess probably what's more germane right now is that within our guidance we do anticipate paying off additional debts about $200 million in total that we expected at the beginning of the year and it’s driven by I guess your comment which was what’s the opportunity for refinancing and the prospect of – facing, potentially rising rate environment. And we do see some opportunities in our debt portfolio if you will to pay off some debt here in the next quarter and do so in an accretive basis. From an interest rate perspective just to clarify one thing, while the cash coupon on some of the debt is 2016 and 2017 is attractive, it’s in the high fives in the case of 2016 and the cash interest rate in the 2017 debt is also relatively high, the $700 million of debt that we inherited from Archstone, while it has a 6% cash pay interest rate, it has a GAAP interest rate of about 3.4%, but that's just something to point out for modeling purposes. But from our point of view, if you could repay that secured debt in 2017 today, we’d likely to – consider ways of doing so because it would be certainly attractive to try to refinance that and to a lower coupon, but that does have a prepayment penalty associated with it, that makes an economically unattractive choice today.
Haendel St. Juste:
Great. I appreciate the insightful comments. Next question maybe for Tim, maybe for Sean. A question on Seattle; the last couple of years we saw meaningful uptick of supply in downtown Seattle, plus 6% more or less of supply as a percentage of stock. But the next two years, the supply picture really shifts out to Bellevue, we’re looking at about 15%, 16% expansion over the next two years, which is more where I believe your Seattle exposure and as well as some of your peers are. So I’m curious how you’re thinking about your Seattle exposure and price point positioning today can and should you be calling, and then is it inconceivable that your SoCal portfolio could surpass your Seattle portfolio this time next year in terms of same-store revenue growth?
Sean Breslin :
Yeah, Haendel this is Sean. I’ll make a couple of comments and Tim or Matt can jump in as it relates to development. Your comment is, certainly accurate that the majority of the supply, high percentage has been focused in Downtown, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, and if you go there today, I was there just a couple of weeks ago there, sort of cranes everywhere in those various submarket. It’s certainly starting to accelerate in terms of the volume of the supply that is planned in the Eastside and North-end submarkets which is where most of our portfolio is concentrated. And we will continue to watch that carefully. At this point, you're talking about a market that's producing close to 4% job growth. There is some supply coming on line in Bellevue and North-end, that is meaningful as Downtown, but is being observed quickly and we’re still producing 7% revenue growth. So, at this point what is planned there in terms of the level of supply at current rates of job growth, probably concern us a lot that job growth is not likely to continue at that pace forever obviously, so we’ll have to continue to watch how it evolves on both sides. At this point what's in the pipeline though for Bellevue, Redmond, [indiscernible], Lynwood some of those submarkets isn't all that concerning. And we've got a pretty diversified portfolio in terms of our positioning. We have a lot of older product at reasonable price points, and we been opportunistic on the development side and have some higher-end assets that we are underway with in Newcastle, Redmond et cetera that we think will do quite well in the environment. There should be early deliveries in those submarkets relative to the rest of what's in the planning cycle. So we think we’re pretty well-positioned, but certainly it’s going to have to be something we’re going to watch, as supply starts to ramp up more on the Eastside.
Haendel St. Juste:
Any thoughts on SoCal versus Seattle, as we move into well next year?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah, I mean it's a very good question. I mean historically Southern Cal hasn't been nearly as volatile as Northern Cal, North Seattle, just given the underlying kind of macroeconomic fundamentals in that market. But there certainly have been times in the past where it's produced numbers up in the call it 7% range. We'll call it roughly 6% now, demand is pretty healthy, still the lowest region of any region in terms of supply over the next two years. So while it's hard to predict where things are going, it's not unimaginable that if you had job growth slow a little bit in Seattle and it continues to move up in Southern Cal with the supply we have that it could get to that level.
Haendel St. Juste:
I appreciate the comments. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vincent Chow with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chow :
Hey, good afternoon everyone. Just a few follow-up questions here. Just going back to the debt side of things, just curious if the recent treasure rate volatility has really significantly impacted your cost of debt here, do you think you'd still be close to that 3.5% that you recently issued at or is that somewhat higher today?
Kevin OShea:
You know the quotes that we’re receiving today for issuing new 10-year unsecured debt for us range between 3.6% and 3.7% today, so a little bit back of the 3.47% yield to maturity that we achieved in May, but not in an awful lot. Call it on average about 20 bps back.
Vincent Chow:
Okay. And just given the funding your need for next year as well as expected issuance here sometime in the second half, would you consider increasing that amount just to sort of prefund given the rising rates and also just again, lock-in some pre-funding?
Kevin OShea :
Our approach is when it comes to funding is not really necessarily to try to speculate on where rates might be tomorrow and mobilized, capitalized – mobilized capital as a result. It’s really much more driven by our uses and our development activity. And so what we’re much more inclined to do is to match fund capital, so as we make development commitments go out and try to find the long-term capital with that. So given that we're nearly 100% match-funded today, you know I don't know it would be necessarily, need to be more than that at any point going forward. So probably not highly inclined to try to go out and issue new debt today in advance of the need next year.
Vincent Chow:
Okay. Thanks for that. And then just one last question; just on the comment earlier that you made about bringing – or on the turnover side bringing in folks with higher incomes and that's helping support some of the rent growth. Just curious if you had the stats of what the renewal income was for sort of the new move-ins versus the existing portfolio?
Sean Breslin :
Yeah, Vince this is Sean. On the lease income data for us if you think about the way we’ve managed the business and I think it's the case for most of our peers as well, is you get a snapshot of someone’s income that they apply, but at the time that they renew their lease, whether it's one year, two years, five years later, you're not re-verifying income. So really the income data that we have for the most part is based on new applicants coming to the community that convert to a move-in, so I can't really disaggregated for you between move-ins versus renewals based on the new applicants. So lease income is up about 6% year-over-year for our portfolio.
Vincent Chow:
6%?
Sean Breslin :
About 6% correct.
Vincent Chow:
Okay. Thank you.
Sean Breslin :
Sure.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ryan Peterson with Sandler O'Neill.
Ryan Peterson:
Yeah. Thanks guys. Just touching again on development pipeline, you added $400 million in the quarter, you’ve talked previously kind of tapering it back, is that $400 million you consider that still tapering or is this a reflection of your increased optimism that you talked about the legs of this cycle?
Timothy Naughton:
Ryan, I’ll start. This is Tim, and Matt feel free to jump in. If you look – no, we don’t consider tapering. We've been running you know starts at about $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion in the last three years. If you looked at our total pipeline, development rights and development communities underway, we’re about where we were at the end of the 2013 right now in terms of dollar volume, a little less in terms of unit count, but about the same in terms of dollar volume. We’ve talked about in the past, we’ve said, one, we would expect that tapered back a bit just based on opportunities, so it’s really driven more by opportunities than anything else and we have seen some good opportunities over the last few quarters, but may not as expected to seeing call it a year ago. Now there are markets where are being more judicious as I mentioned earlier, particular the Bay area and New York City to name a couple, where I guess you know I would be surprised if our pipeline didn’t dial back a little bit just based upon the underlying construction cost, land cost, fundamentals and project the returns given where we are in the cycle.
Ryan Peterson:
Hey great, thanks. And then, and if you could just touch again on the New England fundamentals being at your expectations for the year, is that – what's driving that? Is that all from your new kind of management or is there something that you aren’t expecting in the actual market?
Sean Breslin :
Ryan, its Sean. A couple of things; one, the market is performing better, particularly the suburban submarkets. Job growth has picked up and there is very little meaningful supply really in the suburban submarkets as compared to the urban core in Boston and then certainly we have changed our expiration strategy as I alluded to earlier with New England and Seattle being the two where it’s probably the most pronounced, and so we had set a greater volume of transactions in the second quarter, which will continue through July in that market, which has put material upward overpressure on gross potential growth and a good quarter in New England. So our expectation is that this urban markets will continue to perform well and so good market combined with shipment strategy are really the two components.
Ryan Peterson:
Okay, great. That’s it from me. Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Tayo Okusanya:
Yes, good afternoon. Just two quick ones from me. First of all just same-store operating expenses in quite a few regions in 2Q was I’d say, probably higher than we were expecting. Just kind of curious about the high levels of OpEx that quarter and what we should be expecting in the back half of the year?
Sean Breslin :
Sure Tayo, this is Sean. In terms of the second quarter, we provided an original guidance, which was between 3% to 4%. We were a little bit low in the first quarter, a little bit higher in the second quarter. It’s always our plan to be a little bit higher in the second quarter, in fact our original expectation for the second quarter was a little bit higher than what it came, but we received some favorable adjustments on the properties tax side of the house, which helped alleviate some of the year-over-year pressure. I mean as we reiterated in the outlook, we still expect operating expenses to be between 3% and 4%, that hasn’t changed since the beginning of the year, the components may have changed a little bit, so probably a little bit more favorable outlook on tax as an example, but obviously we took a hit in the first quarter in terms of the storms in the New England markets. So it’s starting to move around, but still expect it to be in the 3% to 4% range and it’s about, was about as planned in terms of second quarter.
Tayo Okusanya:
That’s helpful. And then second one is along the lines of construction, could you just talk a little bit about what you're seeing in regards to construction cost trends at this point and specifically if you’re starting to run up again, is there any issues with labor has construction is generally ramping up?
Matthew Birenbaum :
Sure Tayo, this is Matt. It’s a challenge, it’s a real challenge in Northern California, where it seems like hard cost are still growing at you know as much as 1% a month. It’s a challenge in Southern California a little bit less pronounced there, probably a deeper subcontractor base that have more spare capacity when you think about the for sale market and how after that had been last decade there, and how far it’s held back. New York right now, I think we’ve been a little surprised at how’s been moving up in New York and again that could be related to the spike and permits of the 421-a, but you know it is definitely a challenge in those hot markets. Seattle, I don't think is any different that it’s been in the last couple of years, it’s been a little bit, it’s moving up in a more measured way. And I do think in some of these markets, San Francisco maybe high-rise in Boston similarly where some of these subcontractors are just fuller and they probably are scrambling to get labor and they’re also making hay while the sun shines and really pushing their margins. And ultimately that probably does correct itself because it will at some point make it difficult for deals to pencil and we’re already starting to see some of that.
Tayo Okusanya:
Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you very much.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Drew Babin with Robert W. Baird.
Drew Babin:
Good afternoon. I was hoping you could talk about the New York Metro area, we’re seeing property revenue growth year-over-year has been relatively sticky around 3%. Is that primarily a product of new supply hitting, is rent fatigue real? If you can just kind of break that out and talk about kind of the individual submarkets and where they fit in?
Sean Breslin :
Sure Drew, this is Sean. Happy to talk about that. It depends on which markets you’re in, so maybe I’ll kind of walk you through some of them. If you’re looking at New York City generally speaking for our portfolio, for the most part the impact that is keeping a lid on revenue growth is really supply, and it’s probably most acute in Brooklyn and in Midtown West. As far as performing assets that we have in the Greater New York City area is the two Avalon Riverview Towers, which are in Long Island City, as well as our Morningside Heights deal up near Columbia those two are the outperformers at this point. Midtown West has been a little bit on the weaker side, Brooklyn has been a little bit on the weaker side, and the Bowery had done okay. When you move outside of New York City, Northern New Jersey has actually been one of the stronger performing submarkets right along the Gold Coast we’ve been seeing 4% or 5% revenue growth. And then as you push out into Central New Jersey it tends to be weaker more in a 2%, 2.5% range. Long Island has done okay, but a little low average. Long Island has been in the 2% to 3% as well. And then Westchester has been holding its own, but you know it’s kind of market that is if you’re doing 3%, 3.5%, maybe 4% at the high end that’s sort of about what you expect in that market and for those, when you think of Central New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester it’s not typically about supply that’s the issue, it’s more about just demand and where the choice – the choices that are people are making. So it’s typically about the demand side in those markets generally speaking.
Drew Babin:
Would you say that rent fatigue is a real phenomenon in Manhattan or are you seeing anybody kind of voluntarily pushing it further out of the city in the interest of saving money?
Sean Breslin:
Not really, no. I mean there is plenty of supply, plenty of options and so it really hasn’t been a big issue there in terms of people moving out due to rent increases relative to other markets like [indiscernible] just something like that, so not related to significant rents too.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Wes Golladay with RBC Capital Markets.
Wes Golladay:
Hey good morning guys. Looking at the expiration shifting, will this give you guys a new structural high for the occupancy or is this more of a rate phenomenon for you guys?
Sean Breslin:
Yeah Wes, this is Sean. I wouldn’t think of it as a structural high in terms of occupancy going forward, is that’s what you were talking about in terms of being high. I mean if anything in the second quarter through July probably, it would actually put a little bit of downward pressure on occupancy given the greater expression volume, greater move outs potentially, but also gives us more of a rate opportunity really in terms of more expirations at that point, more transactions when rents were at the highest point during the season. So that was the main reason to shift, it was to take advantage of that opportunity and give us a little more protection going into the fall and the winter in terms of continuing to hold pricing power with just fewer transactions.
Wes Golladay:
Okay. Thanks a lot guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Conor Wagner with Green Street Advisors.
Conor Wagner:
Thank you guys. On the Hollywood deal that’s a fully entitled landsite, how does that work from an Avalon AVA mix given that you target different unit sizes and mix with AVA versus Avalon.
Matthew Birenbaum :
Sure Conor, this is Matt. Typically the way it work is the entitlement and it’s true in this case as well are more about the overall FAR parking count, unit count, building mass, and that site actually has five different buildings, four or five different buildings on it, and multiple street frontages. But the entitlements usually don't drill down specifically into this many one-bedrooms, this many two bedrooms, this much average unit size. So we have the flexibility within what's been approved to kind of repack the building if you will and we may take one of the buildings and it’s the whole site been approved for 695 units, we may take one of the – it’s 300 on one side part, 400 on another, we may shift that around and put 380 up here and 320 down there, as long as we stand there in kind of the overall limit. So there is the flexibility to reprogram and we've done that in a number of places.
Conor Wagner:
Great, thank you. And then earlier you guys alluded to a slight increase in debt cost this year versus where you could issued 10-year now versus earlier in the year, have you seen any movement in the debt cost influence cap rates in the dispositions that you are looking at?
Matthew Birenbaum :
It’s Matt again. No, not yet. We have not been as active in the last quarter as we were kind of last year, but we do have some fund assets in the market or getting to come to market now and trying to kind of take advantage of it, we see it as a pretty compelling opportunity. But we just closed one fund asset in the second course, the only closing we had last quarter and it was right around the four cap rate on an older asset in Southern California that was bought by value ad buyer. So we're hearing the talk that maybe buyers are going down the duration, so they’ll – 7-year debt, instead of 10-year debt to make their numbers, but obviously they may be getting more bullish on rent growth or NOI to make up for it. So, so far it really hasn’t had an impact on the transaction.
Kevin OShea :
Conor, this is Kevin O'Shea, just to add to that. I mean, there are – interest rate cost I guess for 10-year debt are up 20 bps over the last two months, but they have been pretty flattish over the past year or so. In the fourth quarter we did 10-year debt and I think was around 359 [ph], which is pretty much where we are now. So I think, unless we’ve been told there is much pronounced and durable move upward in interest rate it seem like other factors will probably drive asset pricing more.
Conor Wagner:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen this does conclude today’s question and answer session. At this time, I’d like to turn the call back to Tim Naughton for any closing remarks or comments.
Timothy Naughton:
Thanks, Christine. I think it’s been a long call. So I just want to thank everybody for attending today and I hope you’d have a great summer and we’ll see you in the fall.
Operator:
That does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for your participation.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Senior Director-Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc. Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Tayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets LLC William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' First Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following remarks by the company, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley - Senior Director-Investor Relations:
Thank you, Augusta. And welcome to AvalonBay Communities' first quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our first quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, and Matt Birenbaum. We'll each provide some comments on the slides that we posted this morning, and then be available for Q&A afterwards. Our comments will include a summary of the Q1 results. We'll highlight a few areas of focus that we discussed in connection with the Archstone acquisition that closed a couple of years ago, but are now starting to pay off for the company, including an increased presence in Southern California, greater efficiencies from increased scale and expansion, enhancement of important strategic capabilities. Lastly, we'll touch on the development funding and activity. Starting on slide 4. Overall results in Q1 were largely as expected for our business plan and we're off to a strong start as we enter the peak leasing season this spring and summer. Highlights for the quarter include core FFO growth of around 7.5%, which was consistent with what we saw in Q4 of last year. Same-store revenue growth was up 4.3% over Q1 of last year or 4.4% when you include redevelopment, which are both about 20 basis points higher than we saw in Q4. We completed three communities, totaling $450 million this past quarter at an initial yield of just over 6%. And while that yield is a bit lower than other recent completions, 60% of that capital represents West Chelsea and Manhattan where cap rates have been in the low 3% range, and the other 40% are assets in LA and Seattle where cap rates are currently in the 4% to 4.5% range. So we are still seeing a significant level of NAV accretion from these completions with margins that have been consistent with the other completions this cycle. We also started two communities in Q1, totaling about $100 million, and we backfilled the pipeline with new development rights of over $400 million or roughly $200 million once you net out projects we decided to abandon at the end of last year. Moving on and turning to slide 5. Our same-store portfolio has continued to accelerate in early 2015. Year-over-year same-unit rent is up 5% to 6% in the first four months of the year, faster pace than we saw in Q4 and roughly 250 basis points to 300 basis points higher than the same period last year. This is actually the strongest rent growth we've seen in the first quarter of the year over the last couple of cycles. So the portfolio is well positioned going into the peak leasing season, with renewal offers for May and June actually going out in the mid to high 7% range. Clearly, strong portfolio performance is being driven by healthy apartment fundamentals, which takes us to slide 6. As you can see, over the last several quarters, and I'm sure you know, job growth has been north of 2% nationally, or over 260,000 jobs per month. And it's been even stronger in the young adult cohort of 25-year-olds to 34-year olds who are our prime renters, as you can see there, on the upper right on chart two. More recently, household formation appears to be rebounding, as you can see in chart three, perhaps showing signs of the release of pent-up demand that many have been expecting since the recovery began. The strong demands against a backdrop of stable housing production over the last several quarters, at least in the multi-family sector, as you can see in chart four, is resulting in rental vacancies that are approaching 30-year lows, as chart five shows. And effective rental rate growth that is at or above what we saw early in the cycle. So we've seen a really nice acceleration really going back to Q4 of 2013 in effective rent growth. Turning to slide 7. Strong fundamentals are expected to be more evenly enjoyed across our footprint over the next couple of years of the cycle. Over the past four years, as you can see on the left hand graph, the West has outperformed significantly, driven by strong job and income growth in the technology markets of Northern California and Seattle, while supply has been modest in most markets, particularly in the Bay Area. Over the next couple of years, we expect job growth to be more evenly distributed as more parts of the economy join in on the economic expansion. Secondly, we do expect supply to increase in Seattle and Northern California and, as a result, performance differences between regions should begin to narrow, including in the D.C. area where performance has lagged over the last couple of years. Conversely, Southern California is projected to enjoy the largest disparity in favorable demand greater than new supply over the next couple of years. Turning to slide 8. This expectation for regional performance to narrow as the cycle matures, this is consistent with what we've seen historically where the West has generally outperformed early in the cycle during the recovery and early expansion periods. And then performance often converges with East Coast markets as the cycle matures. To be clear, we're not calling the top to the West. It's just that we expect performance trends to begin to narrow between the East and West as we move further into the cycle, and inevitably relative market performance will ebb and flow and market leadership will rotate. As I mentioned before, for example, the D.C. should begin to rise from the bottom and narrow the performance gap we've seen with other regions, and Southern California should become a top performer in the portfolio. With that, that's probably a good segue to talk a little bit more about Southern California, and I'd like to ask Matt to touch on our efforts over the last couple of years and how we expect that to bear fruit over the next few years. So, Matt?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Thanks, Tim. As we mentioned at the time that we announced the Archstone transaction back in late 2012, the Archstone acquisition really helped us achieve our long-term portfolio allocation goals. Slide 9 shows how the geographic distribution of our NOI across our six regions has changed over the past two years, primarily as a result of the addition of the Archstone assets, but also due to lot of organic growth from the legacy AVB platform as our development activity ramps up early in the cycle. The region that has seen the greatest growth is Southern California, which grew from 14.5% to 19.6% of consolidated NOI over the last two years. We have been under-allocated to this region for many years and had always been challenged to increase our exposure to the broadly diversified economy and consistent long-term performance that Southern California has delivered for us for decades. By growing our presence here, we were also able to decrease our relative allocations for the Northeast from 50% to 38% of our NOI, which provides better long-term balance. Turning to slide 10, you can see how momentum has really been building in our Southern California portfolio over the past five quarters, with year-over-year revenue growth increasing each quarter. Right now, we are seeing market rents in all of the Southern California sub-regions accelerate into the 6% range on a year-over-year basis. We are well-positioned for another strong year of same-store revenue growth in Southern California, and that growth will contribute more to overall revenue growth for the company given our increased allocation to this region. Looking more closely at where our portfolio growth has occurred across the region, slide 11 shows the locations of our communities with the size of the dots proportional to the size of each property. There are a lot of distinct submarkets within the sprawling geography of Southern California. We've increased our presence in all three of the sub-regions
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Well, thanks, Matt. At the time of the Archstone acquisition, we talked about some of the benefits of scale, namely G&A and operating efficiencies as well as the expansion enhancement of important strategic capabilities. Sean is going to take a few minutes to provide a few examples of what we've been able to achieve in these areas. Sean?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Thanks, Tim. Shifting gears now, we thought it'd be helpful to talk a little bit about the efficiency and effectiveness of our operating platform and, maybe along the way, highlight some initiatives that will continue to enhance our operating performance in the future. So starting with slide 13, these metrics reflect not only the benefits associated with our larger scale, but also our ability to deliver more cash flow per dollar of revenue generated from the portfolio over time. The chart on the left reflects our operating overhead, which includes G&A as a percentage of NOI both in 2007 and what's expected for 2015. While our portfolio NOI has increased about 250% from organic growth, new development and the Archstone acquisition, we've been able to contain operating overhead growth to about 20% of the rate of NOI expansion over the total eight-year period. The net result is that overhead is now only 7% of NOI, down about 500 basis points or 40% from 2007 levels. The chart on the right reflects our same-store NOI margins in 2007 and what's projected for 2015. Margins have expanded by about 200 basis points over the last eight years to 70%, putting us essentially at the top of the multi-family sector. And when you think about our NOI margins, you really have to remember two important facts
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Thanks, Sean. As Sean mentioned, we've been able to reduce cost significantly from the system over the last cycle. Part of that's from scale, but importantly part of it's from just reengineering, how we conduct and operate our business. But lastly, I thought we'd just take a few minutes and highlight development activity and funding, which we believe together position us for outsized NAV and FFO growth over the next few years, while being able to maintain a very strong financial position. And Kevin, do you want to take this?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure. Thanks, Tim. Turing to slide16, we highlight the current performance of the five communities under construction that are in lease-up. As you can see from the slide, the performance of communities undergoing initial lease-up is quite strong and continues to exceed our original underwriting expectations. Specifically for these five communities, which represent $455 million in total capital costs, the current weighted average monthly rent per home is $215 or about 9% above initial expectations. In terms of yield performance, the weighted average initial projected stabilized yield for these communities is projected at 6.9% or 60 basis points higher than our original projection of 6.3% for these communities. Turning to slide 17. Our development activity remains well funded today. In fact, as of quarter-end, our development underway of $3.6 billion was completely match funded by the combination of $2.5 billion in capital spent to-date, plus over $1.1 billion from cash on hand, projected free cash flow, and our equity forward. As a result, funding risk for this investment activity is essentially eliminated while the opportunity to realize a substantial amount of value creation as these communities are stabilized has been locked in for our shareholders. Turning to slide 18. This slide demonstrates more clearly how our being match funded on this investment activity leaves us exceptionally well-positioned from both the cash flow growth and credit perspective. In particular, the projected NOI from recently completed development and from development under construction totals about $225 million on an annualized basis, as shown in the chart on the left. This represents more than a 20% growth in our annualized adjusted EBITDA for the last quarter. Moreover, to give insight on how this projected EBITDA growth enhances our leverage metrics, particularly given that no incremental capital is needed to complete construction, the chart on the right shows how our ratio of net debt to adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter would have declined from 5.9 times to 5.0 times, assuming this projected EBITDA from our development underway have been in place during the first quarter. Of course, our actual net debt to adjusted EBTIDA will move up and down a bit over time as we start new projects and source new capital to fund these new projects. Therefore, this slide is not meant to communicate that our leverage is going to decrease to 5 times or that our target leverage is five times. In fact, our target range for this metric is between 5 times and 6 times. Instead, the purpose in showing this slide is to convey that unfunded commitments, which happen to be zero today but more often will be positive in the future, should be evaluated in tandem with the projected EBITDA growth from ongoing investment activity. And as we stand today, funding risk is very low on development underway and the profit opportunity is relatively high, reflecting two important attributes of our combined investment of funding strategy. First, the fact that our investment activity is expected to be accretive both to earnings and balance sheet strength. Second, that this cycle continues to offer compelling value creation opportunities for a development focused apartment REIT, such as AvalonBay. And with that, I'll turn it back to Tim.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Thanks, Kevin. Obviously, we're off to a strong start in Q1 to the year. As expected, our stabilized portfolio continue to strengthen in the quarter, propelled by some of the strongest apartment market fundamentals we've seen over the last several cycles. The development portfolio is contributing meaningfully, as Kevin just spoke to, and providing additional earnings and NAV growth. And importantly, I mean, actions that we took early and what we predicted would be a strong and durable cycle are paying off, including the starting and funding of over $5 billion of new development since 2010, acquiring another plus or minus $6 billion in stabilized and development assets in the Archstone transaction in late 2012, early 2013, and investing in important strategic capabilities, which are driving efficiencies and improving the scalability of our operating platform. All these actions are positioning us to take advantage of what we believe could be a long and sustained expansion period for the current apartment cycle and help us achieve outsized growth. And with that, Augusta, we'd be happy to open the line for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. Our first question will come from Nick Joseph of Citi.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thanks. I'm trying to reconcile 1Q same-store revenue growth of 4.3%, the growth you saw in January and February. I think in early March at our conference, year-to-date same-store revenue growth was 4.4% to 4.5%. And then from the presentation, the March rent change actually accelerated in terms of the spread year-over-year from February. So what drove the reduction of growth for the quarter relative to where you were in early March?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Hey, Nick, this is Tim. You're correct. When we met at the Citigroup Conference, we gave a mid quarter update and we said our expectation would be we'd be at the top end of the range for the year, for the quarter being 4.4% to 4.5%. The reality is numbers like 4.34% and some of it's on the non-rental revenue side that gets rolled up at the end of the quarter. So really nothing is different than what we expected and anticipated in early March when we met – when we met and spoke with investors at your conference.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thanks. So then in terms of D.C., it looks like the quarterly year-over-year growth was the strongest you've seen since mid 2013. Can you talk more about what you're seeing on the ground there and expectations for the rest of the year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Nick, this is Sean. In terms of D.C., I mean from a broader perspective, it's certainly still a weak market relative to other markets and there's still a fair amount of supply coming online. The expectations for 2015 are still for supply growth somewhere in the mid 3% range, but what has improved certainly is job growth, it's now running closer to 1%. So it's in a position now where from a kind of macro perspective across the region, we're seeing some improvements. And as you think about it in terms of the three markets
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Great. Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jana Galan with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. Good morning. Your turnover continues to decline and you saw the first quarter homeownership rate drop below 64%. I was just wondering how long do you think you'll continue to see turnover decline, and how that's helping your expenses, and then any changes in reasons for move-outs?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure, Jana, this is Sean. In terms of predicting turnover, it's a little bit difficult to predict. It's really a function of, I'd say, job mobility, probably first and foremost, as well as choices in terms of within a local market what choices people have. They feel like they have more choices at the right price that influences turnover. And the reason I'd say that is relocation is still the top reason for move-outs and our portfolio runs around 20%, I think that's consistent with most REITs. So, as people are relocating for job reasons, et cetera, that really tends to influence the total amount of turnover. And then on the other topics, home purchases are still running well below long-term averages in the range of 13% and has been pretty flat, not really moved much. It's down a little bit year-over-year, but not really moving the needle. And then the other reasons are really financial, including rent increases as well as intercommunity transfers, rent increases tends to run a little bit higher, closer to 16% to 18%. But at this point in the cycle, you expect it to be trending upwards. But in terms of actually predicting what turnover will be, it's a function of the macro variables that I've mentioned. And so we are not yet at a point where we are predicting it. But given what we're seeing across the portfolio as well as with housing and the single-family market and the production levels, it's not farfetched to assume that turnover will remain below historical averages for the next few quarters for sure.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Sean, maybe just add to that. Jana, as Sean mentioned, move-outs and home purchase has been relatively stable. And it's been our expectation that homeownership rates are going to be stabilize roughly in this area in the 64%, 65% range. And so we don't really have a view that homeownership rates are going down meaningfully from here. It's been our view that you are going to see more of a balanced housing picture over the next few years as the housing markets continue to recover and a lot of that's being driven by some of the things we've been talking about, which is demographics and lifestyle behavior in terms of what type of housing choice best sort of fits the need of the emerging population. So we do expect it to be more balanced over the next few years.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. And then just maybe on the Southern California expense savings this quarter seemed very impressive. I think some of that might have been benefiting from tax appeals, but maybe if you could talk to what else's in there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. This is Sean. That's exactly right. The main benefit that came through in the first quarter was a successful appeal of an asset in Southern California and that represented the majority of what you're seeing there in terms of the expense change.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yes.
Operator:
We'll go next to Dan Oppenheim with Zelman & Associates.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates:
Great. Thanks very much. Just wondering if you can talk a little bit in terms of expectations for some of the pricing power, you talked about the best start in terms of rental growth here at the start of the year and also some prior cycles. As you think about the balance across the regions, do you think this accelerates further as the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast gradually improve here? How are you thinking about that overall in terms of the rental rate power?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Sure. This is Sean. Just a few comments on that. From a macro perspective, certainly across the markets, pricing power is improving at this point. Tim alluded to the rent change in his prepared remarks, not only for the first quarter, which trended higher in each month of the first quarter, but also continue to trend higher into April, where on a blended basis, we're running at about the 6% range. And, I guess, the way I'd describe it is we're seeing increased pricing power across all the markets, but the rate of acceleration is slightly different. The rate of acceleration is probably the strongest right now in Southern California as well as Northern California, those two markets. Northern California, obviously, has been a discussion point for several quarters now in terms of the momentum there. And it'll be interesting as we move later in the year and more supply comes online, particularly in the submarket of San Francisco, Northeast San Jose, whether that starts to throttle back a little bit of the pace in Northern California, which we saw a couple of years ago when we saw blocks of supply come through San Jose. Southern California, job growth has certainly ramped up, and supply remains pretty muted relative to other markets. And if you look at a place like Orange County, job growth has really made the difference there, where it's up closer to 2% over the last six months. And so while there's still a meaningful amount of supply coming on in certain submarkets there, Huntington Beach, Anaheim, et cetera, Irvine, the job growth has really caught up to a point where it's pretty healthy. So the momentum in Northern California is strong, Southern California is strong. Now in the East Coast markets, the Mid-Atlantic, certainly helpful to see a pickup and I mentioned that essentially rent change was flat in the first quarter. It's positive about 100 basis points for the second quarter. And I think it's just going to be touch-and-go in the Mid-Atlantic over the course of the next year depending on how job growth comes out. But assuming we maintain or accelerate on the job front in the Mid-Atlantic markets, we know what the supply is going to be, we'd likely to see pricing power consistent with what we're experiencing now to potentially slightly better as we move through the year, particularly as the household formations start to come through as consistent with what's forecasted for 2015. So really as you talk through the markets, it depends on where you're located, what your exposure is within certain submarkets to supply, et cetera. But in general, pricing power is continuing to improve at different rates across the footprint.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Hey, Dan. Tim here. Just to add a little bit to part of your question, I think. Generally, the West Coast is, if you look historically, has just been more volatile and the East Coast has been more stable. So as the East Coast has tended to outperform kind of later in the cycle, it's been less about it accelerating past the West Coast and more about it being a stabilizer relative to more volatile performance on the West Coast. I think it's a little bit of open question how things may play out this cycle. As you saw on the one chart, if household formation really does recover to the 1.5 million plus range and housing production levels really just don't respond in a material way quickly, we're already seeing rental vacancy rates at 30-year lows, you're seeing ownership vacancy rates approaching kind of longer-term norms. You get another couple of quarters of the kind of household formation we think we've seen, I think there could be a shortage and an acceleration and impacts potentially all markets from a pricing perspective, whether that's for sale or on the rental side.
Dan M. Oppenheim - Zelman & Associates:
Great. And, I guess, looking at the chart where you're showing the new versus move-in, I guess, on page five, showing the improvement in the new movement on the rental rate is certainly positive there. Just thinking about the renewals, especially on the West Coast where the overall growth has been the strongest, how much are you pushing the renewals? Is there any caution about pushing too much and driving turnover higher there?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, this is Sean. I mean, certainly a conversation we have all the time in terms of optimizing the performance of the portfolio. But at this point, we feel pretty comfortable that we're handling it in a way that's not only optimizing the performance, but also is based on what we think the customer's reaction will likely be, given available choices within their specific submarket and general geography. And one thing to keep in mind is people focus a lot on the renewal numbers versus the move-in rent change. You really have to look at it on a blended basis because it really depends on – if you talk about same-unit rent change when the last person moved in, if they moved in five years ago, it's very different potential rent they're coming out of five years later as compared to someone who has been there two years. So if you look at it on a blended basis, it's probably more appropriate. And the other thing that we look at is how wide is the gap getting between the absolute rent that a customer is paying as they move into an apartment relative to someone who is renewing in that same apartment type or the same community. And that spread today on an absolute basis is only about 2%. So when you think about it, it's not that wide in terms of an existing customer going to a website and looking at pricing for their particular apartment home for someone who is moving in. And, obviously, they have switching costs in terms of their move and everything else. So that's a relatively reasonable spread 2%. We'd probably be a little more concerned as that number was approaching 5%, as an example, but across the portfolio, I think we're in a pretty good shape on that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Nick Yulico, of UBS.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Thanks. Tim, I was hoping to just start off with the guidance again. I mean, you guys are at the high-end year-to-date on same-store revenue, above on same-store NOI, you talked about really good trends so far and even in April. So how do we balance that against you guys not deciding to raise guidance? Is there something in the back half of the year that you're concerned about or you just want to take a wait-and-see approach for another quarter?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Nick, I mean, first of all, the first quarter more or less played out the way that we expected, particularly as it relates to the top line. So, that alone wouldn't sort of drive a need to rethink our outlook at this point. We are moving into the peak leasing season. While we're well-positioned and we're off to a strong start, we're going to have a lot more visibility mid-year, and that's typically when we do a more robust re-forecast process and sort of reopen the property budgets, if you will, and feel like we'd be in a much better position to give the investor and analyst community a sense of where we think we're going to end up for the year. So we're neither changing or affirming outlook at this point, but we would look to do so mid-year.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. And then on the development pipeline, two questions. One is, should we assume the forward gets settled all in the third quarter, and then how are you thinking about funding the next wave of development? I think you guys were saying you would do $1.4 billion in starts this year, would you consider another forward? How are you thinking about that over the next couple of quarters from a funding standpoint? Thanks.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Sure. Nick, this is Kevin. I guess, there's a few questions in there. First, as it relates to when we draw capital down under the equity forward. As I think we indicated in the fourth quarter call, our expectation is that we do so in the second and the third quarters. Really no new news on that front. It's somewhat dependent upon what we do in terms of incremental capital activity going forward over the next couple of quarters otherwise in terms of disposition activity and raising debt capital pursuant to our capital plan that could affect the timing there. I think it's probably fair to assume that probably at least two-thirds of it would be in the third quarter and a third or less would be in the second quarter, but that number bounces around quite a bit. And there what we're looking at is just trying to balance cash on hand and minimizing our costs – interest expense costs under our line of credit with our other activity on the capital markets front. The second question, just to sort of answer that, it might be helpful just to give a refresh on our capital plan for the year. If you look back at our initial outlook, we had total sources and uses of $2.35 billion. And in terms of the sources, we had cash on hand and an expected drawdown on unrestricted cash account for about $600 million of that. As you'd probably noticed, we drew down cash by $300 million during the quarter to fund Columbus Circle, so that has happened as planned. That left us with about $1.75 billion of external capital in our capital plan for the year. About $650 million of that relates to the forward, which we just talked about, leaving $1.1 billion. We sold one asset, Stamford Harbor, in the first quarter. That leaves about $1 billion of net incremental capital, which we expect to source predominantly in the form of unsecured debt, and the balance in the sale of assets. So those are thoughts regarding sort of the capital plan for the year. I guess, the final question is what is our philosophy around the use of the forward. I know we used it for the first time at the end of last year. The reality is we've been aware of the forward for probably more than five years as a tool that was in our tool kit, if you will, that we could potentially use to fund development. And as we talked about in the past, you need to sort of have the right confluence of factors that would justify when to use it again. And certainly, first and foremost is the expectation of elevated funding needs for development. We certainly have that this year, or have that this year. We saw that by the middle of last year being something we wanted to think about. As we disclosed in our initial outlook, we expect to spend $1.7 million on development and re-development activity. That's a cyclical high for us so far this cycle and a meaningful amount of capital. And that really informed our view about wanting to be more like 100% match funded rather than being more like, call it, 75% match funded, which is where we've really been for the most part throughout this cycle. So it's a tool in our toolkit. It's something we can potentially use, but it's not something we necessarily feel like we need to use all the time, but really it needs to be driven more by an unusual confluence of factors with elevated funding needs being probably the most important.
Nick Yulico - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
We'll go next to Haendel St. Juste of Morgan Stanley.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hi, it's Haendel. Good morning. So a couple questions here on development. So first, you guys started a couple of projects, two that I'd characterize as ex-urban or well outside of the core of the MSAs, your Hunt, Chase (41:06) and Lynnwood projects. And you're not seemingly slowing down on your development pace as much in a time period where your peers are slowing more so. But specifically these two projects, what is it about these projects that makes you excited, especially in light of the Suburban Maryland weakness comment? Are you gearing yourselves to capitalize on a perceived pent-up demand in the suburbs? And if so, how much more of your near-term development start could be more suburban in nature versus urban?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Hey, Haendel, this is Matt. I can speak to that one. It was actually a light quarter for us for starts, $100 million, and we're on track to start $1 billion, $3 billion, $3.5 billion for the year, and that is obviously a very small portion of our kind of development activity planned for the year. The Alderwood deal was just a second phase of the deal that actually completed this quarter, and that deal completed at a yield of around 7%, so – and again, Seattle market, even there Suburban Seattle, that's probably a mid 4%s cap. So that's incredibly compelling value creation, second phase incremental economics. We just phased that deal, phased the land take-down, which was great. The other one that we started this quarter, Hunt Valley, that's a bit of a unique asset for us. It is a suburban location, but it's a transit-oriented suburban location. It's actually at the end of the rail line; it's right next to a Wegmans, it's an old mall that has been turned into a town center and it's a submarket that has seen no new supply for probably 30 years. So in some ways, it's a lot like our kind of older Northeastern stuff where we're bringing a luxury product to a submarket that has very high homeownership cost and very high-end homes, estates and such up in that area as well as a decent amount of employment, a lot of other amenities, but just hasn't seen luxury rentals. So we think we're actually creating a bit of a market there and we don't get that opportunity very often. It also increases our exposure a little bit to the Baltimore Metropolitan area, which has done quite well this cycle, and where we're probably a little bit under-allocated in the long-term. But more broadly, as we look out over our starts for the year, and we have said over the last year or so that we are starting to see our suburban assets perform a little better than our urban assets, and I think you're seeing that in general just because the supply is so concentrated in the urban areas, and also the urban product tends to be more compelling economically if it can be done earlier in the cycle because it's generally obviously higher capital costs when you get into concrete frame. So when you look at our pipeline going forward, what's currently under construction is about 50% urban versus what's in the pipeline is probably about 25% urban. So it is more suburban than what we currently have underway. But we actually have some near-term starts; we have a near-term start actually in the District of Columbia that we expect to start here in the next quarter. So there's still a decent mix of product. And again, we're generally just driven by looking for where the best total risk-adjusted returns are in the market and, at this point in the cycle, that's where we're finding it.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. I appreciate that. Another development type of question. Looks like we're seeing some moderation in certain key input cost, land price costs are going up, but moderating; lumber and gypsum costs coming down, wage growth is moderating as well. Wonder what you're seeing on that front and how you might be factoring that into – all these lower costs into your prospective project underwriting in new starts?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
We would love to see some of that come through. The subcontractors have been holding on to it so far. Generally speaking, when we underwrite our business, we underwrite everything on a current spot basis. So we don't trend rents, we don't trend expenses and we don't trend capital costs. When we sign up a new deal, we say, if we were building this project today, here's what it would cost us to build it and here is the NOI we would expect to get out of that. And generally speaking, depending where you are in the cycle, we may be looking for a higher or lower spread between where that yield is and where cap rates are; if we're in a market, whereas, earlier in the cycle where we think there's better rent growth ahead relative to cost growth, we might be willing to go in at least to the initial due diligence with a tighter margin than if it was the other way around. But generally speaking, we're still seeing costs grow at a pretty rapid clip in most of our markets. And again, it's driven mostly by subcontractor, by labor availability, which is getting tighter, and by subcontractor margins and just the volume of business out there. There is a lot of construction out there, the subs are busy, so they can afford to be pretty aggressive in the pricing they offer. And other than in Metro DC, where they're probably coming off of more production ramping into less production, and so they are a little hungrier. Other than in DC, pretty much all of our other markets, it's going the other way still.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And the last one on Edgewater. Now you've had a chance to go through the insurance assessment and recovery process. The $793,000 net loss figure you quote in the press release, is that the final figure? Could there be additional costs? And any updated thoughts on your plan to that project going forward? Could you – if you could term it if you're going to rebuild, sell et cetera?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah. Haendel, this is Kevin. I'll answer, I guess, the first part with respect to some of the costs. The $800,000 of costs that you see flowing through with respect to Edgewater were essentially our initial response costs with tenant displacements, fire wash, et cetera. We'll see what rolls forward. There probably are some modest costs, but nothing very significant in that regard going forward since we're clearing the site and the other building has been reoccupied. So not much in the way of Edgewater related costs that we expect. In the quarter, what we did in the first quarter is we wrote off the net book value of the building that was the story, which was $22 million. It turned out the net third-party insurance proceeds that had been received during the quarter was $22 million, so that was an offset. So that really had no impact on our financials for the quarter. Going forward, we continue to work with the insurance companies on securing the balance of the insurance proceeds that we expect. And in our initial outlook, we indicated that the casualty loss was likely to be, with respect to the story building, greater than $50 million where we have 12% self-insured exposure of about $6 million. So we're still working on that. It's a matter of just working through the documentation and obtaining final sign-off. And going forward, as we noted in our release, in the event that we receive additional insurance proceeds related to the casualty loss on Edgewater, those additional insurance proceeds will be reflected in the casualty gain, which would flow through in increased FFO, but will be pulled out for core FFO purposes.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Haendel, Tim here. Just in terms of your second question, really our focus in terms of the site itself has really been on clearing the site and cleaning the site to date, also just some salvage efforts that have been undergoing in terms of trying to recover some items from our residents, as Kevin mentioned, obviously the insurance process, which includes trying to help facilitate the settling of resident claims. We have been evaluating options for the site as well as it relates to rebuilding. There's obviously a number of physical issues to be considered there in terms of the structural capacity of the garage that remains, but there's also political issues that we understand we need to work through with the town in terms of what might rightly be able to be rebuilt there in terms of the form and structure. And then lastly there is a lender on the site. It is subject to a credit pool that would need to be considered as part of this. So I would say it's premature yet in terms of telling you what exactly our strategy is and timing around the resolution of the site, but something we're actively evaluating at the moment.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thank you very much, guys.
Operator:
We'll go next to Rob Stevenson with Janney.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Hi. Good morning, guys. Tim, can you talk about how robust the condo development and condo conversion process is in your core markets today?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah, Rob, I don't know if they want to join in as well. I wouldn't say it's all that robust. You're certainly seeing some signs of it in New York and perhaps San Francisco. If you just looked at where apartment valuations are relative to condo valuations or for-sale valuations, it still really doesn't make sense in most cases to actually convert an asset to condominium and take that market risks and you're just not going to get enough compensation in order to do that. I think in some cases, and DC may be an example where it actually does make sense to think about new ground-up development, and certainly New York and San Francisco that makes some sense. But we're just not seeing a lot of – frankly, a lot of unsolicited interest in our assets like we did in the mid 2000s to potentially convert – it's pretty isolated, I will tell you at this point. And it just makes sense when you go back and you track what apartment valuations have done over the last 10 years to 15 years versus what for-sale condominium values have done during that same timeframe. I think it's really going to be isolated at least over the next couple of years to really micro-locations and really kind of one-off type opportunities.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then when you look at your redevelopment pipeline today, what's the expected returns on that and how many more projects do you expect to add to the pipeline this year?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Rob, this is Sean. In terms of redevelopment, the pipeline's pretty plentiful, particularly given what we acquired from Archstone. And I think what we've indicated in the past is that we'll probably start somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million to $150 million a year, roughly, in terms of redevelopment activity. Some from the Avalon legacy assets, but also a relatively high percentage of the Archstone assets, would be in that pool. In terms of the returns, the returns so far this cycle have been actually very healthy. And the way that we look at it is, if you take the overall investment into the enhancements at the assets, we typically look at our returns that are probably underwritten in the 10% to 12% range, but actual results have been more in the mid-teens, and that excludes components that if you just have to replace the roof as part of a redevelopment or something where you're not really getting an economic return, it's more like CapEx. But in terms of the actual redevelopment opportunity, kitchens and baths and other enhancements in common areas underwritten again 10% to 12% and producing mid-teens recently.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. And then last question. The 35 projects on the developments right page, I mean how many of those are shovel-ready today, and is there any sort of issue or reason why you guys only started two this quarter? In terms of your thinking, is that that's what was available and that's where the yields were. Is there a situation where the starts are, on some of the stuff that you're planning for the rest of the year, sort of back-end weighted towards more urban, complex deals et cetera? Can you talk a little bit about that?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Sure, Rob, this is Matt. Pretty much when they're shovel-ready, we generally tend to start them. So we're planning a fair number of starts this next quarter here in the second quarter. And it just tends to work out that way; it's as much to do with weather as anything else you wind up with. Generally speaking, the deals in the pipeline, we're bidding them, we're finalizing the plans and permits. When we get the final bid numbers and we find the economics satisfactory, we tend to start them. So I wouldn't read anything into that except this next quarter we should have a pretty healthy amount of starts, and there isn't really anything in there that's ready to go that we're just sitting on.
Robert Chapman Stevenson - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC:
Okay. Thanks, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Thank you. I had a couple questions on your asset sale of Stamford Harbor. You provided the unlevered IRR of 11.9%. But can you also provide the leverage return given it's going to have mortgage debt? And also maybe share some of the characteristics of the buyer?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. This is Matt. We generally haven't provided those numbers. The deal was originally developed off the balance sheet; it was put into a pool. When? 2009 or...?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
So it's hard to kind of isolate that. And the buyer, I think it was a private buyer, folks that we've done other business with before.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Regional player.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah, regional player.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Where do you think your dispositions will come in this year versus your average run rate of $380 million?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Well, I think we've provided some guidance at the beginning of the year with our outlook in terms of the total disposition volume.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah. John, this is Kevin. As I mentioned in my early remarks, I went through sort of the capital plan that we announced at the beginning of the year, and much of that capital, at least externally, is yet to be formed apart from the equity forward and sale of Stamford Harbor. That leaves about a $1 billion of net incremental capital pursuing to our initial plan for the year. We don't break it out further than that other than to say that the predominant amount of that capital, we expect, will come in the form of unsecured debt and the balance would be in the sale of assets, partly because we don't really want to be overly precise with respect to our anticipated debt capital markets activity by giving specific amounts and, plus, because the capital market conditions can change and the precise amount may change throughout the course of the year. But it'll be mostly in the form of unsecured debt, at least that's our plan and hope, and the balance would be sale of assets.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Just a follow-up question on Edgewater. According to your disclosure, the lender of the mortgage debt can decide how you use the insurance proceeds, whether or not to repay the loan or redevelop the asset. So if the lender chooses to redevelop, do you have a choice and can you potentially change the scope of the project?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah, John, this is Kevin again. As Tim noted, we're still in discussions with respect to – with the lender and also evaluating what our plans are for the asset. So it's a little bit early to say what's going to happen with respect to whether we're going to redevelop – whether we're going to rebuild Edgewater and what's going to happen with our discussions with the lender.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. And then just one final bigger term question. But California continues to be very strong. At what point do you become concerned of the state's ongoing drought and maybe the potential impact on the economy?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
I'm not sure. John, Tim here, I'm not sure how to answer that really just in terms of the drought's potential impact on the economy. It's obviously affecting our properties in terms of we're subject to the same constraints that other homeowners are. And Sean, you might want to just talk about a little bit about that.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. I mean...
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
But as it relates to its economic impact, it'd be total wild speculation on our part.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, John. This is Sean. I mean there has been plenty of press out there about the state mandated reductions in water usage and higher rates as a result of exceeding the 25% targeted reductions for the state. So I think people are getting their arms around that in terms of how that actually flows through to communities and to residents who ultimately pay the majority of the water bill. But I think the general expectation is certainly that there will be potentially higher utilities cost across the board in that market, which would impact just choices in terms of residential dwellings, whether it's multi-family, single-family, whatever your choices are. And in terms of our response, our response is, as you might imagine, trying to be as efficient as we can. And before this even came out, we have already started initiatives related to smart irrigation systems and things like that to try and be as efficient as possible as it relates to water usage, because there had already been pressure on rates, water rates, in California as a result of the drought.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
There have been some market reports that developments are slowing down. Are you seeing this at all?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Developments are slowing down as a result of the water issue?
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Yes.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
I've not heard that.
John P. Kim - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Hey. Good morning, everyone. Just a quick question. In terms of New England, you outlined the sort of snow removal cost impact on expenses. Just curious what impact you saw on the leasing side? I mean it seems like things did track a little bit higher than last quarter on a year-over-year basis, but just curious how much of an impact you saw on leasing and if there's been a notable improvement since things have started to fill out here?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. Vincent, this is Sean. Yes, we did quantify the OpEx impact in New England. And if you had excluded the impacts of those storms on OpEx, our year-over-year growth rate in OpEx was about 100 basis points less. In terms of the impact on the revenue side, it's a little bit difficult to quantify. I mean you could look at traffic and net leases and things of that sort to try to quantify it as best as you can. We had a difficult winter there last year; it's worse this year. So you know there's some impact, but it's really hard to quantify what that is in terms of who didn't show up. New England is a market sort of like Seattle that's a little more seasonal than the average market, specifically is relatively soft or quiet in the first quarter in terms of what you might you see in market rent growth and then it ramps up materially as you get into March and April through about July, and that's pretty much the pattern we've seen this year. So it's not terribly different from what we've seen in the past. We structure our lease expirations in New England in the first quarter to be pretty low, lower than the average across the portfolio for the first quarter, and that diminishes the level of activity in the region to begin with.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Got it. Okay. Thanks. And then just another question, last quarter, I think there was a question about the remaining Houston assets and they're getting ready to be marketed. I was just curious if you had any color on what you're seeing in terms of demand for those assets and pricing and that kind of thing?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah, Vincent, this is Matt. We have two assets in Houston. One of them we did market in the last several months; it is under contract now, so I can't really comment any further than that. I can let you know more when it closes. And we have one other asset there that we are positioning for sale, but we have not brought to the market yet.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
I mean, I know it's under contract, but I mean any comment on the demand you saw for that asset, was it better than expected, in line?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
I really can't get into that when it's a pending transaction.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Dave Bragg with Green Street Advisors.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Hi. Thank you. And thank you for all of your thoughts earlier on your portfolio allocation goals and accomplishments. It's been a very busy period, but I want to revisit one goal or idea that you had suggested back at your Investor Day in 2010. At the time you said that your portfolio was 15% Class B but the efficient frontier analysis indicates that 25% would be optimal. Where do you stand as it relates to that?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Dave. This is Tim. I think as we talked about maybe in the last few calls, we think about really more from a brand allocation standpoint at this point, but you can think just sort of roughly eaves as a Class B generally suburban and Avalon largely is Class A, and AVA can be bit of a mix, but probably more Class A than it is Class B. And what we said is it's less about a target allocation for the entire portfolio than trying to optimize positioning of assets within target submarkets. And that sometimes is going to be a more affordable asset; in other cases, it's going to be more of Class A or newer build type asset. And we were just trying – back in November 2010, we were trying to give an indication what we thought the outcome of that strategy might look like. But as we've mentioned in the last few calls, we're active developers right now and we're allocating more capital through new development than we are through acquisition. And so, you might expect that weighting to continue to be a little bit more weighted towards Avalon then eaves over the next couple of years as we build out the portfolio.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Right. That makes sense. I know you've published this many times but I don't see it in front of me. What's eaves as a percentage of the portfolio?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Eaves today is about 17%, AVA is about 6% and the remaining 75%, 76% is Avalon today, and that's by sort of fair market value of the assets, if you will. So, on a unit count, it would be a little different than that.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Okay. Thanks. And the other question relates to the American Bible Society deal, seems really interesting. We're hoping you could provide a little more detail on that including your expectations for Street retail rents in that sub-market.
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Hey, Dave. This is Matt. We are actively working that project; obviously we closed at the end of January. We've put the design team together, are working through the concept designs right now, moving it as quickly as we can towards hopefully a start sometime the second half of next year. And as part of that process, we are talking to potential retail partners, and it is quite possible that we'll wind up doing a transaction there to bring in somebody either on a forward sale basis or on a current basis to take the retail. We do have some estimations of what we think retail rents are there, but ultimately we know that that is a material part of value of that asset, and that is not our area of expertise obviously as much as the residential. So, we may well bring in a partner there. It's about 55,000 feet of retail divided between three levels
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
Okay. So, lot move in pieces, nothing else that you can share right now?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Right.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc.:
All right. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Ann Weisman of Credit Suisse.
Unknown Speaker:
Hey, guys. This is Chris (01:05:33) for Ann. In your prepared remarks you talked a little bit about how you strategically increased your exposure to the West Coast over the last 7 years to 10 years. But when you look at your $3.3 billion shadow pipeline, the vast majority of that comes from your East Coast markets. So, can you talk a little bit about what you're going to do in terms of develop those assets or those land parcels or are you going to be going out to buying more land in order to increase your exposure to the West?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah. That's a fair question. This is Matt. I can get into that a little bit. Obviously you're right. Our development rights pipeline is more heavily weighted to the East. I think that's a function of a couple of things. One is the entitlement cycles tend to be very extended particularly in the Northeast, so some of those deals are in there for a long period of time, three years, four years, five years. So that isn't necessarily reflective of the balance of the way the starts will be. The West Coast deals have tended to come in and move out more quickly, particularly early in the cycle where we were buying sites that maybe someone else had entitled. So, some of it is just timing mix, some of it is market timing though that the West Coast markets are more volatile, as Tim had mentioned, and so, we were trying to be very aggressive about getting in early in the West Coast markets, where the development window can be a little narrower. So I think we are more careful about that. But having said that, we are looking at some pretty significant West Coast land opportunities right now and we're continuing to pursue those. So I think you may see that mix change a little bit over the next couple of quarters. But generally speaking, the deals in the West do seem to come in and out of the pipeline a little bit more quickly.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. And, Chris, just one last thing to add. As we feel like we're getting out of balance between the East and West, you can obviously manage that through just buying and selling assets as well. So...
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
While opportunity may not allow us to do that through development based upon where you're in the development cycle in particular markets, we do have a little bit more flexibility as it relates to buying and selling assets.
Unknown Speaker:
Great. That's really helpful. I appreciate it. Just now a couple of questions about like impairments and how those hit the income statement. It looks like you have about roughly $5.8 million impairment hitting the income statement where $4.2 million is coming from Northeast weather and then about $800,000 from the loss on Edgewater. What's the remaining $800,000?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Chris, this is Kevin. The remaining $800,000 is an impairment charge on land that is about to go under contract for sale that we expect to close in the second quarter.
Unknown Speaker:
Got you. And then in terms of the Northeast storm impairment, it's reversed above NAREIT FFO. Is there any reason why that's the case?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
It's a casualty on depreciable real estate, which under the NAREIT definition of FFO is added back to FFO.
Unknown Speaker:
Okay. That's helpful. And then, last, of the $3.2 million you have added back to core FFO, I assume the $793,000 is for the actual impairment and is the balance kind of the opportunity cost of lost trends. And of the, I think $0.09 to $0.11 you have in the guidance for the full year, is that also a mix of opportunity cost and actual cost?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
On the first part, the $3.2 million that is added back in our Attachment 13 of the release is added back to Core FFO from FFO. It consisted about $1.6 million in lost NOI from Edgewater. So, we expect roughly speaking that – that to recur throughout the balance of the year. $800,000, as you point out, is tied to Edgewater's, the incident response costs that we incurred during the first quarter and the remaining $800,000 is the land impairment costs for the wholly owned parcel that we just mentioned a moment ago. Can you repeat the second question again?
Unknown Speaker:
No. I think you pretty much got it, but it sounds like that's going to be recurring throughout the year and that the $0.09 to $0.11 will be a mix of those two things?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, I think it's probably – we can follow-up afterwards, but basically just to be clear in terms of what I just was describing. Of the $3.2 million, $1.6 million relates to lost NOI from Edgewater and that will recur throughout the back half of the year.
Unknown Speaker:
Right, right, yeah.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
So you just multiply that by three and that's what we expect to receive over the next three quarters. The other two items, the $800,000 in response costs from Edgewater and $800,000 in land impairment costs, those are one-time items that we experienced in the quarter and do not expect to recur over the balance of the year.
Unknown Speaker:
Got it. That makes sense. Thanks a lot, guys.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Okay.
Operator:
We'll go next to Alex Goldfarb of Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you for taking the questions. Just two that are really quick. First, Kevin, you talked about potential debt issuance. Going back a few months ago, the rating agencies seemed to be indicating they may be looking to upgrade you guys. Although based on the conversations, it's like the debt markets already priced you guys like an A type credit. So, as you are thinking about debt issuance or capital for the rest of the year, are you obligated to change any of your thoughts or this is all the rating agency is doing, you guys aren't asking for any of this, and therefore you're not changing the way you view your capital structure or development spending, et cetera?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Alex, this is Kevin. Our thoughts around our capital structure hasn't changed. The rating agencies have taken their own action of their own accord based on whatever they're seeing in terms of both the evolution of our business and the current capital market condition. So that's sort of the set of actions that are happening independently of us. In terms of our capital plan for the year, our decisions around how much to raise is a function of how much we expect to expend on development and other activities. So it's driven by our uses. And so, as I mentioned earlier, we expect about another $1 billion of incremental activity on the sourcing front in the form of dispositions and unsecured debt issuance really because of the investment activity we have in our capital plan. In terms of our choices around what to raise, it's really a function not of the rating agencies but rather what are the most cost-effective sources of capital at any given point in time. And as things stand today, unsecured debt pricing is relatively attractive. Moreover, as you can see in our initial outlook from the fourth quarter, we have $650 million of debt that we expect to refinance, so that's a use. And on a leverage neutral basis with NOI on stabilized portfolio growing and development NOI coming online, we can add more than that amount in the form of newly issued unsecured debt and still grow on a leverage neutral basis. So that's how we're trying it around our total incremental need and how much of it might be in the form of unsecured debt. But at this point, as you know, we haven't issued anything in terms of debt, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens as we progress through the year.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And Kevin, can you remind us what cap rate they used for your unsecured debt – for the unencumbered pool – sorry, what cap rate they use?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
I'm not sure if I'm following your question. We have disclosure in our press release that talks about the cap rate that pertains to our line and I think that's a 6% cap rate, if I'm recalling it correctly, but you can just look through the attachment for that. But in terms of the cap rate that the rating agencies use, I don't have that information. I don't know that it will be something I'd want to share, if I did.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay, that's cool. And then separate question, are you now done with any of the legacy Archstone dispositions or gains or is there still potential for more to come?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, I guess, one point I'll mention. This is Kevin again, Alex, and others may want to comment. We expect potentially in the second quarter – and you probably saw this in the JV income line item – to receive some additional settlement proceeds related to some pre-acquisition activity that will likely flow through in the second quarter and be included within reported FFO, but it's carved out for core FFO.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
But, I mean, in addition to what you've already disclosed, is there anything future beyond this or versus second quarter basically clears the deck and that's it?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Alex, this is Matt. There is one more asset. There were two parcels of land that went up in the parking lot, one settled earlier this year, there is one other parcel of land out there that it will eventually settle – may settle this year, it may not settle for a while longer, we'll see how the market plays out on that, but that's relatively minor one-time adjustment if it clears.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Well, it's been actually reflected in the first quarter.
Alexander D. Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. Perfect. Listen, thank you.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
We'll go next to Tayo Okusanya of Jefferies.
Tayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Hi. Just along Alex's line of questioning, can you just talk a little bit more about what you're expecting for the rest of the year in regards to acquisitions overall, and generally what kind of pricing you're seeing in most of your key markets – I'm sorry, dispositions, not acquisitions?
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
Tayo, this is Kevin. I think overall, as I mentioned, there's probably an incremental $1 billion of capital we expect to source pursuant to our plan for the year. Most of that we expect to source in the form of unsecured debt; the balance will be dispositions. In terms of the dispositions that we contemplate – I think Matt outlined a moment ago that two of them relates to Houston, one we completed in Stamford Harbor in the first quarter. So there is overall and you step back there's not an awful lot of disposition activity that's anticipated within our capital plan and probably those two sources represents the bulk of that.
Tayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Okay.
Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer:
And Matt, anything you want to add just in terms of just the transaction market generally with what we are seeing out there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
The transaction market has been very hot. There is clearly more demand from buyers to buy high quality multifamily assets and there are assets on the market for sale generally speaking. Obviously, it varies a little bit market-to-market. So like Kevin said, it's our need to fairly model it. We are always looking to transact. On the margin, if we can shape the portfolio, so we make some additional asset if we are using those funds to buy an asset, it may be in a submarket we like better, but right now the market is very active, very liquid.
Tayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to Michael Salinsky with RBC Capital Markets.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Hey, guys. Just in the nature of time as this call is going on a little bit long. But just the late additions over the last couple of quarters seems to be a little bit more of an urban focus particularly with the New York asset there. Is there any shift as you think about starts maybe two years, three years down the road kind of moving more urban – moving more back into that urban core as opposed to the suburban? And then just given the starts in D.C., you guys were among the first to sell out to reduce your exposure to D.C., ahead of the kind of the downturn. Can you just talk about your outlook for D.C. over the next, call it, two years to three years? Has the worst already passed, and do you expect kind of 2016 and 2017, would you expect D.C. to perform more in line with the rest of the portfolio or do you think there is a recovery potential there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer:
Yeah, Michael, this is Matt. I can speak a little bit to the first part of the question, and then maybe Sean or Tim might want to add some color as well on D.C. longer term. In terms of our development rights, obviously, that Columbus Circle deal is a very large deal, so that does move the needle in terms of when you start looking at the numbers and weighting it by urban, suburban and those things. But, as I mentioned earlier, generally speaking, we're still finding – just when you look at overall supply/demands fundamentals and you look at where land is pricing, the cost of construction, we're finding better risk-adjusted returns, generally speaking, on new land deals in suburban markets. And again, a lot of this is infill suburban transit-oriented in-suburban job centers. Some of it is for that bedroom suburbs, but most of it is that kind of in a ring suburbs, I'll call it. So I would not expect our development rights mix to change materially one way or the other, but it's really bottom-up. So we don't sit here and say to the local teams, go find us five deals in an urban market and now go find us five deals in a suburban market, it's find us the best deals in your market. And they respond to what they're seeing on the ground and sometimes those are more urban deals, sometimes they're more suburban deals. But, at this point in the cycle, they are still more suburban Columbus Circle notwithstanding. As it relates to D.C., we are planning a couple of starts in Metro D.C. here over the next couple of quarters, some of those are legacy positions, one of them is a large deal in the District that we had inherited the land from Archstone. But as it relates to the development cycle, it's probably a better time than it has been in the couple of years, if you think that D.C. has had several years of basically flat rent growth underperformance relative to the rest of our footprint and if replacement costs haven't moved all that much, it's probably a better time to be thinking about that. In terms of where fundamentals are headed and where rent growth might be two or three years from now, I don't know that we're in a position to predict that other than we know there's still a fair amount of supply coming in the next year or two.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah. Mike, maybe just add on to that. To be clear, I think I said in my remarks, we do expect the performance gap start narrowing between D.C. and our other markets. But over the next two years, we do expect it still to underperform. When you just look at the supply that's still coming and while job growth has picked up recently in D.C., we do expect it still to be an underperformer relative to our average markets over the next several quarters. But the match point, as it relates to development, you're really focused on the second derivative as well as the kind of the first derivative and that's oftentimes where those good land opportunity is and if you can time it from a construction standpoint, when the labor market is still relatively soft, that those are oftentimes our best-performing assets long-term.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets LLC:
Thanks for the color, guys. Thank you.
Operator:
We'll go next to William Kuo of Cowen & Company.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Great. Thanks, guys. Appreciate the color in the presentation. The additional data points are in the development pipeline. Just looking at page 16 where the five communities under construction in lease-up, whether the current projected yield is 6.9% versus the 6.3% original, so about 10% higher. Given your view of the extended nature of the current cycle and, call it, two years to deliver the rest of the pipeline on average, is there any reason to think that the current pipeline – if I estimate about 6.2% yield that that won't stabilize at 10% higher as well?
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Yeah, William, it's Tim. I mean, if you look over the last three or four years, the deals that we completed have all stabilized on average for each vintage year, if you will, above what we had anticipated upon original projection. It's just really just rent growth. So I think it's going to come down to how you underwrite rent growth over the next four or five years. To the extent we continue to see a long sustained cycle where we're getting trend to above trend rent growth, we'd expect stabilized returns to be above what we first report in the release when it initially goes on the schedules.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks. And then just quickly, I know that High Line, West Chelsea is 97% leased. Can you talk about the performance of the two different segments versus original expectations and how splitting up that into the two segments has performed?
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. William, this is Sean. In terms of the performance, we've been happy with both the AVA and the Avalon product. AVA delivered first a little bit bigger building and Avalon followed. But when you look at it just from a lease-up pace perspective and what happened with rents through the course of the different seasons, the lease-up performance relative to the original expectations was pretty similar between the two, both Avalon and AVA.
William Kuo - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks so much.
Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Operator:
We have no other questions at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back to Tim Naughton for closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Thank you, Augusta. Well, thanks for being on today. I know it's been a long call, so we won't take any more of your time, but we do look forward to seeing all of you in June at NAREIT.
Operator:
That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for your participation.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Member of Investment & Finance Committee Sean J. Breslin - Chief Operating Officer and Member of Management Investment Committee Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer Matthew H. Birenbaum - Chief Investment Officer and Chairman of Management Investment Committee Sean M. Clark - Senior Vice President of Asset Management/Redevelopment
Analysts:
Nicholas Gregory Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division Dan Oppenheim Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Your host for today's conference is Jason Reilley, Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference, sir.
Jason Reilley:
Well, thank you, Alan, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Oh, thanks, Jason, and welcome to our fourth quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. I'll provide management commentary on the slides that we posted this morning, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. Now my comments will focus primarily on a summary of Q4 and the full year 2014 results, a discussion of the outlook for 2015 and then also drill down on development and the earnings and NAV accretion coming from this platform. Before we get started, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the unfortunate event that occurred at our Edgewater, New Jersey, community last week. As you know, a fire broke out at this community late in the afternoon of January 21. One of the buildings containing 240 of the total 408 units was substantially destroyed. The other building containing 168 units was largely unaffected and reopened over the weekend for residents to return home. While we're relieved that there were only minor injuries to a handful of people, we are saddened by the displacement of over 200 households, including 3 of our own associates who are unable to return home. Along with others in the community, we are working to help them begin the process of putting their lives back in order. I'd like to just quickly acknowledge the extraordinary response of the firefighters and neighbors, state and local officials, the American Red Cross and many of our associates who together worked tirelessly with great bravery and care to help contain the fire and comfort those impacted by it. We're extremely grateful to them for their remarkable efforts. And lastly, I'd just like to thank the many of you that have reached out to us over the last few days expressing your sympathies and support. And so with that, I'd like to start on Slide 4 and provide some highlights for the quarter and the year. Core FFO for the quarter was at around 7.5% and almost 9% for the full year. Same-store revenue growth was -- came in at 4.1% for Q4 or 4.2% when you include the impact of redevelopment. We completed 4 communities in Q4 totaling $360 million at a 7.3% average projected yield, initial yield. And for the year, we completed $1.1 billion at an initial projected yield of 7.1%. We started another 3 communities in the quarter, bringing our full year to $1.3 billion. And lastly, we raised $400 million of capital -- of new capital in the quarter through unsecured debt and the sale of noncore assets. Turning to Slide 5. We ended the year on a strong note with year-over-year same-unit rent in Q4 up over 4%, well above the rate last year, more than 250 basis points above the same time last year. And the momentum is continuing into 2015 as January same-unit rents are growing around 5%, so getting us off to a solid start for the year. Turning to Slide 6. For the full year, as I mentioned before, we completed over $1.1 billion of new development. This development was actually completed at a basis of right around $275,000 a door or about 25% lower than the estimated value of our stabilized portfolio, which averages 19 years of age, and at rents that are 7% higher than our existing portfolio, resulting in an estimated value creation on the order of $500 million based upon current cap rates. Turning to Slide 7. The completions this year were geographically dispersed, both East and West Coast across most of our regions, represented really a mix of product from high rise to mid-rise to garden to townhome and a mix of brands between Avalon and AVA. A couple on this slide that are worth noting
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we would take our first question from Nick Joseph from Citigroup.
Nicholas Gregory Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Tim, you talked about the development pipeline and how much value creation you've had through the cycle so far and maybe did not rolling through to the multiple that the market may be pricing further into the development cycle. You mentioned in the management letter that were mid-cycle. So I'm wondering kind of how much longer do you think we'll be in mid-cycle? And when we can expect you maybe to take your foot off the gas in terms of development?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Nick, in terms of how long the cycle might play out, as we discussed in the past as we compared it to prior cycles, we think just given the underlying economic fundamentals, the depth of the correction and where the -- where we're currently stand relative to jobs -- the amount of job growth that we've seen, we think we're -- we -- as you mentioned, we think we're mid-cycle. If you look at cumulative rent growth so far this cycle, we've seen about 17%. In the '90s, by contrast, we saw about 53%, 40 quarters. We're about 19 quarters into this current up cycle. So we think just giving -- we think this could play out for a few more years. And then when you overlay just the demographic growth, which should say stay strong through 2020, we think there's some additional reasons why the apartment cycle in particular should be prolonged. And the second part of your question, Nick, was?
Nicholas Gregory Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Well it was really that kind of...
Timothy J. Naughton:
Oh, in terms -- yes, in terms of -- I'm sorry, in terms of development pipeline, as we discussed in the past, we do expect it to start to drift down. While we're expecting to start about $1.5 billion this year and for it to stay in the $3 billion range over the next couple of years, the development right pipeline has started to -- is down about 15% on a year-over-year basis as we haven't really been replenishing it as quickly as we've been drawing it down from a start standpoint. So part of that is just in terms of how attractive deals look between land cost and construction cost inflation. The going-in yields on the average deal generally aren't as compelling as they were last year or the year before. And just given where we are in the cycle, we would expect that to continue such as it's going to -- as we get further and further into the cycle, just less and less deals we'll underwrite.
Nicholas Gregory Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
And then you mentioned Southern California coming on strong. So I was wondering if we can -- if you can give a couple more details in terms of what you're seeing on the ground there.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Sure. Why don't I let Sean address that?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Nick, it's Sean. In terms of the traction in Southern California, certainly the second half of 2014, I think, came on strong as job growth continued to accelerate in that region. Supply has and remains very well in check relative to the rest of the country. And so as you look through the different markets, we thought at some point we'd see that acceleration, as we've talked about over the past couple of years, has certainly kicked in. And it did kick in, in all 3 major regions
Operator:
And we will go next to Andrew Rosivach with Goldman Sachs.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
I apologize, this may not be the best format for this. But when I talk about our pitch -- I have a lot of clients -- I highlighted a ton of earnings growth outside of same store, particularly from development. And I got on my screen right now the last 20 years, just to give you some numbers. You were 7.6% NOI, 18% FFO for 2012. The year I could get closest to now was '05. You were 4.2% NOI growth. You were 12.12% in FFO. This year, you're calling for 4% on NOI but only 8% on FFO. And I guess the question is, is your business model no longer going to have the same kind of leverage to external FFO growth as it had in the past?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Andrew, this is Tim. It's hard to parse it in just any one year, to be honest. A lot of it has to do with sort of the ramp up and ramp down. Sometimes, you actually benefit when you starting to do one or the other just in terms of how capitalized interest works relative to expense interest. And conversely as you're starting to sort of draw down any extra inventories, you're starting to -- as you're starting to reduce overall development. But if you look at, as I mentioned in my remarks, at 8.5%, you call it roughly half of that, or 4%, 4.25%, attributable to NOI, we wouldn't expect on a steady-state basis to get 8% or 10% from -- 8% or 10% from the development platform. If you just kind of run the math on $1 billion or $1.2 billion that you get a couple of hundred, 200 to 300 basis points of accretion on, you might -- what you might be -- expect over time is to get 3% or 4%. And when -- but when you look at it over a long period of time, over a 20-year period, we've basically grown FFO at around 7%; and we've grown NOI just over 3%, 3.5%. You get the benefit of some free cash flow that you invest. But those are kind of the numbers. And as you get to mid-cycle, we would expect those numbers to more or less be in line with that. I guess the last thing I'd say is we have been a little bit more -- we have been more disciplined just around match-funding this cycle, which it does bring capital cost -- the full cost of permanent capital into the picture a little earlier than when you're funding it off the line. So that'd be the other factor I'd point out.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
The challenge is -- and you kind of -- you guys kind of talked about it on Slide 8, you show your past growth. The problem is, the guidance that you're giving now, if the consensus is correct, Avalon is going to have about the same earnings growth as the rest of the REIT sector. And I appreciate you taking low risk. The problem is, if your own comment on being mid-cycle is right and we still have multiple years of revenue growth ahead of us, the companies that run with more leverage and a smaller development pipeline are still going to have very competitive growth rates relative to Avalon. I don't know if you guys have thought about that.
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Yes, Andrew, this is Kevin. It is something we do think about, we talk about and are aware of. If you go back to the mid-2000s, there was a several-year period where those who had higher leverage experienced higher FFO growth. I guess that sort of dovetail with Tim's remarks. When we think about our development platform and how we want to fund it and how we want to fund the business, we do think about the full business cycle and trying to outperform over the full business cycle. And it's always easier to have leverage than to take it back down at a time when you're late in the cycle and capital costs are rising against you and can potentially rise against you pretty quickly. So there is a, call it if you will, a short-term cost, if you will, for being more match-funded. By over a full cycle, we think that it's actually an accretive funding strategy.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Right, I appreciate that. I would just say like, for example, Kevin, you and I have been back in your -- and forth on your cash balance for a long time. But you increased your cash balance by $200 million over last year. You've put a 4% cost on that. That's $0.07 a share. And $0.07 a share was literally the midpoint of your guidance versus The Street, and your stock is off today. And it's impacting your cost of capital. And I guess my question is, the $200 million of extra cash, is that really ruining the integrity of your balance sheet?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Well, I don't know that it's necessarily impacting our cost of capital across all the markets in which we fund because I don't think, number one, it impacts asset sales or unsecured debt. What you're suggesting is whether it impacts our cost of equity, and I think there's probably a number of different things that can bear upon that besides the one there that you're pointing out. $200 million in a liquid market is not a lot of money to go find. In a highly illiquid market, it can be hard to find and expensive to obtain. And you only have to consider some of the dilutive equity offerings that were done by a number of REITs in 2009 and the permanent impairment that, that brings to bear on your total returns and your ability to deliver outperformance over cycles to think about just what the implications are about getting a little bit out over your skis. In terms of -- and you're right, we've talked about the cash balance and so forth. As you can see in our outlook for this year, we do think we've reached the point where we can run with less cash. And actually, with unrestricted cash on hand of over $500 million, we anticipate drawing that down here rather briskly early in the year to the extent of $350 million with an implied year-end cash balance of around $150 million at the end of this year. So what's driving that is really the notion of we think we're more comfortable being -- right now, we're a little bit more than 100% match-funded if you bring in the effect of the equity forward. As we pull that down and roll through the year, we think we'll probably be more like 70% to 80% match-funded. And we're comfortable with having that level position and running with a little bit less cash because, as Tim pointed out, we've got a lot more NOI to come online with the construction that's under way and in the process of being leased up.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Andrew, maybe to...
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
I'm looking forward [indiscernible], but I have questions. But what'd really be helpful, Kevin -- and you've probably seen other REITs do this -- if you guys have ever thought about a 3-year plan. And if there's -- lack of a better word -- light at the end of the tunnel or there's a year where there's a lease up versus cap interest which is impacting numbers. Other apartment REITs have starting to put it out, and I think it actually would be more helpful for Avalon than anybody else.
Timothy J. Naughton:
All right, Andrew, thank you. Thanks for that comment. I guess the last thing I'd just say and then maybe just cut us off, I mean, we're obviously managing the business for the long term. And it's one of the reasons why we look back from 2010 to 2014. We have still outperformed on a cash flow basis by 2,400 basis points the sector. And then when you look at it over a 20-year period, it's about 400 basis points compounded annually in terms of outperformance on a cash flow growth standpoint. So when you're building FFO from $1.60 20 years ago to $7.35 20 years later, $0.07 isn't going to move the needle a whole lot in the long run. So I guess I'll just make that the last word. And did you have any other questions before we move on?
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
No, I appreciate your comments.
Operator:
And we will go next to Jana Galan with Bank of America.
Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
I was hoping you can provide more color on your metro New York outlook. The boroughs in New Jersey are expected to get a lot of supply in '15. Do you expect Manhattan to offset that? Or do you expect strong absorption metro-wide?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Jana, this is Sean. I'll make some comments and Matt or Tim can chime in as well. In terms of -- metro New York and New Jersey for us is an accumulation of a lot of a different markets. So certainly, in -- if you're putting New Jersey in that, we've got the Northern New Jersey market as well as us being in Central New Jersey. Northern New Jersey, we are expecting a fair amount of supply coming online, particularly as you get into Hudson County and right along the waterfront there, all the way across, the Gold Coast as they're referred to -- refer to it. So there's a fair amount coming in there. When you look at Long Island, it's a little more protected. And then as you get into Westchester, it's a little more protected as well. And as you get into the city and you start going across, really where we're expecting the most supply to come online is really in Brooklyn and then in the Midtown West submarket of Manhattan. Those are the 2 places where we're expecting it to be a little bit soft. If you're looking at kind of within the Greater New York market which submarkets are going to be a little bit softer, I'd say those 2 are going to be relatively soft compared to the other markets I just mentioned. But it's not dramatically different. We're talking about 50 basis points on one side or the other depending on which market you're looking at. So without providing specific details for every single market since it's a pretty large region, hopefully that general color makes some sense to you.
Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
And then just quickly on development, do you get any benefit from lower oil and construction materials costs?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
This is Matt. I wouldn't expect a lot. This is one of those things where -- when oil prices go up, the subleases refuse to raise pricing to us. And then when oil prices go down, we hear, well, it's mostly the labor. But the truth is it is -- by and large, what drives construction cost is the labor cost and the subcontractor margin. And that's really a function of how busy folks are. And folks are busy. In all of our regions other than metro D.C., they're busier now than they were last year. So I don't expect -- perhaps it keeps a little bit of pressure on the margin off of some of the commodities pricing, which ultimately eat into their cost basis a bit. But I don't think it's going to have a material impact.
Operator:
And we will go next to Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
It's actually Derek on for Steve. Just going back to the markets and touching on D.C. It seems like you guys are calling for slight improvement next year. Can you talk if that's driven by any particular market or region? And then maybe if you could talk about what the prime growth spread might be between Northern Virginia and inside the District this year.
Sean M. Clark:
Sure, Derek, this is Sean. In terms of the performance of D.C., I mean, I think the punchline is we're not expecting it to be materially different. Our outlook reflects maybe a slight improvement as it relates to what Tim alluded to earlier in terms of improved job growth in the region overall. And there are some nuances with very assets that really sort of make up the shift from '14 to '15. So I wouldn't say there is a significant either improvement or deterioration in any 1 specific submarket in '15 as it -- relative to '14 other than with the exception that as you look at NoMa and D.C., the inventory that's going to be delivered there in '15 is substantially more than '14. That's probably the one place that I would highlight. But as you look at Northern Virginia, Western Fairfax is still outperforming, Derby corridor is soft. If you go into suburban Maryland, North Bethesda, Rockville, Gaithersburg, it's all pretty soft. As you get further out into Columbia, it's performing a little bit better. So it's really a function of sort of where the assets are position within their submarket that really matters probably more at this point maybe with the exception of NoMa, where the supply is just sort of overwhelming at this point. But I think most all asset classes are impacted.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Got it. And then just going back to development funding. I appreciate your development needs for this year are fully funded. But as you kind of think about '16 starts, should we start to expect you to begin to prefund maybe some of those commitments later this year?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Derek, it's Kevin. It's premature to really think about how we're going to fund '16 activity at this point. And just as a minor clarification, while we're -- more than half of our capital needs are addressed and in place relative to development activity, we still do anticipate sourcing $1.1 billion of incremental capital either from the transaction markets or the capital markets over the course of the year. So at the point -- at this point, our focus is really on thinking through how to best source that capital over the balance of '15.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay, got it. And then just any projected yields or maybe yield today on the $1.5 billion of starts scheduled for this year?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt. It's pretty much holding in the mid-6s. I think that's where our pipeline has been averaging. Our development rights pipeline has been kind of running that level for the last couple of years, give or take. And it looks like the starts basket for '15, the way it's underwritten at least today, probably goes in at that same the mid-6s level.
Operator:
And we will go on next to Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Tim, as I read through the management letter, there's a lot of positive talk in there. And I'm trying to relate that back to your guidance because you talk about apartment fundamentals strengthening during 2014, yields on your pipeline continuing to get better, we have a stronger economy this year, you're projecting job growth to accelerate, be closer to U.S. average as far as your markets now catching up to U.S. average. And yet, your same-store revenue guidance calls for a modest increase over 2014. So what I'm wondering is if demand is improving so much, why isn't your same-store forecast even more bullish? Is supply the big problem here? Or are you just being conservative about certain markets picking up?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Nick, I think that's -- I think you hit it. We're looking -- as I mentioned in our remarks, we are looking at 2015 to be elevated in terms of supply but be roughly matched with demand. And so both years, both '14 and '15, we've talked about rising demand match -- I mean, rising supply matched by demand, and we see sort of the same thing playing out in 2015. So honestly, I guess I'd be surprised if our projections would be much different just based upon sort of those underlying fundamentals than what we experienced in '14.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
So if we go back to what happened in 2014, I mean, you had the apartment REITs generally raising guidance, you had people's forecasts from Axiometrics and others get better throughout the year and most people pointed to job growth getting better. I mean, if job growth continues to pick up here, is that the biggest impact for how fundamentals could be even better for you guys or the industry this year?
Timothy J. Naughton:
I think job growth the biggest piece of it, yes. As I mentioned in my remarks, there's still -- we still think there's a lot of pent-up demand out there. It's just the last couple of years when you look at the number of young adults still living at home, that's flattened. But we do expect that at some point, as confidence rises and they start to move on with their lives, that they're going to start to form households. And that could create some additional demand that the economy and the housing market may not be able to address as quickly. So that -- I think those are the 2 areas that would lead to sort of potentially an upside surprise.
Operator:
And we will go next to Rich Anderson with Mizuho Securities.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
I just have 1 question. Most of mine have been asked. When you were formulating your outlook, did you take into account at all declining oil? I know it's been brought up about your development cost. But what about just disposable income, a quasi-tax cut that could arguably affect your entire portfolio since you don't have anything in Houston? Any comments on that? Or is that just gravy potential for the future?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well, I'll start and maybe, Sean, you want to jump in. Personal income, that's why we pull it out, is a big driver of our models. It's not necessarily disposable income. It really speaks more to the changing balance in the job market more than anything else. But perhaps you do get a little bit of lift from additional disposable income relative to falling oil rates. But Sean, I don't know if you had anything.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Rich, the only thing else to add is certainly we've scrubbed that pretty hard as it relates to our utilities expense. But when you get down to it, I mean, oil really only drives about 2% of heating demand across our portfolio. Yes, most of it relates to natural gas, which had started to decline much earlier than oil did. And there are other factors influencing the price of natural gas independent of oil. And so that's 1 area we scrubbed pretty hard. And then certainly, we haven't seen it bleed through in terms of construction costs. As Matt mentioned earlier, there may be a small pickup there at some point, but we're not expecting that to be material in the current market environment.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
I was just thinking more about someone who doesn't have to pay $3 to fill their tank but $1.75. And...
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, absolutely. I think, as Tim mentioned, yes, that's reflected in the personal income forecasts that we rely on. But to the extent that those forecasts are off, that certainly could be helpful. On the other side of the coin, to the extent that the rate of job growth slow as a result of reduced capital spending in that sector, it doesn't impact us as much as maybe some others given our market footprint. But there could be some ripple effects there that could go the other way.
Operator:
And we will go next to Alex Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Just a few questions here. The 1 is just going -- yes, Tim, appreciate the total return analysis that you guys provided. But if we look on an NAV basis, you guys are trading at an implied cap of near, yes, similar to like a EQR or Essex, which I think you guys would consider certainly a peer group. You spoke about maintaining sort of a $3 billion development program for the next few years, which obviously requires additional incremental capital. Even if you guys are -- well, not even -- if you guys are good at developing and delivering the returns, perhaps the market is just pushing back on the capital it knows is coming. So is there consideration to maybe paring the pipeline down to maybe $2 billion in the next year or so, maybe just to kick out some of those projects that may not look as attractive right now and maybe let some of the in-place NOI and the development NOI deliver to the story to help the stock's performance? Is that something that you guys would consider?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Alex, not really. Not as long as the development we viewed is accretive to what the incremental cost of new capital is. I think that the alternative that we think about is just recycling more capital as opposed to raising additional external capital. As I mentioned in our remarks, we are looking to rely more on asset sales and that -- in part because where the balance sheet is positioned today, at 5.2 debt-to-EBITDA. And if you just -- you think about that $200 million of EBITDA that hadn't materialized yet, just the extra sort of borrowing power that gives, and assuming we are mid-cycle and underlying cash flows on a stabilized portfolio continues to grow, it does give us a lot of funding options without having to really lever the balance sheet in any material way. But then we always have the option of just recycling capital and selling more assets and recycling that back into development. So fair question. I think partly -- I think what's going to drive down the development pipeline is when we just don't think that business makes sense relative to our underlying cost of capital.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
True. But obviously, as you sell assets, you lose that NOI. So there's a net wash. But second question is, as far as the -- Edgewater is concerned, any implications? Obviously, the media has been abuzz, and there was some press down out of Princeton. Do you think that any -- what may happen could slow down or delay any projects? Or your experience in the past with dealing with tragic incidents like this is that -- obviously, a lot of thought goes into this code and, therefore, as people review them, everything, I guess, hopefully, what's there is fine?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt. I guess I can speak to that a little bit. I think you're right in the sense that we've been developing as a public company for 20 years and codes evolve. Codes change over time. The product changes and evolves over time. Technologies change. And so I think this is a very unfortunate incident. It is very fortunate that there was no loss of life. But nevertheless, there was an awful lot of property damage. And so, time will tell how it plays out, but it is certainly part of the overall process that codes evolve and change over time and continually refine and improve, and we're pretty adept at adapting to that.
Operator:
And we will go next to Dan Oppenheim with Zelman & Associates.
Dan Oppenheim:
I think good job highlighting the development portfolio and what you've been doing there. Wondering in terms of the AVA projects. Given they've come into well ahead of expectations, do you think you'll increase their share of future developments knowing that it's clearly difficult to get land for those? But how do you think about that?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, Dan, this is Matt again. We are -- the -- AVA as a percentage of our portfolio it is growing. As we develop -- it's about, I think, 1/4 of our development pipeline. So we look out, in a couple of years, AVA should be about 10%, 11% of the total portfolio. I think it's about 7% today by value. So it is growing. But it really is a bottom-up opportunity set. So you have to go through market by market and see where the opportunities are. They do tend to be more urban product. And so I wouldn't expect their share of the development rights pipeline to necessarily grow dramatically from here because what we're seeing as we get more mid-cycle is that we are generally shifting our focus a little bit more to suburban assets and -- because the economics are getting tougher in the urban areas. That's where you seeing a lot more of the supply. Land prices have probably run up more aggressively in the urban submarkets than the suburban submarkets. So it's driven by -- more by the opportunity set. And the ones you're seeing now, like AVA 55 Ninth, those were started early cycle in submarkets that have seen a lot of rent growth and also delivered a product that was very unique and well received by the market and we think well positioned to outperform not just in the lease-up but over time because of the distinctive nature of the product. So we love the brand. We love to grow it more. But I think it's unlikely that it's going to become materially bigger part of our development pipeline in the next year or 2 than it has been.
Dan Oppenheim:
Sure. And then in terms of operating expenses in the guidance, I guess you're looking for lower expense growth in '15 than in '14. Clearly, some of the taxes, repair and maintenance were a little bit high. If we look at during '14 and thinking it'll be better in '15, is it some key metric there is one of those issues that's going to be driving it lower? What are you thinking about turnover given that we're already low as more supply could lead to a bit more turnover there?
Sean M. Clark:
Yes, Dan, it's Sean. First, acknowledge '14. Definitely, there was a lot of noise in '14, particularly, you look at sort of a tale of 2 buckets where there was significant pressure on the Avalon portfolio as it relates to taxes, maintenance costs that was unexpected due to a number of different factors that occurred in the first quarter of the year and the fourth quarter of the year, et cetera, et cetera. So as we look forward to '15, a lot of those anomalies, our sense is it's certainly going to dissipate. But really, what's driving '15, if you look at it pretty basically, is property taxes. Our expectation is that for 2015, we're probably going to be in the mid-5% range for taxes. As -- that's 1 of the primary drivers. And then the second one I'd mentioned is payroll. We're basically in a cycle now where we think we're probably looking at wage growth that's in the 3% range, as an example. And that's about 90% of our total payroll cost. But we're getting pretty material upward pressure on benefits, which is only about 10% of our cost of payroll, but we're anticipating benefits to go up by about 10%. So you're adding 100 basis points there. So you're probably going to be in the high-3s on payroll by the time you consider the wage growth and the benefits burden, and then you've got taxes moving up. So you're talking about just those 2 components alone being north of 50% of what likely is our expense growth for 2015. The rest of it is pretty nominal in terms of growth. So those are kind of the 2 big drivers as we think about '15.
Operator:
And we will go next to Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
I just wanted to touch on the comment about some of the impacts to expenses in '14, one of which was in the first quarter in terms of just the weather and conditions like that. I'm just curious, relative to the full-year outlook, I mean, do you expect the first quarter same-store NOI growth to be significantly higher as we normalize those expenses and then moderate over the course of the year? I think it was about a 110 basis point hit to same-store NOI in the first quarter of last year.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, this is Sean. In terms of the spread, what I'd probably comment on specifically is -- obviously, we're not through the first quarter, but we had elevated OpEx spend in the first quarter of last year as it relates to a couple of different things. One is related to the snow removal in the Mid-Atlantic, which is something that we don't necessarily contract for in bulk. It's more episodic in terms of how we purchase that as compared to the New England where it's sort of bought in bulk. And then utilities also was -- that put significant pressure on the first quarter of last year. So if you isolate those 2, I wouldn't expect to have inflated Q1 growth as it relates to those 2 components. And then the other piece that we identified last year for everyone is the expected '14 OpEx in total to be a little bit elevated as a result of the Archstone acquisition, where the 12 months you can capitalize certain things and then it's expensed. That expired midyear. So you're going to have some offsets from that. So I don't have the exact numbers right off the top of my head in terms of what those components add up to, but we can certainly talk you through that offline as well if you'd like.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Sure, that'd be helpful. And then just 1 other question, just going back to the sort of very positive economic outlook for the year in terms of improving job growth and the rising wage inflation. I'm sure you don't want to get into the habit of projecting interest rates, but just curious, given that positive view particularly around wage inflation, how are you expecting or thinking about interest rates trending over the balance of the year here?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Vince, it's Tim. It's -- I mean, honestly, just given the amount of -- just given the length of fed stimulus that we've seen and, I guess, sort of a shared belief in the markets that at some point that's going to have to reverse itself, that's part of the reason why we've stayed as match-funded as we have been. And so rather than try to predict rates, we really try to manage the business to try to isolate the impact of them as it relates to our open commitments, particularly through the development pipeline. So at some point, rates are going to go up. We don't -- we sort of stopped trying to predict when they might, but we're trying to manage our business to protect ourselves when they do.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from David Bragg with Green Street Advisors.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
Can you discuss your plans to use JV capital for development? I don't think that we've seen this from Avalon in some time. So is it part of a broader effort to do more JVs? Or is it a one-off, project-specific deal?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, David, this is Matt. It's the latter. There's 2 deals in particular that we expect to start this year. One of them land that was kind of been promised, a legacy JV structure going back to the Archstone acquisition, and the other is just a very unique site that happens that the way we structured the deal was to leave the land seller in as JV partner. That's what they wanted, and we generally try to avoid that. But for special sites, we'll consider it. So it's more of a one-off.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
Okay. And you happen to have several assets in Texas right now through the Archstone deal. Given all the focus that's being placed on the Texas transaction market and especially Houston, can you share your observations on your efforts to sell those assets?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, it's Matt again. I -- assets in a couple of quarters? We sold -- we closed 1 in the fourth quarter that was contracted for in the third quarter where there was incredibly deep demand. That was kind of an early '90s era asset in the Memorial area, Memorial Heights. So we really -- we have 2 assets left in Houston. They were both deals that were under development when we closed the Archstone transaction. We completed both of those, and we are planning on bringing those to market. In fact, 1 of them, I believe, is just launching in the market now. So we'll have a much better sense in 3 or 4 months.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
And have you seen any volatility just as you begin that process of launching that sale?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
No, it's really too early to say.
Timothy J. Naughton:
I don't think there's really much on the market at this point, Dave. The most you get from brokers is, nothing has changed in the last 3 weeks. So I think we'll see as we start to see those assets brought to market in Q1. So it's a good question, but I don't think we have any visibility on it yet.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
Okay, understood. The last question just relates to your acquisition appetite. You shared a lot regarding the returns that are available via development. But how does -- how do acquisitions stack up in your mind? And what sort of returns do you look for there relative to development to even get yourself interested?.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Dave, I guess the way I'd say, at this point in the cycle, we look at acquisitions really as portfolio management opportunities. So as we talked about it internally, it's about what would -- if we see an asset that we think is particularly attractive that might have a -- that might outperform other stabilized assets from a long-term perspective and would help us from a portfolio balance standpoint, we ask ourselves which assets would we sell in order to fund that. It's really -- if you just kind of look at our history, we've tried -- we try to be aggressive kind of early in the cycle where we think there's a lot of run with acquisitions and have tended to be more recyclers of capital, net recyclers of capital. And if you look over the history, x Archstone we've been a net seller over time and recycled that into development. So it's hard to separate it from our business model. So we don't necessarily look at it because we're trading at a premium to NAV we should be expanding the balance sheet aggressively to buy sort of mid-late cycle assets that may not have as much room to run. It's really more of a portfolio management exercise.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] At this time, we will take our next question from Haendel St. Juste with Morgan Stanley.
Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Tim, you mentioned rising supplies as a key risk as you look at 2015. I'm curious what else is on that list as you look ahead? And specifically how you're thinking about the prospects for a recovery in the single-family housing market as a risk? We've seen robust single-family housing starts estimates out there calling for a 20%-plus year-to-year starts. Homebuilders seem to be more willing to offer incentives. We're seeing slowly improving mortgage credit availability. So potentially, this paints a picture for a more competitive for-sale housing market if the headwinds [ph]. So curious, what you're thinking about that.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Haendel, sort of mixed feelings about single-family housing. I think our general view is if it gets -- if it starts to heat up, it creates sort of crosswinds for our business in a sense that it typically contributes to economic growth as the single-family housing industry sort of kicks up. As we've talked about in sort of past quarters, when you look at total housing production of 1 million against a backdrop of what we think is going to be closer to 1.5 million net household formation, and when you factor in all sorts of -- it's got to grow at some point here over the next few years. And we -- our underlying forecasts are really for more balanced housing demand. It's much like we saw from 1975 to 1995 where both businesses were very healthy for the most part and homeownership rates didn't changed that much. We are not look -- we don't anticipate. We just look at underlying demographics and how people are living. The -- I think you have single-person head of households now making up the majority of U.S. households. They're generally not looking for a single -- a 4-bedroom single-family home in suburbs. And so I just think there's a -- there are reasons other than the housing bust as to why what's happening right now with the single-family housing business. It's not going to reverse itself in 2015 and '16. And so while there might be some additional strength, we don't see it having a big impact on our business in any kind of negative way. So we don't see that as a risk. The risk that we worry about are the big geopolitical macro things that you can't do anything about that have a way of kind of creating shocks in the economy and impacting growth that ultimately just translates into job and income growth.
Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Appreciate that. Sean, maybe one for you. Curious on what you're seeing and thinking about L.A. Clearly, that market has lagged the Bay Area for must of the past -- almost the past decade really. And while we're seeing some green shoots of recovery with a pickup again seen in the recent quarter, job and wage growth there has materially lagged the Bay Area. So is it a reversion to the mean story and affordability perhaps on rental versus homebuying? Just I would appreciate some thoughts on the key drivers for the sort of L.A. recovery and how much more upside you think that, that area MSA has.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. I'll make a few comments, and then Tim, Matt, or others can join in as well if you'd like. But, I mean, as it relates to L.A., I mean, it's -- L.A. is pretty highly correlated with the national economy, very broad-based, diversified economy. Think of all the different sectors as compared to the Bay Area you pointed out, much more highly concentrated in the tech space. There's certainly a substantial number of jobs in the tech space in Southern California. But as a percentage of the overall job market there, it's substantially smaller. And so it certainly has revved up as the national economy has revved up. And certainly, you would think it has a pretty good outlook, and we do just based on the volume of supply you can put on the ground there. It has and remains, as I mentioned earlier, the market or the region with the lowest amount of supply projected to come online again in 2015. And then the other benefit that it has, even though it's not as unaffordable as, say, San Francisco, as you go across Los Angeles and look at the median income relative to median home prices, it's still relatively unaffordable. And so I think all 3 regions, L.A., Orange County and San Diego, we feel pretty good about as we look forward over the next couple of years. And it relates to L.A. specifically, it's just a function of, I think, where you are. So if you're in Downtown Los Angeles, you're probably a little more nervous than you might to be if you're on the west side, as an example, or the South Bay or some of those other submarkets. So in general, the outlook is positive for us. It's never had the same kind of cycle as Northern California in terms of the volatility. It's more the tortoise versus the hare story. But it is coming back, and it's coming back pretty strong.
Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
How do you think L.A. stacks up in '15 versus San Diego and Orange County?
Sean J. Breslin:
Our outlook is -- for L.A. is more robust as it relates to San Diego and slightly behind Orange County. Orange County has had great momentum. We've got a lot of built-in growth in that market. There are a couple of pockets in Orange County that if you higher-end assets in Anaheim or Irvine you might be a little bit nervous given the volume of supply coming online in those 2 specific submarkets. But a lot of our portfolio in Orange County is more affordable assets in certain submarkets that are more protected, and they're performing quite well. So as we look at those particular assets and their performance, I think they're going to carry the day in Orange County. San Diego is a smaller portfolio for us but generally also consistent with Orange County, lower price point assets, and they continue to perform well also.
Operator:
And we will go next to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Just a quick follow-up in regards to the discussion on operating expenses. Just curious in regards to 1Q '15 and the recent snowstorm, whether that changes your view in regards to what snow removal expenses could look like in 1Q '15 relative to 1Q '14? Or whether because it's just a one-off storm, that you still feel there will be some net benefits or positive variances between the 2 quarters.
Sean M. Clark:
Yes, Tayo, this is Sean. Based on what we know right now, I wouldn't expect -- based on what we know today, I wouldn't say that Q1 of '15 is going to look like Q1 of '14. Certainly, it's 1 storm. It's concentrated in the Northeast, which, as I mentioned, for the most part is under contract, fixed-price contracts as it relates to snow removal. Where we probably have more exposure is if we had a massive storm in the mid-Atlantic where that's more of a, call it, pay-as-you-go in terms of the snow removal strategy here. And then it just hasn't been as cool for as long. But obviously, we're talking about this on January 29, so we've got some time to run here to see how it comes out. But based on what I know today, just the current storm, I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay, and that's helpful. And then again on Edgewater and the unfortunate incident there, is there a sense yet of what the company ultimately plans to do? And the current residents that are displaced, are they being absorbed into nearby AvalonBay communities? Or what's the situation there with those tenants?
Sean M. Clark:
Yes, Tayo, this is Sean. I'll make a couple comments and then Kevin or Matt can chime in as well. But first, as it relates to the existing community and the residents, as Tim mentioned in his prepared remarks, one of the 2 buildings, the smaller building, has come back online and has reopened. That was certified by the city last week. So residents have reoccupied that building, which is the smaller of the 2 buildings. And as it relates to the residents who were displaced from their homes at the larger building, which is known as the Russell Building, they have dispersed to other communities, both ours and others. And some of those residents are also still in sort of temporary housing, whether that be a hotel or friends or family, et cetera. And then the last part of your question as it relates to our plans for Edgewater, we've not made any specific plans at this point as it relates to any kind of rebuilding. We're still working in the investigation and understanding mode. And then ultimately, we'll turn towards what those next steps are at some point down the road here.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Neil Malkin from RBC Capital Markets.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
I was just wondering, as you look at your same-store portfolio and how that's constituted, what if any is the difference between what the non-same-store portfolio growth rate would look like for revenues in '15 versus same-store? Is there a big difference? Is it meaningful? And I don't know if you look at it that way. If you could talk about that?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Yes. We could probably get back to you with more detail. I mean, in general what you'd expect is that the REIT -- there are several different buckets out there. Same-store, obviously. Development is separate with a lot of different things happening in development in terms of when deals are coming online. So it's not a bucket that you at all really want to compare to same-store. There are 2 main buckets are redevelopment and other stabilized. Redevelopment is growing at a slightly faster rate than same-store. And I think when we've looked at it for 2015, the equivalent is it's up somewhere in -- it would add, say, 10 or 20 basis points to the same-store growth rate. So it's growing faster, but it's a relatively small bucket relative to the base in terms of the redevelopment contribution. And then the other stabilized, I don't have the detail right in front of me in terms of the growth rate on that specific bucket, but we can certainly send it to you.
Neil Malkin - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Okay, great. And then as it goes for your revenue guidance for '15, what kind of new lease and renewals have you kind of baked into your assumptions? And what -- I don't know if you gave what new lease and renewals have been today in January and then what you're sending out in February and March are. But if I can get those, that'd be great as well.
Sean M. Clark:
Yes, why don't I give you just a few data points. That would probably help you in what you're trying to solve for. So we mentioned both in the management letter and in Tim's remarks the Q4 rent change was 4.3% on the same-store bucket, which is about 260 basis points above Q4 of last year. January it's trending into the low 5% range. Last time I looked, the last couple of days here, it's been around 5.2% or so. And then renewal offers for February and March are going out at around 7%, which is about 225 basis points greater than where we were at this time last year. And then in terms of thinking about rent change for the year, 1 comment to make is that we're not expecting '15 to be terribly different from '14. It's similar to for all the different sectors that are out there. We started the year, if you look at sort of January growth potential and what we're building, we started the year with sort of an embedded growth of 1.6% to 1.7%. So if nothing else changed in terms of rent growth through the year, that would be baked. So if you backed -- you could back into, based on the midpoint of our guidance, what the rent change would be implied throughout the year to get to the overall midpoint, if that makes sense.
Operator:
It appears there are no further questions at this time. Mr. Naughton, I'd like to turn the conference back to you for any additional or closing remarks, sir.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well, thank you. And thanks all of you for being on today, and we look forward to seeing you at some of the upcoming conferences this winter and spring.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's conference. Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Jason Reilley – Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Member of Investment & Finance Committee Kevin P. O'Shea – Chief Financial Officer Sean J. Breslin – Executive Vice President of Investments & Asset Management Matthew H. Birenbaum – Executive Vice President of Corporate Strategy
Analysts:
Nick Joseph – Citigroup David Toti – Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division Jana Galan – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Derek Bower – ISI Group Dave Bragg – Green Street Advisors Haendel E. St. Juste – Morgan Stanley Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill Tayo Okusanya – Jefferies & Company Michael Salinsky – RBC Capital Markets Karin Ford – KeyBanc Capital Markets
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Avalonbay Communities' Third Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to introduce your host for today's conference call, Mr. Jason Reilley, Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you Jenifer, and welcome to Avalonbay Communities' Third Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. This attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of Avalonbay Communities, for his remarks, Time?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Thanks, Jason, and I welcome to our Q3 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. I will provide management commentary on the slides that we posted this morning and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. My comments will focus on providing a high-level summary of the quarter's results, discuss apartment cycle and fundamentals. Talk a little bit about portfolio trend and then lastly briefly touch on development performance and funding. I’m starting on Slide-4 which is an outline of highlights for the quarter. Our quarter FFO growth was just over 6% for the quarter and 9.5% a year-to-date. Our same store revenue growth was at 3.7% for Q3 and 3.9% when you include redevelopment that rate of growth is up 60 basis points from the second quarter. Sequential same-store revenue growth was at 1.9% versus 1.4% we experienced in the same quarter last year. And we completed eight communities so this quarter totaling 465 million at an initial stabilize of 6.8%. And we started another three deals totaling about 450 million which brings our year-to-date starts right about $1.2 billion. And lastly, we raised about $230 million capital in an addition to that we have sourced another $685 million in the form of the equity forward. Let’s move to Slide-5 in that let’s take a look at where we are in the apartment cycle versus the 90s cycle which we are think this cycle too. And we’ll look at both the U.S. and our markets. For the broader AVA apartment market which is depicted by the three slides on the left there. Demand, supply and performance are attracting very closely in line with the 90s apartment cycle. When you look at the job growth, apartment starts and rent growth they are almost identical through the first 19 quarters of this cycle as compared to the 1990s. Our market rents have grown cumulatively approximately 15% since the trough which is somewhere to the 90s when rents have grew by more than 50% by the end of the expansion. Our core markets which are denoted with the three charts on the right that our current cycle has performed and it tracks the U.S. overall with rents growing about 15% at the center trough but the fundamentals underlying that performance have been very different than the 90s. Our job growth has been much stronger this cycle with technology markets leading the way and stores have been in line with national averages which is different about this cycle and something we discussed in past calls, suppliers come earlier than normal in our market this cycle just given capital preference for gateway market and also the underlying economic growth in our markets which has been strong so for this cycle. Moving onto Slide-6, another major difference this cycle than its driving strong apartment demand is demographics and consumer behavior which is driven in part by shifts lifestyle apparent. First demographics are much stronger this cycle shown on the chart number 1 in the upper left with a growth of the (inaudible). And this demographic is behaving differently than past cycles. They are buying less with rates down 700 basis points from the peak this cycle and lower than what was experienced in the 1990s. Many haven’t even yet formed the household, choosing it’s best to have home at an increasing rate for longer periods. Perhaps or it’s maybe extending out lessons and putting life on hold a bit marrying at an age of starting a family about three years later than the prior generation. So clearly demographics and lifestyle behavior and having profound impact that apartment demand this cycle. Turning to Slide-7, we talk about supply for a moment, how worried should we all be about supply. No doubt apartment started to have significantly since the trough and are now above their 25 year average but they are in line with prior expansions, periods were underlying demands fundamentals want nearly as attractive as here today. And starts to appear to be stabilizing based upon three months averages over the last year and shown in the second chart in the upper array. Our company level supplies further supported by broader housing market starts and only running at about a million per year which after (inaudible) is closer to 600-700 net starts per year. Significantly below most third party estimates of net household formation that’s projected over the next several years. Obviously supply could take another way out and that’s what we’re watching carefully, the recovery, the apartment breach this year in the equity market and the recent approval NMHC Equity Index show them a lower rate, signaled a capital is more confident about forming fundamentals which we understand could translate into higher production levels at some point in the future. Now however for now, we believe the sector is fine and over the foreseeable future as recent starts turn into new deliveries, but it does bear keeping a close eye in over the next few quarters. Shifting to Slide-8 let’s take a look at our portfolio, recent trends and performance there. As I mentioned earlier same-store revenues accelerated in Q3 with the rate of growth up 60 basis points what we saw Q2 on a year-over-year basis that was driven by improvements at same unit rents which have accelerated since the beginning for about 2% year-over-year growth in January to 4.5% in September and you could see that on the left hand side of the page. In Q3 same unit rents were up by an average 4.3% which was 50 basis points higher than the same quarter last year, so increasing relative to what we experienced in 2013. Moving onto Slide-9, we always improvement in rent growth on a year-over-year basis could be – in terms of the rate of rent growth can be attributed to stronger performance in the last. As growth by the East Coast is more or less has been added just for what we experienced in the third quarter last year. Northern California and Seattle continue to lead the way in the west but rent growth in Southern California was close to 6% in the third quarter which is the strongest we’ve seen so far this cycle in that region. Moving onto Slide-10, with supply raising particularly in urban markets we’ve seen a shift performance by submarket and price point. And as we mentioned last suburban rent growth is now outpacing urban rent growth and try to waive back, it will continue over the next several quarters when urban deliveries will be more than double that of the suburbs. This is a pretty consistent trend across our markets. In addition generally value OE product or B product or maybe or EUs in our portfolio is outperforming higher end luxury products. The trends in our portfolio skewed a bit by higher concentration of Eaves in the California markets. There are some markets where A product is still outperforming B, actually of the 20 markets that AXIA covers for us they actually report that A is well performing in 8 of the 20 markets or about 40%. Now well, B is outperforming in the other 12 are roughly 60% of our markets. Moving on to Slide-11, shift to talk a little bit about development, our development portfolio continues to perform very well. The $450 million development that was completed this past quarter stabilized rents of 8% pro forma and yields that have raised by 70 basis points since the start of the construction. Turning to slide 12, this transit continuing in our recent portfolio of the nine communities that are currently under construction and have significant release activity for 6% above pro forma or $130 and yields are up by about 40 basis points. So strong leasing and economic performance across the development portfolio. Moving on to slide 13, importantly, the development portfolio, all the communities are under development and redevelopment of $3.3 billion bucket is fully funded with permanent capital already in place, include that dispositions that are under contract with deposits which totaled $200 million and the (inaudible) from our equity for transaction of almost $700 million. and lastly we continue to raise capital at an attractive cost as you can see in the slide 14 enabling us a lot meaningful accretion on both assets and basis year-to-date we have raised almost a billion capital excluding equity forward. Add initial cost that is approximately 300 basis points below the initial stabilized yield on the recently completed developments. So for every billion of development, that stabilizes then of about 30 million of FFO accretion adding more than roughly 3% FFO for shared growth and about 400 billion in NAV accretion or about $3 to NAV per share. So in summary, 2014 is shaped up to be another great year. The fundamental remains very strong and we have seen improvement in the last quarter -- from our stabilized portfolio. We have highly accretion development pipeline that is driving strong, external growth and which is fully capitalized along with the balance sheet that is positioned to provide plenty of flexibility to continue funding projected development starts in a highly cost effective manner. And so, with that operator we are ready to open up the line for questions.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] And we will take our first question from Nick Joseph from Citigroup. Go ahead sir your line is open.
Nick Joseph – Citigroup:
Thanks. How did you weigh the decision issue equity on a forward basis versus match funding using the ATM or using another form of capital?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure Nick. This is Kevin. In terms of the equity forward versus the CED or the ATM, the ATM activity that we undertook in the quarter of about $100 million was done in August and was done in reference to our capital and for 2014 potentially it was capital that we were looking to raise relative to our target for this year and in raising equity, we essentially substituted that for like amount of disposition that we otherwise would have done. In terms of the equity forward, the thought process there as you might expect it with a little bit more complex fundamentally however, the purpose in raising that capital was to forward fund capital plan activity scheduled for 2015. So it's really related to next year not this year and so in doing so what we did, we took into account a few considerations. First, obviously as we have noted we faced elevated funding needs not only this year with $1.4 billion to start but also next year which we’ve disclosed we expect the range between 1 billion and 1.5 billion in new development starts. Second we will look at our principal funding markets which for us the transactions market common equity market on the debt market, clearly the common equity market historically has been our most valuable market to tap, access to – priced equity capital can sometimes be reduced for extended period of time often have little to do with market factors. Out of that something we took into account. And with our stock trading in early September about $156 a share we were trading in above any of these so pricing at that point time was relatively attractive, certainly relative to our development uses. I guess the final factor was just taking a look at the fact that capital efficiency for our overall funding program benefits and is enhanced by cooperating from time to time for common equity issuance when it is attracted to do so in order to avoid from having to pay meaningful special dividends or excise taxes related to capital gains which would otherwise generated from the funding strategy that’s wholly relying on dispositions. And so taking all those factors into consideration and looking at the facts of elevated needs this year and next year, common equity price was relatively attractive we thought it made sense to lock in attractive pricing and funding and create some NAV acquisition for investors.
Nick Joseph – Citigroup:
Thanks. With the last investor presentation you put out last earnings you put a help slide I guess with the cost of account for heat map. I am wondering where equity screened at the time you issued the forward equity and where kind of debt assets sales and equity screen today?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
I don't have date exactly when it was at that point in time but to give you a sense of assets sales on the heat map on a percentage basis have ranged around 78% to 80% over the last quarter or two. So pretty consistent and supporting the comment I made earlier about being the transaction market is relatively stable market for us for pricing perspective. Equity pricing can be fair a bit more volatile particularly when we look at how we are trading relative to consistent NAV and in terms of the overall equity temperature if you will on percentile basis which takes into account not only how we are trading relative to NAV but also some other factors including our yields and how we are trading relative to bonds in the broader market. Overall equity temperature was probably at that point in time in the high 60% range with our stock premium to NAV trade even higher than that more and more in the early 80% range. So that’s probably where it was at that point in time. It's down a bit today from where it was then because obviously there are stock prices is a bit below it was then and I think our consistent NAV has risen a bit since then.
Nick Joseph – Citigroup:
Right. Thanks and just quick on operations, can you talk about what you are seeing on the ground in southern California and what you expect going forward?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure, Nick this is Sean, as we noted in the management letter, we had expected Southern California to pick up speed and certainly played out that way in the third quarter. Generally speaking Orange County in LA have been the strongest of the three markets if you consider San Diego as well just to give you some data points, we talked a little bit about rent change in Southern California in the third quarter averaged in the mid 5% range as compared to low 4 last year. So overall good momentum and as you look at where we are headed in the October and then what’s renewable look like in November and December in terms of rent change, those numbers are sort of in the mid 5% range for LA and Orange County and then in the high 4% range in San Diego and generally speaking things are solid across the three markets with some exceptions depending on the submarket that you are in and where supplied being delivered. So just to talk through that for a second to give you some sense of it, in LA as an example, about 20% of the new supplies coming online in Downtown Los Angeles in 2014 and 2015. So, put a little more pressure in Downtown LA we have one asset and leap up there no existing asset and then also we are seeing some pressure in the Warner Center, Woodland Hills sub where there is still delivery underway at this point. A lot of the other sub that we are in are relatively protected and we feel pretty good about that. In Orange County display is really coming online from urban which is various parts of the ranch, little bit of sub county and in San Diego, listed supply is in places like (inaudible) as an example we don't have assets so it does depend on where you are located but generally speaking in Southern California overall.
Nick Joseph – Citigroup:
Great. Thank for all the detail.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure.
Operator:
Next we will go to David Toti from Cantor Fitzgerald.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Hey guys. Just a couple of questions around with the older pipeline if I might. I noticed that the overall yields on new projects are trending down modestly but you stabilized yields and your recent property are moving up. Is there too much conservative in the original estimates or are it's really just the function of the mix of assets that are in lease up at the moment that are outperforming because of specific market conditions?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
David hi this is Matt, I guess I will try to address that one. As it relates to the overall yield on the pipeline, I guess it's down 10 basis point from the last quarter and that really is a function of just the specific asset that move in and out of that bucket geographically. So we had large rise in Boston in this quarter and we had a few assets to complete it last quarter that are not longer in that number. They were I think the assets we completed last quarter were in the low seven. So it some of it just the math of that overall, I would say we are pretty conservative in our underwriting but we are consistent in our conservative and we always underwrite today's ranch, today's cost, today's operating expenses and that's the yield that we report until we start leasing the asset. So frequently that can be an average year and half, a year in some cases even two years between when we start the community and when we start leasing it so the extend rates have grown in that period, you will get some list of out the yields. So I think we have been pretty consistent seeing that list when we open for lease relative when we started the job. Having said that, there is more supply out there than there was a couple of years ago. So it wouldn't be surprising if the amount of that list isn’t quite as strong on deals with stabilized in the next year to the ones that are stabilized this year.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Okay. That's helpful and then my second question just has to do with energy cost. I know this is probably a bit premature but are you underwriting any I guess improvement in total construction costs on products that are being under at the moment? Are you anticipating labor cost, any of that being written to the yields that you are looking at today?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
This is Matt. In terms of the hard cost no, I mean I guess again what we are underwriting every time we update the pro forma which we will do throughout the process until we start construction is what we think would cost to build today. There are markets where we see construction cost pressures moderate particularly in the DC metro where they basically pretty close to flat at this point. The west coast is still moving up pretty strongly although maybe the edges off that a little bit but honestly the construction cost pressures have a lot more to do with labor cost and with some contractor margin just how much business they have got relative to how much business they can handle or they want to take on. It's much more responsive to that than it is to commodity pricing.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Okay. And then, just ask one more the total dollar value of the right pipeline went down slightly to about $10.9 billion is that just the function of timing and lumpiness or is that an indicator of some contraction in the total size of the pipeline potentially?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Probably a little bit of both. I mean this is a big year for start. We are starting a billion four this year, a billion three, billion four which would be kind of our peak. So I think we have set pretty consistently that this probably is kind of our peak for development underway. And we also had a lot of development rights that we acquired through the outstanding transaction last year that we moved into production this year. So there was a bit of one time lift there, so I would say now it's probably hopefully over the next couple of quarters we will see as much added to the pipeline as well, take out in terms of the new start but there is definitely – it's a bit of bottom process and fewer deals have been kind of hitting the target relative to year, two ago.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Okay. It's very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Jana Galan with Bank of America. Go ahead ma'am.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. Is it possible to provide like term when changes after Boston and your outlook there as you had a nice sequential pick up and then maybe offer similar stats for Washington DC?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure Jana. This is Sean. I’ll give you guideline on New England overall which includes Fairfield, Boston some of it be slightly higher end -- give you but in terms of blended rate change in the third quarter for New England overall average about 3% in the third quarter and what you are probably going to see is as you move – New England is a pretty seasonal market. You get a lot of lifter in the summer time from short term leasing activity, people come from different regions, water etc. and then it as you go into the fourth quarter it's more seasonal than sort of the average market that we have. So you will see that trail off as you head into the fourth quarter and then as it relates to the bit lag overall a blender rent change for the third quarter was positive about 50 basis points with no move in down about 2.5% and the renewals up about 3.5% and based on what’s on the books today that's the pretty similar pattern for October. November and December is yet to be total course, but renewals are going out in a range that would indicate that those numbers are sort of in that same mid 3% range maybe slightly higher on renewals as we get through November and December.
Jana Galan - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure.
Operator:
And we will go next to Nicholas Yulico from UBS.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hey Tim its Ross with here for Nick. Can you talk a little bit about some of the mortgage finance, I guess proposals or chatters that's out there from the (inaudible) specifically in their efforts to expand credit to the mortgage single family housing world and some of their plans at least to looking at 95% to 97% loans to values. As you think about your capital plans going forward, how do you think about what you are hearing out as a Milwaukee space?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, maybe the one thing that does make sense from my perspective is to what is being discussed with FA as the maybe just some clear rules around loan put backs which I guess probably is good just for maybe helping unstuck some capital and home mortgage market but as it relates to GSEs potentially guaranteeing lower down payment loans I think as you mentioned as low as 3% we have been there before kind of that look like but I think there is a real question at least in the multifamily industry whether it's necessary and how long ship rates are back to 64%, 65% range over there for 30 years before the big run up in the 2000. So when you look at demographics and any impacts of higher leverage which is going to result in higher defaults question whether how much it hurts ultimately the capital markets and the housing markets we will see but you got to speak from our perspective, tax payer and maybe secondly to see of all things that could have been done I am not sure, list as it relates to stimulating the economy it does feel a little bit like real playbook without regard to anything as it relates to underlying fundamental changes in demographic. So as it relates to how it might affect their business I think now we will see. In our sense that one of the reasons -- much home buy is it's not just about the payment, it is about, we saw in the slide show about people's lifestyles and choices they making around family and marriage which is ultimately what drives that purchases as much as the financial side of it. So we will see in terms of the impact ultimately to multifamily and see the department sector but we are not crazy about the changes to speak and putting my tax ahead on.
Unidentified Analyst:
Is it your I guess maybe I paraphrase that the company is not including a size makeshift in the single-family versus multifamily or call it dynamics in the home ownership rate over the next couple of years that’s a fair paraphrase?
Timothy J. Naughton:
We are not certainly as it relates to multifamily versus single-family then I think the multifamily decision versus single-family really is a – is more of a demographic issue chances where he chose to purchase or not a condo that could be a fact of by what’s happening for service related to our branch right now it’s not impacting, it’s not impacting the business by any delay, ultimately have an impact on apartment on condo values which you might see some conversion of existing stock or stock that was plan for to be built as a rental shift over the condominium to the extent more demand materializes as a result of the changing the rules.
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes, I just if hoping to talk a little bit more about knowing and then the areas they have put better numbers this quarter versus the second quarter you talked a little bit by knowing but and what else is going on in these markets that often there is a bit of pick up in fundamentals as these have been lagging markets?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, sure. This is Sean there and maybe a little my thoughts there, I mean New England, one thing that you keep in mind is the winter was so rough that it says that the borrow is relatively low in terms of being able to pick up steam as we went into the third quarter, so first quarter was pretty challenged which impacted the activity as we went into the second quarter because we won't be able to move the rent roll much throughout the first quarter and no office the rollout is in the February, March timeframe for April and May. So we really had an opportunity to sort of juice it a bit as we moved through the third quarter and then the other thing to keep in mind as the third quarter is typically sort of the peak for shorter term leasing activity in that market you will get little bit of boost just seasonally. In most markets and as far lower pronounced then the market like New England and another market like Seattle as an example in the third quarter. So in terms of overall supply demand dynamics, I think it exchanged materially they only think that it’s a, that’s reported our improvement is that turnover was down pretty materially and Boston specifically on year-over-year basis so it’s down about 900 basis points, the whole portfolio was down about 500. So when you have in our pre-sizable reduction and turnover which mainly was attributed to people not buying homes as much in that market that certainly supports pricing power which is less inventory available to lease. So that’s one sort of new answer to leases of England. In terms of New York, New York is the function of lot of different submarkets that we are in and I’d say we started to see a little bit of improvement in the midtown west submarket of Manhattan where we have two large assets that we acquired as part of the outstanding acquisition midtown west Clinton, we started to get traction on relatively one-third quarter they have been a little more in the week side with two or three lease -- they are competing against and couple of deals, we started to see those stabilize, there is none of assets (inaudible) that stabilized, so we’re starting to see some of those larger assets stabilized but there is still a fair amount of supply in the New York and execution is from more supply who move into 2015. So I think New York is going to be a little bit choppy over the next 3 or 4 quarters as those deals lease up.
Unidentified Analyst:
Great. Thanks.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Derek Bower, ISI Group.
Derek Bower – ISI Group:
Great. Thanks. How should we think about the development margins going forward especially as it related to the right pipeline you mentioned that 300 bits in the presentation but with that, would be reasonable to assume that narrows of retirement. So where is your expectation and where it trends?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Derek, this is Tim, maybe start matter of this may want to jump in, I guess it’s as you look at the margins they’re obviously very, very healthy, it’s not our expectation that that was going to continue just the way capital markets were great. So, with more supply coming in over the next couple of years, roughly, in our view roughly matching demand you will see start to moderate a little bit and then as we talked about last couple of quarters, we’ve construction cost are starting to pace rate growth so two things are going to squeeze margins a bit. Hopefully we will start to help keep a lid on these start activities at the same time so that they can tend to be healthy just not as robust as we see and we always have the benefit of construction cost that are (inaudible) and you are delivering into a – and accelerating in the right environment and you get the kind of performance we have got where you get 70 – 80 basis points which is dramatic. You are talking about 10% to 15% improvement in the economics of the transaction for the time you start to time you finish. So we expect that level to moderate as Matt mentioned in his remarks, having said that, we in the 90s, we had a sustained period of time 7 – 8 years where we are able to achieve good couple of hundred basis points above the cap rates in terms of profitability which given the cap rates are higher at the time probably translate into margins that were 10% less.
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Does matter. I just want to add to that which is one way we have responded to that a bit and you will continue to see it a bit of shift in terms of the product type and location characteristics of the deals that we start and that so if you look at our future pipeline starts the next year to only 10% of it roughly as higher and it's probably more suburban and focused where as the stuff it currently entered construction 40% higher rise and 50%+ urban. So and those deals tend to be lower yield. They are lower cap rate so the margin, but one of the way we have responded a bit has been we shifted our development focus on new rights to more of the new density product and suburban locations and we will start to see that come through in the next year to and I think that will help at least preserve the yield even if the margins get compressed a bit based on the cap rates.
Derek Bower – ISI Group:
So you still see market rate growth outpaced construction cost in the suburban markets?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
I would say that margin rate growth has probably little stronger in the suburbs right now and the cost pressures have been a little bit lighter in that product type in some locations maybe not in southern California for the most part of the location. So it's probably keeping in pace there.
Derek Bower – ISI Group:
Okay. Thanks. And then just wanted to clarify on page 13 of the presentation, should we still be thinking about that 700 million of forward equity for next year start, so I guess that implies still 400 left to be funded on the current pipeline.
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Well, I will speak to just the funding on the forward equity. We certainly under the forward contract have the right to issues shares any time now through September 8 to next year but as I mentioned at the – a moment ago, the reason for undertaking the forward transaction was to walking the funding associated with expenditure next year on funding. So while we might potentially issue here in the fourth quarter it's unlikely we will do so. It's likely we are going to issue at some point next year entirely over the course of the first week or the next year and so I don't know that's probably the answer to the question.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, just equity forward as Kevin said was to fund expenditures against existing commitments, I think we are -- do we have additional funding for existing commitments because that was year marked for our future commitments, future starts. Does that answer your question, right?
Derek Bower – ISI Group:
Yes it is. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And we will take the next question from Dave Bragg with Green Street Advisors. Go ahead sir your line is open.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors:
Thank you. Good afternoon. This relates to Derek’s question it sounds like 2014 might not necessarily be the peak for development starts as originally planned and you talked about what factors are most likely to cause you to end up with a billion dollar of start versus the potential 1.5 billion next year.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Hi Dave, Tim here. It’s probably – its function of a several things obviously it's already. Often times we think there is going to be ready taking another quarter or two by the time you really -- 75% of the economics is deal as well. I mean some deals you have to rework at the economic start making sense you might have to value engineer and do some re-planning that can take a couple of quarters. So we try to give a range what we thought was representative of what it could be from a lot of high based upon those factors and capital obviously, always a factor but less of a factor just given our current capitalization and flexibility we have to release the assets markets given lot of our equity need to have already been met.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors:
Right and going back to the 300 basis points spread that you have enjoyed year-to-date at what level does that alone cause you to pull back significantly on the starts?
Timothy J. Naughton:
I mean really starts further backing the process with the land commitment if you will and so I think you saw – you see in the press release that Matt was answering that question earlier about the development rights, we are drawing down development rights and not refurnishing as quickly as we are drawing down in part because of the opportunities that we are seeing in the market are little bit thinner than we have seen in the and not as many as kind of hitting the screen if you will or making it through the filter in terms of underlying economics. So it starts there. The pullback really starts there. If we are doing our job well it starts there so you don't feel yourself in the precarious position later in the cycle. But that doesn't mean that it's on automatic pilot that you are just going to start once you get permitted and approval. There – we still try to create incremental value on a risk adjusted basis and if we think the deal makes sense it's going to little bit deal dependent but a couple of hundred basis points of accretion or 150 basis points of NAV accretion in terms of yield over cap rate is certainly the ball park of what we consider the funding and moving forward with.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors:
Okay. Thank you for that and the next question is on turnover. Why do think turnover was down so much in the third quarter? Did it surprise you and what are your thoughts about permanently lower turnover in your sector given the secular factors such as later marriage, later home ownership going forward?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes Dave this is Sean. When you look at the reasons for the turnover in terms of what shifted, it's pretty consistent with last year. I mentioned how purchase are down little bit. Down about 110 basis points year-over-year just the total volume effective was down and so if you try to pause that and think about the precise reasons that goes up or down typically to labor mobility, option, things of that sort, I am not sure that there is one specific factor other than I would say last year we did talk about the fact that we are pushing rent relatively hard maybe a little bit harder than we should have at that point which create a little more in sort of all categories to be honest. We are still pushing pretty hard this year but not seen the same level of resistance I would say. So to me what that translates to is just generally from an economic perspective people are feeling a little bit better about their situations and so whether it's a home purchase or rent increase or relocating somewhere, we are not just seeing the numbers move dramatically just the overall volume that's different. And then as it relates to the sort of broader question about lower turnover I mean you could I guess you get to that conclusion based on a number of the factors that Tim talked about is it relates to people delay in marriages and home purchases and things like that, I am not certain that we would be ready at this point in call that we think there is a permanent shift in that but to be thoughts on that as well.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes to be just clear, the point we are trying to make here is more of a generational issues we compare back to 90s we think sort of what the appropriate levels structure demand cycle versus the prior cycles. I think seeing that chart, it really has been gradual trend over the last generation but it is remarkably thinking just one generation that’s increased by about – it's increased by about three years. Probably wish the turnover to go up a little bit on house hold based on the kids living there, they anticipated but I think it's probably more going on with the economy less labor mobility and that's probably – it's probably been the result of this particular cycle on year-over-year basis.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors:
Okay thanks and last question is on DC, what are you looking for in that market to help you foresee a bottom rent growth?
Sean J. Breslin:
Dave this is Sean. I will make a quick comment and then I have got Tim and Matt jump as well but I think Dave, essentially what we are looking for is more jobs. We know there is plenty of supply. There is more supply coming as you move in to 2015 pretty high levels here. We are talking about 4% or 5% supply coming on line and you are talking about jobs growth at for this year is projected to be less than 1%, that's not a formula for very positive outcomes so we have seen a pickup recently in this market but it's going to have to pick up much more significantly for adding -- to be in the positions to say that we have kind of bottomed down and we can start to see a line and then move up so when that's going to happen is function of a lot of different things but that's essentially what we need is more job growth out of this market.
Dave Bragg - Green Street Advisors:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Haendel St. Juste from Morgan Stanley go ahead your line is open.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley:
Thanks. Good afternoon guys. So a couple of quick ones from me here. So first you have seen healthy trends over the last couple of quarters and we saw GAAP wide not a bit further to almost 200 basis points in for October. So my question is do you think you can maintain that 200 spread on new renewals through the weaker seasonal demand periods of 4Q, 1Q and also, can you give us some insight regional insight in some of your major regions on that new renewals that you have expect in October a spread of 200 basis points?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure this is Sean. As it relates to maintaining the spread that is a little hard to protect. We feel pretty good about the numbers that went out in terms of the offers being at the 6% range for November and December which is up about 150 basis points relative to last year. We did that based on few different things; one momentum we had and where we had in the third quarter where we were up about 50 basis points year-over-year and then in October in terms of where we are trending. In portfolio just well positioned right now. So physical occupancy is around 96%, availability is around 5% when you look at the volumes of contract of lease expirations in the fourth quarter it's down about 20% relative to last year. So you are starting to triangulate into how I feel about those renewal offers based on recent portfolio trends and in general we feel pretty good. We have also made a few adjustments in our revenue management parameters that to the extent that we are pushing too hard. Its kicks in a sooner if you want to think about it that way. But in general we feel good about the numbers we have sent out. As it relates to the individual regions, I will give you some numbers as it relates to what we did in the third quarter. I have an aggregate for the whole portfolios as it relates to the fourth quarter in terms of the offers that have been out that we are trending in October but just to give you some sense New England third quarter move in around 1% renewal in the mid fours, New York move in about 0.5 renewal just over 5 I mentioned Mid Atlantic earlier down about 2% on move-ins and up about mid 3 on renewals. And then as you move to the west coast obviously it jumps pretty dramatically as Tim mentioned earlier in the slide presentation. So specific North West move-ins around 6, renewal in the mid 8. Northern Cal move-in just over 9 it's actually a market where move-ins are actually ahead of renewals. Renewals are around 8 and in southern California base right on top of each other in the mid 5 and the renewals in the mid 5 as well.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley:
Okay. I appreciate that. Couple of clarifications now, first one can you I guess the clarification on the mechanics of your ford equity contract. If you stop below $151.74 per share contract price of the equity forward by the time you settle the contract or before what September 2015, are you responsible to make up that difference or is the risk entirely to underwriters?
Timothy J. Naughton:
We are not responsible to make up the risk. It's a fixed share forward equity contracts and so we walked in a $151.74 as the initial forward price. Going forward can only be reduced fairly two things; one is the dividend that we pay between now and then and a minor adjustment for daily interest factor. So we are not exposed to changes in future common equity pricing in terms of funding proceeds under that offering.
Haendel E. St. Juste - Morgan Stanley:
I appreciate that and one more question I have just color or commentary on the land transaction market, I was just wondering given your activity, what are seeing out there the pricing environment for well-located land that meet your criteria or sellers pulling back a bit on pricing given some of that moderating growth sort of a forward outlook that you talked about earlier on your call.
Matthew Birenbaum:
This is Mat, I guess I will take a short of that one and – it varies by market. So the most extreme example would be New York City and Manhattan right now where land prices are so high that rental economics really don't work, almost all the land of trading in Manhattan, any of the other land that is trading in Brooklyn now trading at condo evaluations. You starting to see that a little bit in San Francisco as well where the land values have gotten to a level that is pretty hard to make rental economics work. In the market, I would say it's not quite that frenzy, Boston is probably flattish compared to may be what it was a year or two ago. There’s definitely been more activity in the suburbs and some of our (inaudible) starting to look more aggressively in the suburbs as we have been for last year or two I would say. So maybe shifting a little bit from the urban to suburban area in Boston. DC it probably is off a little bit and in terms more favorable deal that you have had to close right away before now, it will give you little more time, obviously there is little bit lesser buyers from DC but not as many fewer buyers that you might think. Southern California, Seattle that's probably pretty steady land value is increasing, probably as fast as rents, it’s not faster.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Rich Anderson from Mizuho Securities.
Rich Anderson - Mizuho Securities:
Thanks, good morning, good afternoon, excuse me. Tim, at the start of the call, you said to keep eye an eye on starts activity could have another leg up. Can you say how and where Avalonbay would be prepared to react in a situation like that and sort of order of priority, what would you do? I know you mentioned more of low-rise development, more suburban development, what else might Avalon do to react to rising a pace of supply growth in your markets?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Rich, couple of things, the point I was trying make, a lot of times it contained by capital, right amount while that you see in market and just given what’s happened public market as well as the private market we are seeing equity has to be more confident about a product fundamentals, there are a couple of things and may be couple of things that are off about to supply. It has been since the late 80s remarkably stable, but I think a big part of that has been really the required—number one equity requirements the two money equity requiring the sponsor to cover this which does limit the amount of anyone sponsor can do on our balance sheet right and that I think that has had a meaningful impact in terms of keeping it relatively stable. There was a lot of (inaudible) pretty much everybody there that you talked to, are expecting to do about the same that years they did this year and a year before, in terms of starts. So you are hearing a lot of people saying I am going to wrap way up or just cut it off. There are few people trying to get little concern about construction cost maybe not quite as same when on the market as they happen but overall just a picture of stabilizing, supply it feels like they expect the case from our prospective. As it relates to what we would do, in terms of potentially wrapping up. Again, it really comes back to, it happens in a more organic way, in terms of kind of a deal by deal basis. We can always increase our target return thresholds which would maybe choke off the amount of new deals we might see. Or we can lower them. In terms of what we call (inaudible). Lower you have to have a pretty different point of view about the trajectory of the economy and perhaps may be the view that thousand suppliers just talking (inaudible). So that’s not we will have today, that's not a point of view but I think that why would you have to believe in order to think about wrapping it up.
Rich Anderson - Mizuho Securities:
Okay, so sort of self-policing in a way but what about as a really kind of thinking also about just operationally, will you be trying to shift to a lesser aggressive rent growth policy and more protecting occupancy, I mean I assume that would be the case but how fast you think you could turn that around and do you think it will be necessary any time soon?
Sean J. Breslin:
This is Sean. Let me mention a couple of things. One on average side but also on in terms of transactions, I just provide probably reasonable illustration here, the other thing I would think about is to the extent that you are talking about just more supply overall relative to say on supply goes in waves of different markets is probably being a little more nimble on the trading side of house which we were here in D.C. Over the last three years where we sold about $500 million or so of assets before the reported numbers you start to see, low, flat, negative and reallocating that capital elsewhere into the market that were ramping up, southern Cal development is an example and Northern Cal, so to the extent that you see that you see that sort of choppy from market to market, we might be more opportunistic as it relates to trading and then re-enter our market when we think things have become more fairly valued that's such one thing and then in terms of operations, I think there are number of different things we do, there is a longer list of sort of combat tactics if you want to call that that is quite too long sure on this call but one of the main things that we do is we do look at every lease duration and try to stretch that out by offering longer term leases, which we did here in the D.C. market starting about 18 months ago and so I think average lease duration for example, right now the mid-Atlantic I think is around 15 months to 16 months versus before we started that effort by prior average close to about 11. So you can always do so much of that in terms of what the customers willing to accept but you price it in a way that you try to get some penetration there and move that averaged lease duration out seeing get get through some of the big bulges and supply which we continue to refine in all of our markets but particularly when you are in little more combat mode, you work heavily on that, so that’s probably the main driver and then you always plan often terms of occupancy and rate and depending on the type of asset and where it is located and the impact on the customer base that shall be attracting, we are kind of walk a fine line there from asset to asset.
Rich Anderson - Mizuho Securities:
Great, and just one quick follow-up on somewhat unrelated but on Chrystie Place, I assume that you didn't think of the other strategy of buying out your partner, because you don’t want to kind of over-leverage yourself to New York but was that the only reason or was there something about the asset that you think topped out from a valuation perspective?
Sean J. Breslin:
Rich this is Sean, just a couple of comment and Mat and Tim in as well. I think first of as you mentioned, yes we do have pretty big presence in New York and I guess about 28% of the portfolio right now. So adding an asset of that size in entirety would be a big chunk for us and consistent with the direction we have had from an overall prospective but the second factor is the joint venture situation, we owned two assets across the street, we talked about redevelop it, you have not redevelop it, things of that sort so you start to get inherent conflicts and sometimes adventures, that it's easier to clean up when you're not 100% clear about which direction which party wants to go and you might have different view based on the portfolio that you have versus your partner. So I think that probably had a little bit to do for both us as well as just your timing in New York and the cap rates there, if you feel like that you can trade that asset roughly 3% cap rate, that's pretty attractive capital overall.
Rich Anderson - Mizuho Securities Analyst:
Was there a condo? Is there a condo application for the buyer there that you know of?
Sean J. Breslin:
Not to our knowledge at this point, no.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we will take our next question from Ryan Peterson, Sandler O'Neill go ahead sir your line is open.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill:
Just one clarification question. You noted earlier in the call that during the forward issuance your price was above NAV. Were you talking about your internal calculation of NAV?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Ryan, we don’t publish our internal calculations and just to clarify that and give little more context. A little more context, the reference was true to consensus NAV which was in the higher 140 at the time. So we are not necessarily seeking to validate that NAV, but identify that as a reference point from where we are trying to look at the common equity market. We fundamentally are developing, the funding needs to be made and from an equity prospective where there are only two choices from which to meet them, one is in the transaction market, one is in the common equity market. And so we try to minimize them as best we can and so the reference to where we did the equity forward offering was about a $156 per share which would probably 5% or 6% above that consensus NAV number, and our discount was 2 and 5%. And so in doing so, we are able to source equity capital from the common equity market at about consensus NAV and net basis.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill:
Okay, great, thanks. And then just one more question. It seems like in the back half of the year here, fundamentals accelerated but the economy, while it's doing well, seems to be on the same kind of track. Can you give us some more color as to why you think that might be the case?
Kevin O'Shea:
Ryan, to tell I guess we have actually dispute over a few things, the economy is on the same track that has been, it just probably the function of, increase in job growth and income growth. We are seeing decent wage and a salary growth which was a key assumption in our guidance this year that we are going to start to see decent wage growth and like last few months, we are seeing wage and salary growth over 5%, (inaudible) convert over 4% which is roughly consistent with the kind of the rent growth that we are seeing on markets right now. So, we think it’s a good private sector, job growth, ERC and contraction of those job here, a little bit more waver towards the middle and higher income which we hadn’t seen early in the cycle and those things are all good for company that in terms of (inaudible) higher end of the price perspective.
Ryan Peterson - Sandler O'Neill:
Thank you.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Tayo Okusanya from Jefferies & Company.
Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Company:
Yes, good afternoon. Just two quick questions from my end. The land purchases that were made in 3Q, could you just let us know where those purchases were made?
Matthew Birenbaum:
I believe one of them was ability start was deal in Framingham and one of them was actually in suburban Maryland, a deal that might start next year, a smallish garden deal and third one would provide needed the new development right we added in the Riverside San Bernardino MSA. It's actually in Chino Hills. And that was just added that the new development right this quarter but about the way land trades in Southern California that has already got it’s first agent entitlement, you have to kind of land down and then finish your CDs and get your final building permit. So that would be an expected start next year likely.
Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Company:
Got it, that's helpful. And then in regards to the $200 million of asset sales on the contract, hoping to get a sense of, again, where you're selling assets and what pricing you're expecting?
Matthew Birenbaum:
We have two wholly owned assets on the contracts, one is actually one of the legacy assets in Houston, that was part of the auction transaction which is going to be close here very shortly and the other one is in the North East that would cause early in January. Cap rates on those assets, average is probably high fours.
Tayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Company:
Okay, great thank you very much.
Operator:
And we will take our next question from Michael Salinsky from RBC Capital Markets. Go ahead sir your line is open.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets:
Hey, guys, just two quick follow-ups. Sean, you gave a whole bunch of leasing statistics. What was the change in new leases and the change in renewals actually supporting the 4.3% rent change in the quarter?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. Move ins were 3.1 and renewals were 5/4, blended to 4/3 during the Q3.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay that's helpful. And then second of all, Kevin, as we think about recycling for next year, I mean does the forward equity issuance take equity off the table next year and or will you need additional equity via asset sales? Or other means to fund the remaining portion there?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
We are still early in the budget process. So we haven’t formulated our leases for next year but what we indicated was that we plan on starting $1 billion to $1.5 billion dollar of the developments. We also have the $ 600 million of debt that is coming due next year, most of that is in November and so we do have capital needs that likely to reach $ 2 billion in total, the $700 billion presented is obviously portion of that capital need for the next year. To what degree resource, the equity needs from other sources just remains to be seen, what fraction that comes in debt those questions will be working through here over the next few months. So I don’t really have at this point any inside as to what the remaining capital next year look like and whether it may include equity from the transaction market or otherwise but in our plan is that that $700 million is essentially earmarked for next year even though we potentially issue it now.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay, does the ATM, can you issue on the ATM without drawing down the forward equity? Or do you have to draw down the forward equity before you could issue on the ATM?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
They're not linked, but the reality is we have got access to equity already today under the forward. So if we wanted fresh equity apart from the transaction market as a practical matter, we go to the four transactions.
Sean J. Breslin:
Obviously Mike which is effectively an ATM.
Michael Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets:
I appreciate the color, thanks guys.
Operator:
And we will take our last question from Karin Ford with KeyBanc Capital. Go ahead ma’am.
Karin Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets:
Hi, good afternoon. I wanted to ask about occupancy. It sounded like post quarter end, it had rebounded back up into the 96% range. Do you think you'll be able to, given the turnover trends and the acceptances of the rent increases you've seen, do you think you'll be able to hold that high occupancy level through the winter?
Sean J. Breslin:
Based on where we are trending right now, October looks pretty good. But I will say they will probably in the high 95 to 96 range as we go through the fourth quarter, so it may not hold 96% and we are pushing the rents pretty hard and if we are going to get it, (inaudible) taken a little but after occupancy as we continue to move growth potential across the portfolio, particularly in the fourth quarter which is normally seasonally weaker. So I would say here, running the model somewhere between 95.6 to 95.7 and 96 in terms of overall economic occupancy that sort of relevant range we would be targeting.
Karin Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets:
Great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
And we have no additional questions at this time.
Timothy Naughton:
Thank you, operator. I just want to thank everybody for being on the call today and I know we will see may be next week at NAREIT in Atlanta. Take care and have a good day. Thank you.
Operator:
This concludes today’s program. Thank you for your participation, you may disconnect at any time.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Member of Investment & Finance Committee Kevin P. O'Shea - Chief Financial Officer Sean J. Breslin - Executive Vice President of Investments & Asset Management Matthew H. Birenbaum - Executive Vice President of Corporate Strategy
Analysts:
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Steve Sakwa - ISI Group Inc., Research Division Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Avalonbay Communities' Second Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to introduce your host for today's conference call, Mr. Jason Reilley, Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Keith, and welcome to Avalonbay Communities' Second Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during the discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There is a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating performance and financial results. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of Avalonbay Communities, for his remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our second quarter call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. The format for the call today will be the same as the last 2 quarters. We posted a management letter and slide deck this morning on our website before the market opened. I'll be providing management commentary on the slides, then all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. My comments will focus on providing a high-level summary of the quarter's results, as well as our updated annual outlook. I'll also touch on some of the key economic and apartment market factors that are impacting performance and our outlook, including recent trends in portfolio performance. And lastly, I'll just touch on development activity, performance and funding. So let's go ahead and get started, starting on Slide 4 of the deck. Generally, performance remains in line with our business plan. In Q2, FFO growth was up around 10%. Core FFO growth was up around 5% after adjusting for nonroutine items. Same-store revenue growth was up 3.1% on a year-over-year basis and 150 basis points sequentially. If you would include redevelopment, it would be up about -- it would be up 3.3% and 160 basis points sequentially. And then on a year-to-date basis, on a year-over-year basis with a different basket, which is just the AvalonBay legacy assets, same-store revenue would be up -- it was up 3.7%, and 4.1% if you were to include redevelopment. Development completions this quarter totaled almost $200 million, with an initial projected yield of 7.3%. And we started another $400 million and 4 deals, all of which were in California. We were also active in the capital market this past quarter, having raised $440 million through a variety of sources, including the CEP. Now let's talk about the updated outlook for 2014, moving on to Slide 5. Our updated outlook is largely unchanged from our initial outlook that we issued at the beginning of the year. FFO growth has increased, but most of that is attributable to the projected Christie Place promote, which, once that closes, we'll be disclosing more detail around. That doesn't include all of our distribution from the Christie Place sale. The rest of the distribution is embedded in the gain on the revised EPS guidance, which is on our -- which represents gain on our $6 million equity investment and net asset. Core FFO growth is projected to increase by 40 basis points over our original outlook from 8.7% to 9.1%, and same-store revenue and NOI growth are largely in line with our original outlook, with some minor adjustments. And similarly, development starts and funding needs are largely unchanged at right around or just under $1.5 billion for the year. So now let's discuss some of the key economic assumptions that drive our performance and supporting our outlook. Starting with the consumer, the economy is improving and the consumer is definitely on the mend after a slow Q1. Consumer confidence is recovering, as shown in that upper left-hand slide, driven by a number of factors, including healthier balance sheets, as debt and financial obligations are at a generational low; an improving wage picture, with weekly earnings up quite a bit over the last few quarters; and a better opportunity set, with job openings up back to pre-downturn levels. Moving to Slide 7. Importantly, jobs are going to those with higher rental propensity profiles, specifically young adults, which account for about half of net jobs created over the last 6 quarters, which, we think, explains, in part, the modest housing recovery, where homeownership rates are still more than 400 basis points below peak but more than 700 basis points lower for young adults from peak. So really, it's a combination of demographics, living preferences and purchase behavior that's all favoring rental housing today. And the overall apartment demand is benefiting from the improved economy, growing confidence and demographics. Let's turn to the supply side of the picture for a couple of minutes. We are seeing deliveries trend up as expected, as shown on Slide 8. But it is -- but supply is being absorbed relatively easy by healthy markets, at least until this point. Moving on to Slide 9. And while deliveries are elevated over recent years, supply is projected to peak in 2014 and level off next year at just under 2% of inventory -- or of available stock. Metro D.C., as you can see, will remain challenged, with completions totaling almost 7% of stock during '14 and '15, with only modest job growth projected over this time frame. Moving to Slide 10. And looking beyond to '16 and after, completions should continue to flatten or taper as the multifamily starts have been flattening out over the last 2 to 3 quarters. The starts data on your left does include condo, seniors and student housing and other products. So it can sometimes mask what's actually happening in the multifamily rental market rate supplies trends, which we are actually projecting to taper off a bit in our markets starting in 2016. So why are deliveries leveling off? I think the answer is really on the right-hand side of this chart. We do think it's a combination of economics and capital availability. In terms of economics, construction costs are now outpacing rent growth since the trough, which is starting to squeeze yields a bit. And then, as you look at the overall capital picture and availability of equity capital, equity capital is starting to rotate to other sectors and is more or less neutral as it relates to our space. And yes, so overall, we look at this as a pretty disciplined market response to fundamentals where development is rising early in the cycle but begins to level off in line with structural demand mid-cycle. So let's move on. What does this all mean for our portfolio outlook? As I mentioned before, in general, our overall outlook for the year remains intact, with some regional variation. The West Coast continues to lead the way and even a bit stronger than we expected at the beginning of the year. And the Northeast, a little bit below our initial expectations. The outliers, of course, continue to be Northern California, which is still running strong in the 8% range; and Mid-Atlantic, on the other end, which is flat to slightly down for the year. But as we know, and I'm moving to Slide 12, it is a cyclical business. Market performance varies, and leadership does rotate over time. And I think Northern California and Mid-Atlantic are perhaps 2 of the best examples of markets that we've been active in for a long time. They're both strong markets, they've outperformed over -- for a long period, in this case, 15 years. But importantly, they don't move together or necessarily in the same way over the course of the cycle, which we think provides healthy diversification and helps smooth our overall growth profile. And I think this chart is a reminder, as you just looked at sort of the movement over in 5-year increments, that today's underperformers are often tomorrow's outperformers and vice versa. And while we're not sure exactly when these markets will turn, we're just pretty sure that they will. And that leadership will rotate as it has in the past. And in general, we expect most of these markets to deliver 2.5% to 3%, maybe 3.5% growth over an extended period of time. So turning to Slide 13. As it relates to what we're expecting for the balance of the year, we do expect modest improvement in the second half of the year, with Q2 representing the low-water mark for same-store revenue growth, moving from the low 3% range to mid to high 3% range in the second half, and we actually have already started to see that in June and July, where same-store revenue growth has been in the 3.5% and projected to be close to 4% and -- in July. And turning to Slide 14, I think you can see why that is, as it's really being driven by what we've been seeing in the portfolio over the last few months as same-unit rent growth has increased every month this year. And in fact, the year-to-date rent change since January has actually grown by 7% for the combined same-store portfolio. This chart is for the AVB legacy, when -- but when you look at the same -- the combined same-store portfolio since January on a sequential basis, that's grown by 7%, which is actually stronger than what we experienced last year in 2013. Turning to Slide 15. Another trend that is emerging in our markets is the outperformance of the suburban submarkets. It's something we've been projecting, given the concentration of starts and deliveries in our urban submarkets, a trend that should persist for the next couple of years as urban deliveries are expected to deliver more than 2x the rate of suburban submarkets over the next 2.5 years. This is, I think, just another example where our exposure to both urban and suburban submarkets provides just additional diversification over the course of the cycle. Shifting now to development on Slide 16. Lease-up performance remains very strong, with rents $200 above pro forma and yields up 50 basis points above original expectations. And that's on 100 -- on about $1.5 billion that's currently in lease-up across 17 communities. And performance has not come at the expense of absorption. In fact, absorption has been very strong, running at over 30 units per month per community over the last quarter. And when you look at this portfolio, along with what we've completed so far this cycle, the total is about $3 billion, which is a meaningful source of NAV and FFO accretion, as yields are averaging over 200 basis points above prevailing cap rates and over 300 basis points over initial cost of capital for capital we've sourced so far this cycle. Turning now to Slide 17. The financing environment remains very attractive to capitalize this investment. Pricing has improved since the beginning of the year, most notably for equity. Debt and asset sales, obviously, remain very attractive, and particularly relative to historical precedent. And I tell you, we believe we just have a full menu of options in front of us in terms of capitalizing very accretive investments to the development platform. Slide -- now moving to Slide 18 and the last slide of the deck. We've actually sourced all 3 of these capital markets so far this year, actually being most active in the disposition market as we continue to match-fund development commitments. Year-to-date, we've raised about $750 million, and we have about another $350 million in net proceeds pending on the disposition side, including the sale and the ultimate closing of Christie Place. That leaves remaining to fund about $300 million, and just given our current liquidity and credit metrics, we have plenty of flexibility in terms of how we choose to fund this remaining need. So in summary, 2014 is shaping up more or less as expected. There -- healthy market -- apartment market conditions continue in -- across most of our footprint. We're experiencing another year of strong growth, driven by the stabilized and lease-up portfolios. And we have the ample liquidity, balance sheet capacity and the talent to support continued value-added growth this cycle from, really, what's an incredibly attractive development pipeline of -- representing more than $6 billion in new investment. And with that, operator, we're ready to open it up for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And we'll take the first question from Nick Joseph with Citigroup.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Appreciate the updated heat map. Can you talk about the plan to fund the remaining $300 million across these 3 avenues?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure. Nick, this is Kevin. As Tim mentioned, we have -- under contract, we are marketing about $350 million of net proceeds that we expect to receive from dispositions. That leaves us about $300 million left to fund. We don't, as a matter of practice, comment with specificity on anticipated capital market or transaction market activity beyond what we've already disclosed in our press release. But I will say that, essentially, when you look at the heat map and you think about our capital alternatives in our principal funding markets that we've tapped over the years, unsecured debt, the transaction market and the common equity markets, they are all open and available to us and attractively priced. And you can probably expect us to think about accessing them over time in a relatively balanced manner, with a focus on maintaining a leverage-neutral balance sheet strategy.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Can you touch on the current leverage levels compared to the targets that you actually seek?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure. Well, there's a couple of metrics that we follow. Probably, first and foremost is net debt-to-EBITDA, which, for the second quarter annualized, was running at about 5.5x. In terms of what we're targeting on that metric, we typically seek to have it range between 5.0x and 6.0x. It's certainly been a little bit lower than that in the past and a little bit higher. So essentially, we're roughly in line with where we are targeting for that metric. Another metric we think about is unencumbered NOI, which is around 59% currently. We'd like to have that right around that level, maybe a little bit higher over time. As you know, we took on more secured debt in connection with the Archstone transaction, which shifted the mix of our debt from about a 50-50 blend of secured and unsecured more to about a 2:1 ratio secured to unsecured immediately following the transaction. We have since moved that ratio back down toward a 50-50 blend, but we're not quite there. And as we continue to shift toward -- our debt portfolio back more toward a 50-50 mix of secured and unsecured, you can expect to see that unencumbered ratio move up over time.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
And then just finally, can you talk more on the New England portfolio? It seems like that's the portfolio, the part of your portfolio that's performing the worst, relative to original expectations.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure, Nick. This is Sean. As it relates to New England, there's really 2 markets there, the Greater Boston area and then Fairfield. Fairfield has certainly been the weaker of the 2 markets, essentially flat revenue growth for Q2. And that's a combination of a couple of factors, one being the pretty meager employment growth that we've seen in that market. I think, for the last 6 months, it's been barely positive, 2,000, 3,000 jobs, as well as some meaningful supply coming into certain submarkets. And I'd highlight Stamford, in particular, where BLT is building on the waterfront and has been building and continues to build there, putting some pressure on supply in that particular submarket. So while the current environment there is somewhat challenged, I would say, over the long term, we've been pretty successful with our development franchise there. So we'll continue to be active. So that's certainly one factor. In terms of Boston, Boston essentially just got a pretty slow start, given the difficult winter, and rental rates really didn't start moving until sometime in the mid of the second quarter. And it's up just barely as you look at it even through June in terms of market rents from probably January 1 through June. So rents have been relatively flat, and occupancy has been down, so that's been a pressure in Boston. You might be thinking it's a result of some of the supplies coming online, and we have experienced a modest impact at the Prudential Center as a result of some of the new supply that's up and leasing in the urban core of Boston, but it's not been material to date in terms of performance. I'd say it's more a reflection of the very slow start to the year.
Operator:
And we'll take the next question from Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
You mentioned the lease-up assets being 50 basis points ahead of underwriting. Can you just talk about whether there's certain markets where that spread is bigger or smaller than that?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Sure, Nick. This is Matt. I can speak to that a little bit. It's actually pretty evenly spread. I mean, the place that's probably got the most dramatic outperformance is Northern California. Our AVA 55 Ninth deal, the yield there is north of a 7%, and we underwrote it to a little bit under a 6%, so that's not surprising, given the rent growth that's been going on in Northern California in the 2 years since we started that deal. But it's been -- other than that, it's been relatively consistent across the regions. The other one that I would say has been the biggest outperformer has been the Avalon Exeter, the tower -- the fourth tower, the first new product in the Back Bay there, Prudential Center, where we -- rents just greatly exceeded our initial underwriting, given the lack of really anything to comp it off of in that particular location. There really wasn't anything else that was a true luxury product in the Back Bay of that size and scale.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
And then maybe you could also talk about land prices, where they are today in, say New York City and San Francisco, obviously being affected, I guess, by condo developers. What do you think that, that does to these markets in the next couple of years as far as maybe preventing some additional apartment supply or even further sort of boosting apartment valuations in these markets?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, there's no doubt, this is Matt again, that land prices have gotten very heated in New York and San Francisco in particular. And we have not -- it's very tough for us to compete for land sites in the heart of San Francisco and in Manhattan right now. Particularly in Manhattan, pretty much all the land that's trading is trading at condo valuations. So I think you're right that there is a wave of supply coming to Manhattan now. Deals have started in the last year or 2, but it's pretty hard to make rental numbers pencil looking forward right now in that particular location. The other thing you're starting to see is people team up and do rental-condo hybrid buildings. We did buy a piece of land earlier this year in Brooklyn, not in Manhattan, where we are looking to partner in a JV with a for-sale builder, where we would build the building together. We would take the lower piece as rentals. They would the upper piece as condos. That might be one way you see folks provide some more rental product in those locations, but it does make the rental economics more difficult on the land in those urban cores.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Steve Sakwa with ISI Group.
Steve Sakwa - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
I know you're not giving a lot of detail on the Avalon Christie sale. But just to be clear, it sounds like the $0.44 gain that you're talking about is really not the full, I guess, what I'll call economic gain that you intend to receive. Is this really just a piece of it. Is that correct?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Yes, that's correct, Steve.
Steve Sakwa - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay. And I just wanted to maybe just follow up on the sequential trends that you're talking about. Obviously, you guys have a kind of ramp going into the back half of the year. I'm just curious, given the notices that you've sent out, presumably, for August, September and maybe even October, how much visibility do you have into that ramp, and what potential risks might there be?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes. Steve, this is Sean. We have pretty good visibility. I'd say a few things. One is, as Tim mentioned in his prepared remarks, we pretty much know where we are for July. It's pretty well baked, given it's July 24, and that's in the high 3% range. We also know where the renewals went out for August and September, which is in the 6.5% to 7% range, which is between 50 to 100 basis points higher than where they went out for June and July. So we have pretty good visibility on where those are trending based on sort of historical capture rates. We also have good visibility in terms of our comps, because it's baked in terms of where occupancy was in the first half of '13 versus the second half of '13, and as opposed to it being a headwind in the first half of '14, it could be a tailwind as we get into the second half. So you kind of put all those pieces together, plus the improving economic environment, everything that we're seeing in terms of job growth, unemployment rate, all the things that Tim talked about, the macroeconomic environment certainly is supportive of our plan. And we see it in the numbers, as I mentioned.
Steve Sakwa - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay. And then if I could just ask one more. On Page 9, you talked about, I guess, the peaking supply. And it sounds like you expect a little bit more to hit in '15. I'm just trying to figure out how much of that was maybe a shift of projects from '14 into '15 maybe due to delays, and how much of that was actually just kind of new starts that had maybe taken place in the middle of this year that weren't captured in your previous expectations but are now likely to hit in '15. And as you kind of look into '16, it sounds like you think that number may fall even further.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Steve. This is Tim. When we were looking at it in the beginning of the year, our projections for 2014 was right around 2% of stock and -- for '14. About 1.6% for '15. There's been a little bit of a shift from '14 to '15 just from deals getting delayed or things coming online a little bit later than we had anticipated. I'm not talking about ours, but the market. And so now the numbers are right around 1.9% and 1.8%, so there's been a net increase, call it a 10 basis points over those 2 years. And then '16 has been -- I think, at the beginning of the year, we were projecting about 1.2%. We're now close to about 1.5%. Obviously, less visibility at the beginning of the year than there is today right now. And we have been able to identify some other projects that just weren't as clear at the beginning of this year. So that's what we've talked about. We do expect some paper, but as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, development still make sense. It's a healthy business, and that's when you should add capacity into a market is when underlying fundamentals support it. And so we think structural demand can handle that, particularly given some of the things that rental housing goes -- has going for it. But we do see it leveling off. And when you start looking at that start date and peeling it back and trying to understand how much of it is multifamily for rent, and the fact -- the notion that some of that could convert over to condominium, we feel pretty good about those -- that outlook.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Jana Galan with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
On expenses, can you comment on which line items are contributing to the lower expense growth in the second half? And I think you mentioned that repairs and maintenance were a little bit front-loaded this year.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Jana. This is Sean. You're correct, the last part of your statement there, in that we expected the first half to be elevated for a number of different reasons that we alluded to in the first quarter call. In terms of some of the specific categories for the second half, it does depend on which bucket of assets you're talking about, so I'll talk about it in the context of the combined bucket, the Avalon and Archstone bucket for now. We do expect Q3 to trend down a bit as it relates to -- utilities is one, which is running at an elevated level right now for a couple of different reasons. There are some fixed costs in office ops that we know are going down in the third quarter, as an example. There's also a number of nonroutine projects as you get into the fourth quarter that come off pretty quickly in terms of -- the peak for that activity is typically during the Q2 and Q3 season, as opposed to Q1 and Q4, so it tends to ramp up in Q2, remain a little bit higher in Q3 and then fall off pretty quickly in Q4. And then there's also some costs that are trending down as it relates to some of the categories. The big one really that moves the needle is taxes. We do expect some healthy savings in taxes as you move into particularly Q4. So those are some of the major pieces that are driving it as you look at the second half of the year.
Jana Galan - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
And then I know it's still very early to make any comparisons on AVA, eaves and Avalon brands, but anything you could share there on the performance in second quarter? And then maybe just in terms of the lease-ups on AVAs versus Avalons, if you're noticing that the market sees one as more in demand.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. This is Sean. I could talk a little bit about brand performance within the regions, I think, is the best way to talk about that as opposed to overall just because market differences, West versus East, Northeast versus the Mid-Atlantic, et cetera, does make a difference. But generally, what we're seeing is the Avalon communities are outperforming in New England, New York, New Jersey and the Pacific Northwest right now. The eaves, our lower-priced communities, are outperforming in the California markets, both Northern Cal and Southern Cal. And then the Mid-Atlantic, the Avalon and eaves product is running at a pretty similar pace in terms of year-over-year growth. It's more depending on whether you're in somewhere in Maryland or Northern Virginia or D.C. is really the driving factor right now within the Mid-Atlantic as compared to product type or price point, really, at least for our portfolio, that is. And then in terms of the lease-ups, that's also somewhat market-driven in terms of which are healthier markets, higher price point communities, et cetera. There's not necessarily common thread there in terms of a particular brand outperforming in terms of lease-up pace.
Operator:
And we'll take the next question from Dave Bragg with Green Street Advisors.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
As a follow-up to Steve's question, I assume that the increase in your expectations for '16 completions is due to your very granular market-level analysis of projects that have been started so far or at least are planned. But directionally, what does this improved job growth environment and the fact that debt costs have stayed quite low, especially with more Fannie, Freddie activity, which access a takeout for developers, what do those factors mean for the outlook for starts in '15 and '16 to you?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Dave, this is Tim. As we've said, if you look at the underlying fundamentals, I'm not sure -- and then when you start comparing it to other sectors and where they are in their cycle, I don't know that we see anything that leads us to believe it ought to ramp up dramatically. But we don't see anything that leads us to believe it ought to ramp down dramatically, either. As I said in my opening remarks, I think it's been -- so far, what you've seen is a pretty disciplined market response. And frankly, since the early '90s, that's basically what we've seen in the multifamily rental business. We haven't really seen a period of oversupply, really, since the late '80s in our business. And I do attribute that quite a bit to just the quality of the data and, certainly, the visibility and transparency coming from the public companies. And again, based upon how we're looking at availability of capital, most of the REITs are trading somewhere around NAV. And as we look at the NMHC equity availability index, nothing really points to a significantly increased appetite over the last couple of years for our product.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
Okay. And another question relates to Page 15 of your presentation, the suburban versus urban performance. Where do you rate Avalon's portfolio on these metrics, urban versus suburban? What percentage of your portfolio falls in each bucket? And what are your long-term objectives for the portfolio on these metrics?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Dave. In terms of our portfolio, the stabilized portfolio is about 2/3 suburban today, about 65%, and about 1/3 urban. What's currently under construction is about 50-50. And then if you look at the development pipeline, it's about 75-25 -- the development right pipeline, it's about 75-25, tilted towards suburban. And I do want to be clear what suburban means for us, because I do think sometimes, it's a bit misunderstood. For the most part, for us, suburban is office center and inside. It's not bedroom, leafy community, and there are very few exceptions to that. And then if you look at just within our suburban footprint, a fair bit of it is TOD -- we sort of classify as TOD suburban, which is on the order of 15% to 20%, depending on whether you're looking at stabilized or developmental portfolios. So right now, about 2/3 suburban, maybe trending up 200, 300 basis points as the current development starts to lease up, and then probably starting to trend down again as the development right pipeline starts to come through the system.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
Okay, great. And the last question relates to your writeup in the management letter on West Hollywood. You mentioned 85 apartments will be marketed via your high-end Signature Collection. I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that. Is that a new brand? Or what is that offering?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
This is Matt. I guess I'll speak to that one a little bit. Really, it's -- the thought is it's a sub-brand. It is within the Avalon brand, but that -- even within the Avalon brand, there is an appetite in the market for kind of a top-niche product that serves a subsegment of the Avalon customer base. And we are actually doing a little bit of this already. There's certainly high-rise communities we have in New York and other locations where we'll take the top 2 or 3 floors, make them penthouse levels, finish them out to a different finished standard. But we're trying to create more of a program around that going forward. So over time, it will have a separate section on our website and bundle it with some other services. And we think it's actually a growing market. We have had great success with it kind of on an ad hoc basis, even in places like Rockville Centre in Long Island, where we have a number of apartments that are finished to that higher standard and -- as well as -- again, I think we'll be able to have some at the top of the building. So it's really a way that we can kind of further evolve the brand and further segment the customer.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
So it's your core customer, but at the very high end?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Exactly.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
And I think that there's senior housing in this project as well. It's not related to that, is it?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
No, it's not. You're right that the entitlement includes 77 units of affordable senior housing that we're actually developing in a partnership with a local nonprofit there, and we're going to build it for them, and then they will buy it on completion.
David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division:
And is that just a one-off incident, or should we expect to see some more of that from you?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
It's very deal-specific. We do -- as you may know, a number of our communities that we develop have an affordable component. Usually, it's anywhere 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and it's just -- those apartments are scattered within the project. But occasionally, there are sites like this where it's approved as a separate component of the community, in this case because it was seniors. And by doing it in that format, you can avail yourself of federal tax credits and other subsidies that aren't available to us as a normal REIT. So I wouldn't call it a trend. I think it was more of kind of a one-off that we might do from time to time as a way to maximize the value of a site.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Ryan Bennett with Zelman & Associates.
Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
I just wanted to follow up on the suburban, urban breakout. You said suburban is beginning to outpace urban. I was curious which markets you're starting to see that more so. And based on your current revenue growth forecast, where do you see that spread ending the year?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. This is Tim. I don't know that we have a spread for you as it relates to how it's going to perform. Maybe I'll just share a couple of other statistics, too, just in terms of how we're seeing the markets generally. As I mentioned before, in terms of apartment completions, we're expecting just a little over 5% added over the 2014 to '16 period into our markets. When you break that down between suburban and urban, suburban, we are expecting about a 3.5% addition to stock; urban, we're expecting about an 8% addition to stock. And then when you look back at 2013, those numbers were comparable, where urban added about 2% to stock and suburban a little less than 1%. And so, while we're just starting to see suburban performance outperform, we've been seeing it in the same-unit rent for some time now. You need to seize that before it actually starts translating into performance. And so if we've -- if you've heard us talk about this over the last couple of quarters, we've been talking about it pretty confidently that we expect this to happen, in part because we were seeing it in the numbers that are often, generally, the leading indicators to performance. But as it relates to specific markets, I may let Sean speak to that, but generally, across the board, we were seeing suburban outperform urban when you break it down into same-unit rent growth, whether it's D.C., whether it's New York, whether it's Boston, whether it's Seattle, whether -- even in San Francisco, where East Bay and San Jose is outperforming San Francisco. So I'd say it's pretty much an across-the-board trend.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Ryan, there's really not much else than there other than what Tim said is that, if you think about all the different markets and where the majority of the supply has been, it's been more in the urban core. And so we have seen that in terms of effective market rent growth over the past couple of quarters that is slowly bleeding into revenue growth.
Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Got it. Appreciate the color there. And one last one for me, just on Slide 11, just curious how this slide would look in terms of your market-level outlook for the second to fourth quarter for the Avalon and the Archstone assets, if there was any significant differences in terms of your revisions when you tighten the overall same-store guidance.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Ryan. This is Sean. There are some differences in terms of overall performance. We've not necessarily provided all the detail in terms of the -- all the Archstone-level detail, market by market. We've provided, at this point, the AvalonBay bucket year-to-date, which we'll continue to report on, as well as the combined bucket on a year-over-year basis. But in terms of the differences within the respective markets, I'd say where probably it's most pronounced in terms of the gap is really in the Mid-Atlantic, and that's purely a function of portfolio allocation. If you look at the Archstone portfolio that has come in the same-store, 95% of that is -- based on revenue, is in Northern Virginia and D.C., as compared to about 65% for the legacy AvalonBay portfolio. And what's outperforming right now in Metro D.C. is suburban Maryland. So that's probably the most pronounced difference in terms of performance, just a little bit in New York in terms of -- same thing, portfolio allocation, where we've got 2 big Archstone assets in Midtown West that are exposed to a little more near-term supply as compared to the legacy Avalon portfolio, which is mainly the Bowery, Morningside Heights, Brooklyn supporting a little bit better revenue growth. So without going through every single market, those are probably 2 that are the pretty good examples of where the variance is.
Operator:
And we'll take the next question from Alexander Goldfarb with sandleroneill.com.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Just quick -- 2 quick questions here. First, just following up on the earlier question on the Northeast. If you look at what the environment was like at the beginning of the year, I mean, Fairfield County wasn't in any great shape. Obviously, the development that's going on in Stamford Harbor Area has been going on for quite some time, and the winter was well known and was ongoing. So just sort of curious why you guys thought that New England collectively would do better when it seems to be performing as we'd expect.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Alex. Sean. I mean, certainly, when we provided our original outlook in January, we didn't necessarily have a sense of what would be happening with the full extent of the winter and the contraction in the economy that occurred in the first quarter that was not anticipated. So our belief is that, particularly in Boston, things would be quite a bit stronger than they are today. In terms of Fairfield, we did not expect to have significant outperformance there by any stretch. And I'd say it's been relatively closer to our expectations. What's underperformed is really Boston. I don't think there's a material change in Fairfield. We thought it'd be a little bit better job growth, to be honest, and there really has been almost 0. So Boston is really the market in New England where it's underperformed our expectations that we originally set back at the beginning of the year.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Okay. And then going to the heat map, appreciate the changes, especially in equity. I doubt we'll ever see the equity at near 100 on your heat map. But just given how the stock has rebounded, obviously, you guys retapped the HEM. At the same time, market still seems pretty healthy for dispositions. And obviously, a desire -- as you guys did with Danvers and you did with Christie Place, there's still a desire to capitalize lock-in value that you created. How do you balance dispositions, which are still healthy, versus taking advantage of your stock, which is up over 20% year-to-date, and using more equity going forward? The heat map aside, just how do you consider that tradeoff, given where you were not even 6 months ago?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. I may start out with a couple of comments, and Tim may want to add something. But essentially, the heat map does provide some insight as to how we think about the question, although it's certainly not as positive. And as to the equity component of where we're showing it now, there's actually 4 subcomponents that we track that feed into that overall number. And probably, of those 4 subcomponents, as you might expect, the one that's most important to us from a standpoint of just assessing the relative attractiveness of issuing common equity would be how our shares are trading relative to NAV. And so we look at that relative to consensus NAV, as well as our own estimate, which, as you know, we don't publish. But just tracking it relative to consensus NAV, that green is at a higher level than what you see as the overall rating and more in line with where you see assets trading on the heat map. I guess, for us, it's ultimately not a binary choice of -- between whether we're going to issue equity or fund equity through asset sales. As you know, looking back at our company's history, we've typically traded a slight discount to NAV, call it about 3%. And not surprisingly, over time, we've funded development activity, primarily -- at least the equity component of development activity, through selling assets and recycling the balance sheet. It's an approach that's worked very well for us. It's an approach that we're very comfortable with going forward. But from time to time, when it makes sense to tap the equity markets, we're prepared to do so. So we do look at the relative implied cap rate on issuing shares versus the realizable cap rates that we have on dispositions and take a look at those. We also effect both yields or prices for asset sales versus issuing common equity by transaction costs, which can be meaningful in the case of transaction costs and also meaningful in the case of issuing equity to the extent it's done in a marketed deal where you have both investment banking fees and investor discounts in the equation. So we look at that really on a net-net basis to see what's more attractive. There's also portfolio considerations that come into play in terms of our desirability to sell assets and enhance the portfolio and our exposure to given submarkets. So at the end of the day, there's an awful lot of factors that we bring to the equation. Those are some of the things we think about. But going forward, in an environment where we're trading at or above NAV, it's reasonable to expect that were going to look at both the possibility of issuing equity and the selling of assets as attractive and try to make the best decision from a pricing standpoint and a portfolio perspective.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Alex, maybe just one thing I'd add is just the time-to-market, too, on the dispositions, that we take that into account as well, as well as tax considerations. But I think Christie Place is a good example of that, where you need certain agency approvals. And it takes several months to get a -- from the time you actually price the transaction to the point at which you actually can bring the proceeds in. So that is a factor, as well, as we think about how we tap different sources of capital at different points during the year or during the cycle.
Operator:
And we'll take our next question from Rich Anderson with Mizuho.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
So you've shown some willingness to think above -- in front of the curve with your suburban kind of mindset versus urban. Can the same kind of thought process be applied to asset sales? That is, when do you start thinking about selling, actually, in San Francisco and Seattle and investing a bit more in D.C. and making that early-stage trade before things start to turn in the opposite direction?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Rich, this is Tim. Absolutely. We actually, as you know, were pretty big sellers in the Mid-Atlantic 2, 3 years ago. And I think we have to remind ourselves that the underperformance in D.C. has been 2 quarters now. We've been talking about it coming for about 2.5, 3 years, I think, as an industry because you could just see the supply kind of coming through the system. But in terms of really actual underperformance, it's been really mostly the last couple of quarters. So we did take -- obviously, we tried to take advantage of it a couple of years ago in the D.C. market in terms of selling. But we'll look to take advantage of it on the buy side, as well. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, most of these markets have -- we think they're great markets. We love them all. Sometimes, we like some of them at different points in the cycle than others. And we should be willing to sort of trade off of when we think sort of market sentiment gets a bit distorted as it relates to asset value. So it -- that factors a lot into how we've been thinking about the fund business, where you're -- it's a real limited-life vehicle. You just really have very few windows to sort of pull the trigger. I'd say it's maybe a little less pressing on -- in terms of the balance sheet, in terms of an open-ended entity like a REIT is. But it's still something that we talked a lot about in terms of which assets and when and how to play the cycle. And ultimately, we are looking to differentiate ourselves in terms of capital allocation, and that's one aspect of capital allocation.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Okay. How close do you think we are to a trigger point in San Francisco?
Sean J. Breslin:
Rich, this is Sean. We've been evaluating dispositions in, I'll say, kind of group Northern California and Seattle for some period of time. We've taken a few chips off the table, both directly and indirectly. We sold a large asset in San Jose last year. We sold a fund asset that was pretty large in San Francisco. I think one of the things that we're thinking about for San Francisco proper, if that's what you're really referring to, is there may be some option value there at some point in terms of condo activity. We've not seen that in any meaningful way in San Francisco at this point, but we have seen some activity in New York. We've also seen a couple of deals here in D.C. shift from rental to condo. And particularly, given the TOPA rules in D.C., you want to do that basically when you're completing the building, before you lease it up, so you don't have that restraint. So San Francisco, we're keeping our eyes open. But I'd say at this point, we think there may be good value there in terms of a condo exit at some point for some assets. So we're not hot to pull the trigger in terms of that particular market in terms of near-term dispositions. But, I mean, we're always evaluating all the markets. As Tim said, we look at a lot of different factors. We look at where rents are relative to the long-term trend. We look at forward IRRs on every asset in our portfolio as we develop our disposition pool and how's that capital priced relative to other sources of capital. And we try to be as opportunistic as we can. So you're right. We sold, I think, probably around $400 million in assets in D.C. over the last 2 or 3 years, knowing kind of the current environment was coming. But there hopefully will be a window at some point where we see pricing and expectations change in D.C., and it might be a good entry point. And for acquisitions, I think we think of using them 2 ways. One is to kind of reshape the portfolio in terms of portfolio trading. But also, at certain entry points of the cycle, to be -- to acquire assets when they're trading at discounts relative to where we think they should. So sort of a long-winded answer, but hopefully, that makes some sense. And Tim might have a couple of other things to add.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. Rich, just one other thing to keep in mind on San Francisco or any California assets, I think the underlying difference between intrinsic value and market value needs to be a bit more distorted because of the whole Prop 13 and the frictional cost that you have with the mark on the taxes. I mean, it can be as -- it can impact cash flow by as much as 10% when you mark these -- when you mark taxes fully to market.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Okay. Next question is, just looking at Slide 5, why is it that the Archstone and conclusion of the Archstone portfolio, at least the math suggested a better operating margin there in that portfolio versus legacy AVB. What's the situation there? Why is that happening?
Sean J. Breslin:
Rich, this is Sean. Let me talk just generally about the difference in terms of the portfolio. In terms of the operating margins, specifically, if that's what you're looking at, the main driver of that is taxes. In terms of -- obviously, the Archstone taxes are pretty much reset upon acquisition as opposed to the legacy AvalonBay portfolio. So there are some other subtle differences, but that would be the main driver in terms of margin, if that's the specific metric you're concerned about.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
I was just looking at how it changed from the original forecast. Right, it seems to have...
Sean J. Breslin:
In terms of the operating...
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Extrapolate -- exacerbated to some degree since the original forecast.
Sean J. Breslin:
In terms of overall expense growth, it's savings on taxes.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Okay, okay, okay. Okay, got you. All right. And then last question is, the topic of senior housing was brought up and couldn't help but ask the question to Tim about if he's learning anything on his seat at the HCN Board of Directors and if there's any coincidence there.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. There's -- it has nothing to do with sitting on the board of Health Care REIT. So no, that was just an entitlement requirement when we stepped into the deal that already -- where the approval has already been started by another developer in the case of West Hollywood, if that's what you're talking about, Rich.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Yes. But are you learning anything? Is there anything that you can apply from your experience there to AvalonBay?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Absolutely. Any time you step on a board of another company, you learn a lot of things about how -- about their business and how you might apply it. I don't know if there's anything there as it relates to -- which is primarily assisted housing, to market rate rental, where the customer is about 50 years difference in age. But even in terms of how you think about capital and how you think about organizations and strategy, for sure.
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Are you thinking about U.K.?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Are we thinking about U.K., as in United Kingdom?
Richard C. Anderson - Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Research Division:
Yes.
Timothy J. Naughton:
We are not considering other markets at this time, if that's what you're asking.
Operator:
And we'll take the next question from Andrew Rosivach with Goldman Sachs.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Just a speed round here for Kevin. When you do your capital allocation and you're deciding whether or not to sell shares, I've got $20 on my price target that's associated with, essentially, the value of your development franchise. And do you take that into account? Because when you're selling an asset, you're just selling the income rather than this underlying development business that, as far as I can tell, is adding heck of a lot of value.
Kevin P. O'Shea:
When we look at our own NAV, we do take into account the value from -- off of our development platform.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay. Because it just sounded like you were going for a consensus NAV, which just would mark-to-market the existing development rather than treating it like it's a recurring business.
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure. In terms of -- well, there's -- the methodology that people use in their own NAVs varies from analyst to analyst. But you're correct that most of them typically focus on in-place NOI and the value of development underway and don't necessarily ascribe value to the development platform per se.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. Andrew, this is Tim. I think I understand what you're getting at. And as Kevin mentioned before, for whatever reason, we've traditionally traded at around 3% discount to NAV. And so just -- yes, we think there's value there. The market doesn't generally give you credit for it. And if we were only to raise equity when we thought the market was giving us credit for it, we'd never be raising equity. We wouldn't be growing. We wouldn't be doing new development. So it is a reason why we use dispositions pretty aggressively in terms of recycling capital, as well as expanding the balance sheet and looking to the unsecured markets, as well as we grow -- as we grow EBITDA and, therefore, are able to expand the balance sheet through debt. But equity just still needs to be part of the equation if we're going to be able to grow accretively, which we have a wonderful opportunity set, particularly this cycle in front of us, to do so through development. So we'd like the market to give us that full $20 credit that you've got in your model, but it -- the market, for whatever reason, has been a little bit of a "show me" market, and we get credit for it, it seems like in arrears, not an advance.
Andrew Leonard Rosivach - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Yes, it's the problem -- every time you issue that share, what -- that share of that $20 gets split over a larger pool, so I just wanted to ask.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes.
Operator:
And we'll take the next question from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Just a quick question. Just -- we haven't talked about L.A. here, but just curious if you could comment on what you're seeing there. It does seem like, just looking at the rental rate growth year-over-year, it did slow down there a little bit more than average for the rest of the portfolio. Just curious if you have any commentary on that.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes. Vince, this is Sean. In terms of L.A., it really is a function of where you're playing. And for us, what's outperforming right now is really the eaves product, lower price point communities, as I mentioned earlier in response to another question. So we've got a number of communities in the Claremont and even some of the lower price point communities in the Pasadena submarket that are outperforming, one in Cerritos. What's underperforming a little bit right now is generally areas where we're getting a little more supply. It's a little bit on the west side
Operator:
And the next question comes from Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Just following up on Boston, if you could talk in particular about the Assembly Row assets and just how those are leasing up relative to expectations.
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. Tayo, this is Sean. I'll talk a little bit about the general velocity. Overall, as you can probably tell from reading through the release, construction has been a little bit challenged at that particular asset. When we initially started the asset, part of the winter was challenged in terms of site conditions. It's also a community they we're building with retail in conjunction with the Federal. So construction has been -- it's probably been one of our more challenging construction executions in terms of the portfolio, in terms of what's happening there. In terms of leasing velocity, now that we have actually delivered product there, it's actually been pretty good in terms of actual leasing absorption velocity. We put 38 a month on the books at that community in terms of leasing velocity and 31 in terms of absorption. So now that we've actually got the product on the ground, it looks good, velocity has been healthy at the product there.
Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
And on rent, kind of trending around $3 per square foot or so?
Sean J. Breslin:
Rents for -- there's 2 different product types there, so I'm not sure which one you might be referring to.
Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
The AvalonBay product, not the...
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes. Tayo, this is Matt. I guess the -- what we're showing, this is one of our dual-brand communities. So I know there's been some talk about the rents, and I think even Federal talked about them. But the average rent that we're showing in the release this quarter is $2,405. That number reflects the Avalon component of the project, which is about half of it, which is substantially leased, and that's been running ahead of pro forma by more than that amount. Then the AVA building, which is the back half of the project, we really just started leasing there, and we have not yet marked those rents to market because we haven't leased 20% of the AVA component yet. So I guess what I would say is there's more lift to come in those rents there, and I would expect, next quarter, that number would move up as we mark those AVA rents to market. But we haven't actually -- we've leased 10% of the AVA building, but we actually haven't been able to show anybody an AVA apartment yet. It's all been -- that piece has all been off of plans. And the AVA story, you really have to see it and feel it to fully experience it. So I think that we have good momentum there, and you can expect further growth there as we complete the lease-up.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes. And Tayo, this is Sean again. I think they rents per foot are in the high $2 range. I'm not sure we put $3 yet there. But as we deliver the rest of the product and get the AVA online, we should have a better sense of whether we'll get through that or not and mark the rents to markets.
Operator:
We'll take the next question from Karin Ford with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division:
Any changes in cap rates in recent months in your markets? And as you're weighing changes in construction costs, economic outlook and the decline in your capital cost, can you just update us on your latest thoughts on sizing the development pipeline over the medium term?
Sean J. Breslin:
Karin, this is Sean. I'll take the first one, and then I'll let Tim and Matt comment on the second one. In terms of the cap rates, I'd say they're relatively level to slightly down in some markets, probably a function of supply, just availability of deals on the market more than anything else, as well as, obviously, the drip-down of the tenure has supported pretty good access to cheap debt capital, which Kevin showed on the heat map in terms of we can access on the unsecured markets, but also in terms of the secured markets. All of the options are pretty wide open in terms of the GSEs, which were once 90% of the market, are now pretty much about half or less. But banks, life companies, everybody else is pretty much wide open on the debt side and supporting relatively low cap rates overall and still generating nice returns on equity. So the debt markets are wide open. Supply of available deals has been a little bit constrained. So I'd say it's neutral to slightly down, down 10, 20 basis points, depending on a particular market and the availability of assets to trade. And then in terms of the development, Tim can take that.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. Thanks to Sean. And in terms of targeted net levered IRRs, we're still seeing this kind of mid-6 or so range for core product at our market. In terms of deals that we're looking at, I mean, less are sort of hitting the target return, probably driven a lot by land cost. Matt had spoken to that before. But looking at returns, and target returns are only part of the equation, as you get deeper into the cycle, just the projected basis goes up when you look at the combination of land and construction cost. So just by -- just due to those things, less sort of get through the screen, if you will. And so we do expect it. And you probably notice, on the development right pipeline, it's actually come down by about $500 million over the last couple of quarters as we started to start deals and haven't replaced them at the same level. And that is partly by intention, and it's partly due to the -- frankly, due to the opportunity set. So we do expect, as we said at the beginning of the year, development underway to peak around now will slowly work its way down, I think, over the next couple of years. Probably not going to go to 0, but we're probably at the peak today in terms of what's underway.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll take our next question from Michael Salinsky with RBC Capital Markets.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Just in the interest of time, I just had 2 quick follow-up questions. First of all, you gave new lease rents in the management letter. What were renewals that were actually signed during the quarter? And then also, Kevin, it looks like in July, you sold the last Fund I asset. I know you were holding the debt there to kind of repay that. Is there going to be a promote recognized on that when that's finally wound down?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Go ahead, Sean.
Sean J. Breslin:
Mike, it's Sean. In terms of the rent change during the quarter, 3.6% was the blended. It's 4.8% on renewals and 2.2% on move-ins, if that was the highlight you're looking for.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Yes.
Kevin P. O'Shea:
And Mike, this is Kevin. In terms of Fund I, yes, you're correct, we sold the last and 20th asset in Fund I in July. So there are no assets left in that vehicle. We'll be winding it up here, distributing final cash in the coming months. In terms of whether there'll be a promote, we do not expect there to be a promote on Fund I. As you may recall, we put that vehicle in place in 2005. So like many funds from that vintage, its returns were not strong enough to realize a promote, but they were still positive. And on a net levered IRR basis to our investors, we expect to give them a mid-single-digit net levered IRR, which would probably for assets -- for closed-end funds of that vintage, would place it in the top third or so of closed-end funds, all geographies, all product types.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Mike, if I can just add something to what Sean was saying. I mean, what Sean said was accurate with 2.2% on move-ins for the quarter. But the one chart that showed same-unit rent numbers going up through the course of the year, that is almost all coming from increases in new move-in rents, which I think is important when you're talking about health of markets. In fact, June and July are more in the 2.8% to -- and 3.3% range, so well above what the average was in Q2 and well above the 1% to 1.5% range that we saw at the beginning of the year. Renewals have actually been relatively flat -- healthy, but flat during the course of the year. So that, Slide 14, that upward trajectory is really coming all on the backs of new move-in, which is what we think it's important as you move into the second half of the year and part of what gives us confidence in terms of our outlook for the balance of the year.
Operator:
And we'll take our last question as a follow-up from Nick Joseph from Citigroup.
Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Yes. It's actually Michael Bilerman. Just a couple of quick ones. Just on the $350 million of disposition proceeds in the back half of the year, I've got to assume if that includes the promote in Christie Place. The blended cost of that capital is extraordinarily low, call it, I don't know, 3%. Is that sort of ballpark where we should think about the cost of that capital?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Yes. It -- Michael, this is Kevin O'Shea. So in terms of the promote from Christie, the proceeds that we receive, the cash proceeds that we would receive from selling Christie, are included in that $350 million of net proceeds from dispositions that you referenced. In terms of the cost, in the case of Christie, it would probably be more because, as you'll see in the attachment in our supplemental work that detail NOI from our various ventures, we are and have been for some time in the cash flow promote portion of that promote for Christie. So we've been receiving a cash flow promote off of Christie for some time. So when you blend that all in, while the cap rate itself may be quite attractive from an FFO perspective, the cost of selling Christie is higher than what you are estimating. And from our point of view, certainly, that cost is something we thought about. It's not a positive, if you will. But promotes themselves are very dependent on current market values and are -- themselves can be short-lived and based -- and disappear with changes in the capital markets environment. So from our standpoint, on a net basis, it was desirable to monetize the position in that venture, from our perspective, in order to access that promote in the current environment.
Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Right. So on that $350 million, the cost of that capital is what?
Sean J. Breslin:
This is Sean, Mike. One piece of it I can address is the dispositions that are in the pipeline. Just to give you a rough sense of those communities, setting aside Christie for the moment, the cap rate is probably in the sub-5% range for a blend of the assets, excluding Christie. And given the status of where we are in Christie Place, we're just not at a point to be too precise as to what we think the real cost of that is until the transaction closes and we can provide a little more detail.
Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
And then just a clarification, just in terms of the operating expense change between the 2 pools, you've talked about taxes being an impact. But isn't it the weather impact in the first quarter that's impacting the legacy Avalon portfolio now that you've rolled that -- you've updated it, effectively inclusive of the high weather-related expenses in the first quarter that obviously don't impact the 2Q to 3Q -- 4Q in terms of Archstone. Is that the main difference between the 2?
Sean J. Breslin:
Well, there's the difference in taxes, as well, so you have a difference in taxes. So if I had to separate them in terms of the expense growth, what's benefiting the Archstone portfolio the most is taxes. And it doesn't have issues associated with the change we have in our business practice related to utilities, which is the pressure that's coming through on the Avalon portfolio. So Archstone, main benefit, call it taxes. AvalonBay legacy portfolio is burdened by a number of factors, including the items that you talked about in terms of weather-related utilities, the change in the business practice that's putting pressure on utilities as well, as well as upward pressure on taxes. So it has the opposite of the Archstone portfolio in terms of taxes, more pressure on taxes in the AvalonBay portfolio that we've seen. Things start to shift as we move into the second half of the year, as you pointed out. The majority of the Archstone benefit in taxes has come through in the second quarter, but there is some remaining benefit in the third and fourth quarter. In addition, on the Archstone portfolio, because of when we acquired the asset and the way we treat certain expenditures, they were capitalized in the first portion of '13, and they were expensed in the first portion of '14. So that put upward pressure on Archstone that we won't have in the second half. So as you go through each one, there's different things driving the year-over-year comparisons. And if you want to talk about it in more detail, certainly, give me a call and I could walk you through it, but those are some of the main highlights.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes. And Mike, just one last -- I think, as Sean -- as you can tell from Sean's comments, there's just some noise -- there's going to be some noise in the Archstone portfolio for -- on a year-over-year basis, may have less of those as you get to the end of the year than we did in the middle of the year. But we thought it was still better to try to provide a more expansive same-store portfolio for the last 3 quarters, despite there are likely to be more noise in those numbers. But we'll do our best to explain the noise as we move through the year and so some people have good terms sense of it.
Operator:
This concludes today's Q&A session for your program. I'll turn the call back over to Tim Naughton for any closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well, thank you. And thanks, everybody, for being on the call today, and I hope everyone has a great rest of the summer and look forward to seeing you at many industry events here once fall comes around. Have a great day.
Operator:
This concludes today's program. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at any time.
Executives:
Jason Reilley - Director of Investor Relations Timothy J. Naughton - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Member of Investment & Finance Committee Thomas J. Sargeant - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Matthew H. Birenbaum - Executive Vice President of Corporate Strategy Sean J. Breslin - Executive Vice President of Investments & Asset Management Kevin P. O'Shea - Executive Vice President of Capital Markets Sean M. Clark - Senior Vice President of Asset Management/Redevelopment
Analysts:
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division David Bragg - Zelman & Associates, LLC Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division George Hoglund - Jefferies LLC, Research Division Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division Paula J. Poskon - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division
Operator:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' First Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I'd now like to introduce your host for today's conference call, Mr. Jason Reilley, Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin.
Jason Reilley:
Thank you, Allen, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' First Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at www.avalonbay.com/earnings, and we encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q1 call. Joining me today are Tom Sargeant, Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin and Matt Birenbaum. As all of you know, I'm sure at this point, this is Tom's last earnings call in his glorious career here at AvalonBay. Tom's been here for 28 years with Avalon and Trammell Crow Residential before that the last 19 as a CFO. And as you all know, Tom just has been a great steward and leader with really an unprecedented track record as a CFO in the REIT industries. So I think, I speak for everyone on both sides of this call and tell Tom we'll miss him and we wish him the best in his retirement. So in terms of the format for the call, we're going to do it the same way as we did last quarter. We received a lot of favorable feedback from our format last quarter. And earlier this morning, we did post a management letter and a slide deck before the market opened. I'll be providing management commentary on the slides and then all of us will be available for Q&A afterward. My comments will focus on providing a high-level summary of the quarter's results, providing management's perspective on the economic in apartment cycle. I'll then focus a bit on redevelopment and corresponding impacts on portfolio performance. This scenario, we believe it's not that well understood by the markets, stuff that we've been talking about a little bit recently in private conversations with many of you. And then lastly, I'll touch on development performance and funding so far this cycle, an area that we think we'll increasingly differentiate our performance as the cycle matures. So with that, let's get started. I'm going to turn to Slide 4 with a review of Q1 results. Q1 -- in Q1, we posted a solid OFFO growth of around 8% per share driven in part by healthy same-store revenue growth of 3.7%, which was up a bit from 3.5% reported last quarter. In addition, was helped by the completion of $100 million in new developments, which is stabilized at an initial yield of more than 7%. We also started 4 communities totaling $300 million in Q1 and raised a like amount of capital, approximately $300 million in a combination of variable rate debt and dispositions with an initial cost of capital of right around 2.5%. Turning to Slide 5, we believe this cycle has room to run for both the economy and the apartment industry. Job growth is really only at the point now where the economy is just recovered the 8 million jobs it lost from the last downturn. And while cumulative job growth so far this cycle is similar to last cycle, it's only about 1/4 of what we experienced in the 90s, when we had a longer economic cycle. And so from our standpoint, the labor market is up, plenty of capacity to support economic growth. When you look at the apartment segment, just look at the rent growth, rent's are only about 5% nationally above prior peak, which occurred 6 years ago. And cumulative rent growth, this expansion, again, while 2/3 of what we saw in the 2000s is only about 20% of what we've experienced in the 1990s. Turning to Slide 6, we think the private sector should help sustain economic growth as well. Profits are still increasing, so that retained earnings are providing capital and liquidity to help sustain additional economic growth. And generally, economic expansions have continued 2 to 4 years after profits have actually reached their peak during the cycle. As companies eventually put profits and cash to work that they earned early in the cycle. Turning to Slide 7, we think the apartment markets and trends in the apartment markets are actually consistent with the cycle that is in the mid-innings. When you look at both rents and replacement costs, they're largely on trend, at least a trend experienced over the last 15 or 16 years. Such that we believe the current activity and investment levels are not reflective, currently, of an overheated market that would normally lead to a correction, but are actually at quite normalized levels. And in our view, supports a thesis that -- of apartment markets that are largely in equilibrium, but at a very healthy level. This is a further reinforced when you look at the supply/demand fundamentals going forward, just turning to Slide 8. Over the next 3 years, we expect job growth -- are on the right-hand side of this chart, to be largely in line with deliveries. And the supply projection actually doesn't net out units taken out of service or lost to obsolescence. It also includes, by the way, this is our markets. It also includes the imbalances we know that are -- that exist in D.C. And it ignores or doesn't take into account just the unusually low level of single-family supply that we're experiencing today. Similarly, on the demand side, we're just looking at jobs here, we're not considering the pent-up demand from significant household consolidation that we saw during the correction or the higher share of multifamily households that are supported by demographics. So when you just look at jobs versus new supply, it's looks it's about equilibrium, but I think, there's a reason to believe that's even better than that when you drill down underneath those 2 things. And then as you look versus the last 3 year, certainly not as favorable, but the last 3 years benefited from an unusually low level of supply, when supply needed to be low, as excess inventory was being burned off in the housing sector. And we're now at a point where we believe excess inventory has been absorbed throughout the housing sector. We're basically at a period where markets are in balance today. So turning to Slide 9 and how does this impact our portfolio. We look at the same unit rent growth after a weak December and January, which saw weak job numbers as well. We started to see March and April rebound back to levels that were similar to what we experienced in 2013. Importantly, we continued to gain momentum throughout the quarter and into April. So overall, not too different than what we experienced a year ago in the same-store portfolio. Turning to Slide 10, I'd like to shift now and talk a little bit about redevelopment and how it can impact portfolio performance. As you know, AvalonBay does not include redevelopment in the same-store bucket for reporting purposes. We separate out redevelopment in its own bucket, as we believe it's a meaningful line of business, where we've been investing a fair bit of capital over the last few years. But we do recognize that most of the industry, if not all, do include redevelopment for the purposes of reporting. And so for the purpose of comparison, we thought it would be helpful to take a look at what would happen if we included redevelopment in our same-store bucket from a reporting standpoint. And as you could see, it would add about 30 to 60 basis points over the last 3 years, 2011 to '13 to same-store revenue growth if it were included and about 20 basis points in the first quarter of this year. Turning to Slide 11, same-store revenue then would have increased by about 40 basis points from 5.1% to 5.5% over the last 3 years if redevelopment were included in the same-store bucket. And the same-store NOI would have increased about 60 basis points or about 100 basis points above the sector. And when you look at and compare it to the sector, turning to Slide 12, at 7.5% NOI growth over those 3 years, that would have placed AvalonBay towards the top of the sector or at the top of the sector. We get about 100 basis points above the sector average over the last 3 years. Now we're just providing this analysis for cross comparability purposes. Obviously, it is dependent upon the level of redevelopment by -- being undertaken by us, as well as the comps, so it's hard to know how comparable it is. But frankly the same is true, when if we exclude redevelopment from our same-store bucket and others are including it, it equally makes that a tough to compare performance by looking at same-store metrics alone and it's something we've been talking about with many of you over the last couple of quarters. It's not our intention to change our reporting. We think it, as I've mentioned before, we do think it's meaningful to separate out redevelopment to give visibility into the same-store portfolio performance and overall portfolio performance. But we will provide the information in a footnote for cross comparability purposes as we did this quarter. Now I'll touch -- moving to Slide 13, I want to touch on development and funding activities so far this cycle. So far, we've started about $4.5 billion in new developments, about $1.4 billion that's been completed to date at an initial stabilized yield of 7.4%. And we have another $1 billion in lease-up that is currently projected to yield around 7.3%. So about $2.5 billion, or a little more than 1/2 of what has been started so far this cycle earning yields that are projected to be in the mid-7% range. Against funding of about $5 billion or almost $5 billion so far this cycle that has been raised at an average initial cost of 4.3% or spreads of about 300 basis points of development so far and it's been -- where we have lease-up visibility on, at least leasing visibility on relative to the cost of capital that we've raised so far this cycle. At current spreads, $1 billion in annual completions we'd about 300 to 400 basis points to annual FFO growth. Which by the way is consistent with and explains much of our outperformance over the long term versus the sector. From an NAV perspective, $4.5 billion started so far this cycle is projected to translate into total asset value north of $6 billion or roughly the value of BRE upon the sale of Essex, which represents just 4 years worth of starts. Obviously, this growth platform's a powerful growth engine, both in terms of company scale, as well as earnings and NAV growth. Turning to Slide 14, it's certainly the case this year, as we're projected to deliver over 5,000 apartments throughout the course of the year. This will help fuel earnings growth for the balance of the year. In fact in the second half of the year, lease-up community NOI, net of incremental capital costs, will contribute about as much growth to FFO as the stabilized portfolio compared to the first half the year. So development's contributing meaningfully to -- our lease-up communities are contributing meaningfully to FFO growth in 2014, particularly, based upon the kind of spreads that I was talking about earlier. Shifting to Slide 15, we continue to match-fund this pipeline. In fact about 80% of all development and redevelopment underway is already capitalized with permanent capital, leaving only about $600 million left to be funded. And when you look at -- turning to Slide 16, in addition to locking in attractive investment spreads, match funding results in improved credit metrics as development stabilizes, even if 100% of unfunded commitments is financed with debt. The $3 billion pipeline currently underway, about $2 billion of which is incurred, is generating very little current cash flow, but is projected to deliver ultimately about $220 million in incremental EBITDA versus an incremental capital need of about $600 million. So even if that $600 million was funded entirely with debt, on an incremental basis, you're talking about debt-to-EBITDA of only about 3x, which would -- which actually would enhance overall metrics bringing down debt-to-EBITDA from 5.7x to a projected level of 5.3x, which is based upon hypothetical case, where you know it's in essence you would use to spend new starts, but complete the existing pipeline with 100% debt. But I think this gives a bit of an insight into some of the additional benefits of match funding the pipeline as we go along, in addition, to locking in attractive spreads. So in summary, we're off to a good start in 2014. Healthy apartment fundamentals continue and we believe markets are poised to enter a prolonged period of equilibrium similar to what we experienced in the 1990s. Operating performance remains strong and we believe has been near or top of the sector so far the cycle. The development platform is providing a meaningful source of earnings and NAV accretion that will further differentiate our performance as the cycle matures. And is being supported by a strong balance sheet with a very conservative funding strategy that insulates us from capital market volatility and locks in attractive investment spreads. So with that, operator, we'll open it up for questions, and we're ready to hear questions. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] We'll first go to David Toti with Cantor Fitzgerald.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Tom, first of all, thank you for the pleasure of working with you all these years. We'll miss you and we wish you well.
Thomas J. Sargeant:
Thank you, David.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
And I guess my first question, I've got a couple of detail questions. The first one has to do with the notation that you're looking at moving a little bit more towards suburban markets in some of your development strategies. And I guess, I wonder, number one, is there -- do you think there'll be a materially impact to the portfolio metrics in terms of rent growth and aggregate price points? And number two on that is, doesn't that kind of buck the trend of an increased urbanization among younger demographics today?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well, maybe I'll start with the second part, and Matt, maybe, if you fill out in terms of the impact and how it's impacting our portfolio metrics? In terms of bucking the trends, David, from a demand standpoint, we agree that there continues to be some urbanization, we don't think it's -- we don't think people exclusively want to live downtown. There's still demand in the suburbs. I think, you're even starting to see employment and office space start to absorb reasonably well in some of the suburban markets. But what's undeniable is supply has shifted in response to that demand. And if you look just within our market footprint, projected supply over the next couple of years is significantly outweighs what we're seeing and what we expect to see in the suburbs in the urban submarkets. And so we think there's some urban submarkets that will continue to outperform, but we think there are many suburban submarkets that will outperform just based upon what's happening at the margin from a demand and supply standpoint. And the other thing, I'd say is, just where we've seeing better values has been in the suburbs over the last -- probably over the last 12 to 18 months from a Development Rights perspective, as capital has really been chasing, in some cases, exclusively urban opportunities. And so part of it's been opportunistic on our end and part of it's been, frankly, an intentional effort to be a bit diversified in terms of how we are penetrating our markets. But, Matt, maybe you can just talk a little bit about how it's impacting the overall portfolio composition?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, I don't think -- it's a pretty big portfolio. So I think -- it actually takes a lot to move the needle one way or the other on that question. And we don't -- it is -- as Tim said, it is much more bottom-up than top-down, it really starts with local teams on the ground in each of our regions, identifying the best risk-adjusted return opportunities for them to invest the capital in new development opportunities. If you look at what we currently have under construction, it's probably a little -- currently under construction today, it's actually, probably, a little bit more heavily urban in the portfolio as a whole. The Development Rights are more suburban than the current construction. So as that pulls through, it -- they tend to kind of wash each other out, so you'll see us get perhaps a little bit more urban concentration over the next year or so, as very large urban deals like 55 Ninth in San Francisco or West Chelsea and AVA High Line and Willoughby AVA Dobro [ph] in New York and Brooklyn get completed. But it is true certainly that the starts we anticipate, you've seen this quarter and in the next year or so, we'll probably swing that pendulum back a little bit. So if you look out 3 or 4 years, it will probably be very similar to what we are today in terms of the overall balance.
David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division:
Okay. That's helpful. And I just want to have one follow-up question on that topic. When you think about the nature of the suburban assets over time, slightly higher CapEx requirements, lower barriers to entry, more increase -- sort of more likely increases in competition. Do you view those assets as less defensible over time? And potentially, do you measure those assets with potentially a shorter holding period from an investment criteria perspective?
Timothy J. Naughton:
David, I'll start it and, Matt, jump in. First of all, I'll address your comment about lower barriers to entry, which is in our markets absolutely is untrue. It's actually the opposite. Our suburban submarkets are much tougher to build in than our urban submarkets. It's usually the constraint in the urban submarkets tend to be bad of economics. There's no shortage of opportunity, even in places like New York and Boston, which I think, historically, people have considered to be tough to penetrate, it's been largely because the economics just haven't made sense. When you go to the suburbs, particularly, where you look at our portfolio, it tends be pretty infill more employment center and not bedroom community type locations, often transit oriented, those are very difficult places to get entitlements, often taking 3, 4, 5 years. And it's an expensive way to play and honestly the nimbyism is much more rampant in those kind of locations. So that's part of what we like about the suburbs at least in our markets. It may be different, as you look at other -- other parts of the country. But I don't know, Sean, maybe you want to address the issue, just CapEx in some of our suburban versus urban, which I think may be a little different than what your assumption might be, David, on that.
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, David, this is Sean. I think, one thing to keep in mind, just from a CapEx perspective and I'll make one another comment. But from a CapEx perspective, the high-rise assets, you do have other components that you don't have in suburban assets that do drive up CapEx, so you've got an interior corridor that's typically heated and cooled, you've got paint and carpet in the hallways, you've got typically more expensive mechanical systems, things of that sort you've got to deal with. So we take that all into account in terms of the underwriting of new development opportunities, but the generic statement that the newer suburban assets are more CapEx intensive than a new urban assets isn't necessarily true. And one of your initial questions was just about suburban assets and maybe slower rent growth, and things of that sort. I think one thing just to keep in mind for us is in some of the suburban locations like take Central or Northern New Jersey, you may see slower rent growth, but to the extent that the development yields going in are substantially higher, 7%-plus as an example, the total return on that opportunity will be quite attractive, even though the ongoing rent growth that you might publish in same-store is lower, and that's okay.
Operator:
Next we'll go to Nick Joseph with Citigroup.
Michael Bilerman - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Michael Bilerman here with Nick. Just Tim, as I think about the $600 million of -- that's left to fund, you talked in your letter about $230 million of wholly-owned assets and then, obviously, Christie Place, which I think, they generate the company, well over $100 million of cash from your promote. That takes care of well over half of that funding. How should we think about the remaining? Should we just assume it's debt funded? Or is there any desire to issue any equity?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Okay, I'll let Kevin jump in. The only thing I'd say, Michael, we are taking on, we do expect to take on new commitments as the year continues, as we continue to start the balance of the $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion that was in our initial guidance. So we'll continue to have additional commitments that we'll need to continue to be funded. But, Kevin, you might just talk a little bit about overall funding strategy.
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure. Well, Michael, as you'll recall from our first quarter call, what we announced was an expectation to source about $1.5 billion of external capital throughout 2014. As you pointed out, we've raised some capital in the first quarter, we raised about $300 million overall, when you take into account the unsecured term loan and the asset that was sold in Connecticut. As we -- and we've got some assets that are under contract for sale in the second quarter here. So as we step forward here and take on new commitments, with respect to development, we're applying to continue to match fund as we go along with long-term capital. Currently, our most attractive sources of external capital continue to be unsecured debt and asset sales. And so we would expect as we step through the year and make new commitments and more or less, ratably source capital that we continue to primarily source that capital from asset sales and unsecured debt.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
And then, this is Nick. Just wanted to touch on the Archstone portfolio rolling into the same store. So it looks like the occupancy for Archstone right now is about 50 bps below the overall portfolio. So what are you underwriting in terms of occupancy gains for Archstone for the remainder of this year?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Nick, this is Sean. Let me give you a little bit of insight into that. First, just to set the table in terms of where we're trending right now to give you some perspective. The Archstone bucket is trending around 95.6% in terms of economic occupancy, just sort of where we are for April versus last year it was around 95.2%. But when you blend that with the AvalonBay bucket, the AvalonBay bucket has come down in occupancy last year at this time, we were pushing occupancy up in the mid-96 range that's trending at 95.9% right now. So if you blend the 2 buckets together, they're trending around 95.8% economic versus last year being around 96.2%. And we talked about -- this is a little bit, I think, on our second, third quarter call last year that occupancy actually drifted up in the second quarter beyond where we had targeted, and so we were pushing rents a little bit harder as we got into the third quarter. So we're going to have that burden from a comp prospective on a year-over-year basis in the second quarter giving back that occupancy. But our expectation right now in terms of the Archstone bucket is that trending at 95.6% to 95.8% economic for the balance of the year would be a reasonable range in terms of our expectation overall.
Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Great. And just one other quick question on concessions. And I recognize it's not a large number overall, but it seems like the year-over-year growth rate increased considerably. So could you talk about where you're offering concessions and kind of the plan overall with them?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. I think concessions were not used a lot, but it does vary from market to market as you pointed out. Generally speaking, we run on an effective rent pricing basis, that's our strategy, which has worked very consistently. I think most of REITs are that way, but there are select markets, where the idea of a "special" is in vogue and that's a market like Seattle as an example. The other place where we look to consider using concessions is in some of the rent regulated markets and submarkets, where you'd like to have the sort of the face rent on the lease be higher and if you give a concession, that's okay. You typically see that in New York and some places in San Francisco as an example. And a little bit, as the Archstone bucket bleeds in, you'll see a little bit of that in the D.C. area with couple of rent-controlled assets as well. So I'd say, it's more of the rent regulated stuff, where you see concessions, but there are certain markets at certain times a year like Seattle in Q4 or Q1. We might see an elevated level of concession just given the nature of that particular submarket.
Operator:
And now we'll go to Nick Yulico with UBS.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Just a couple of questions. Appreciate all this talk about the development yields and the management letter. And what I'm wondering is, when you talk about the rents now being higher, it looks like, we calculate the rents are about 10% higher for the 12 communities where you raised rents, and despite those assets now being 80 basis points above expectations on yield. What I'm wondering is, how do we think about the other $2 billion that's in the pipeline, as far as how the sort of current yield on that versus how that could possibly get above 7%, since you're listing 6.5%, I think, is the overall yield in the development page?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Nick, Tim here. Just one thing to point out. So, of the $3 billion that's under construction, we mentioned about $1 billion that's in lease-up, that's yielding about 7.3%, the entire bucket is yielding about -- is projected to yield about 6.5%. So 2/3 that we haven't marked yet to market. Some of it is at market as we just started this quarter. But the thing I'd point out is, of that $2 billion, about $1.2 billion is actually California and New York City, so very low sort of cap rate type markets and certainly from a value creation perspective, we actually don't see that basket of assets being materially different than that's in lease-up or what we already completed. But the other thing to put in perspective, the $1 billion that's in lease-up, that's increased by about 10%. If you just looked at it from a market standpoint in the submarkets area, I think, the rent growth, since the time that we started on a weighted average basis, has been about 5%. So we've outperformed kind of our expectations, if you will, as adjusted for rent inflation by about 5% so far that lease-up. But one way to think about it is what is your projection for market inflation over the next 12 to 24 months as we build out that bucket of assets.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Okay. And then, one of the assets that was in, where the rents didn't go up was West Chelsea. Could you just talk a little bit about how leasing is going there? And whether that's just hasn't reached a high enough leased rate, whereby there -- you would be raising the rent on that asset?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt. That is one that we will probably be able to mark-to-market in next quarter's release. It's a little bit of a unique animal in that. It is about 20%, 25% leased. But there's really 2 pieces, there's the AVA piece, and the Avalon piece. And the -- we have not started leasing the Avalon piece yet. And so we didn't feel comfortable, kind of, putting a number on where rents are today there given that the Avalon piece -- those are the higher rent apartments, so it's a very significant part of the rent roll and frankly the affordables are more heavily concentrated in the AVA piece. And so that also affects kind of what's leased to date. So I guess, the short answer is, presumably next quarter, we'll be able to mark that to market and see where those rents are. And I don't know, Sean, if you have anything to add?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, just on the velocity question that you had. We leased at a pace of 36 a month in the first quarter for the AVA component of that property, which is open. The West Chelsea, Avalon component is not yet opened and leasing. So just that's the AVA High Line component at that velocity.
Nicholas Yulico - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division:
Okay. And then, just lastly, I mean, can you just talk a little bit about how the competition is over there with, whether it's Gotham West or some of the other assets, as far as how those buildings are filling up and whether you are being forced to think about offering more concessions?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. The -- we haven't seen a huge impact on AVA High Line from those assets, but there's 2, or 3 assets that have been in lease-up that have had some impact on the Midtown West and Clinton deals that we own. And the Gotham deal is probably the least furthest along, I think, it's around 50% leased right now. Mercedes House, which is a [indiscernible] deal is about to leased up. And there is one other asset that's about to leased up. So it has some impact on some of the existing assets, but we'd have not had much overlap with AVA High Line in terms of specific competition from the deals you referenced.
Operator:
We now go to Ryan Bennett with Zelman & Associates.
Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Just staying on New York for one second. In terms of the better than expected results that you cited in your management letter. Was that largely driven by Long Island City getting better from what it had been, I guess, in the third into the fourth quarter?
Sean J. Breslin:
Ryan, this is Sean. In terms of New York City, Long Island City is underperforming our portfolio average. Where we're getting the best growth out of New York right now in terms of the city product is what's happening basically at Morningside Heights. We're pushing mid-6s. One of the Bowery deals is pushing mid-5s as opposed to Long Island City has been underperforming, and the other place where we're again pretty good growth is out of Brooklyn, [indiscernible] we're pushing mid-5s as compared to the Riverview assets on a blended basis are more like 3, 3.5 on a year-over-year basis for revenue growth.
Ryan H. Bennett - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Got it. And then just one more question on Boston. Just curious if could you provide some incremental color there in terms of starting to see that market come back. Now that the weather conditions have improved and whether or not -- are there any specific trends between your urban and suburban assets in that market?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure. This is Sean again. So in terms of Boston, yes, it was a tough winter. We did see turnover move up in Boston as compared to the first quarter of '13. It was up about 5%, which is roughly about a 13% increase in move-outs. If you were still buying homes, it was one of the few markets. If you looked at the home sales data yesterday, it is actually up on a year-over-year basis as compared to many other markets that are down. Still little bit of pressure from that. And certainly the weather wasn't helpful from a traffic perspective. In terms of the different submarkets that you mentioned, the closer-in locations actually did relatively well in the first quarter. So the Metro Boston stuff like Newton Highlands, Chestnut Hill, all did pretty well producing total rents or revenue growth between call it 6%, 7% range, 95, 93 North was putting out good numbers, north of 4. MetroWest was relatively weak though and I think that's some of the more distant assets where we did see some home buying pressure. And in the South Shore, it was doing okay, it was in the 3% to 4% range. So I say that more infill markets were doing generally well, as well as 95, 93 North, but the more distant suburban stuff was a little bit weaker.
Operator:
Now we'll take a question from Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Yes, Tom, we'll miss you. So best in your next phase. Just a few questions here. In your -- in the letter, this morning, you said that ex the winter costs, your same-store expenses were up 3.9, and your guidance for the year is 2 to 3. So can you just walk us through what some of the areas where you expect to save on expenses to get the expense within the -- within your full-year guidance range?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Alex, this is Sean. So you did quote the correct number. If you excluded the excess utility and snow removal costs, Opex year-over-year would have been 3.9, and NOI growth would have been 3.7 as opposed to the 2.6 that was reported. In terms of the outlook for the year, in terms of what we're seeing, basically, if we just trended pretty close to what our budget was, we'd be at the high end of the guidance range that we provided. We are seeing a little bit of relief in a few areas like property taxes, as an example, that may come in a little bit below budget based on our forecast. So based on what I'd say right now is we still expect the first half of the year expenses to be elevated for a number of different reasons, and we mentioned that when we provided the outlook. But based on where we see the second half coming in with budget and a few adjustments based on things we know right now, we still expect to be within the guidance we provided for OpEx, but certainly trending towards the high end of the range.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Okay, and then the second question is, on Slide 9 where you showed the ramp-up -- your expected ramp up for rents this year versus the last year where it's flat in the first and then stepped up in the second. Given the economy is basically the same this year as last year, why are you expecting a different ramp up in rents versus last year?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Alex, it's Tim. I think you may be misreading the chart. This is actually monthly, not quarterly data, just to be clear. So these are actuals. So it's -- the fourth bar there is actually April through -- I think, the footnote says sort of like April 22. So it's not the full month yet. But these are blended rents. So it's a mix of new move-ins and renewals that we know today or that we have experienced, January through March. So it's not far off of what we expected, to be honest, but this is actuals, it's not projections.
Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division:
Okay, then, sorry about misreading that. Then if I can just ask sort of replacement question then. In Seattle, your occupancy slipped a little, but you guys pushed rent a lot. Was that just a concerted effort to focus more on rent? Or was there some unexpected tenants leaving because they didn't want to pay or something like that?
Sean J. Breslin:
No, not necessarily one specific strategy. I mean, we basically, as you know, Alex, use LRO to try to optimize for both rent and occupancy. They are certain markets where you forecast things might happen -- or submarkets, I am sorry, submarkets, I was referring to and they don't come to us. For example, we had an impact on Redmond in the fourth quarter that bled through to the first quarter for us, where some of the corporate activity just changed, as compared to the seasonal history, mainly due to Microsoft, so that had some impact that we had not anticipated. So the things like that, but nothing intentional that we were trying to push it one direction or another. You generally, to be honest, try to protect occupancy a little bit more in Seattle in the fourth quarter.
Operator:
Our next question comes from David Bragg with Green Street Advisors.
David Bragg - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
In your management letter, you say that starts in D.C. or starting to taper off. But the permit trends show that they continue to increase. So can you talk us through the disconnects that might be developing between starts and permits in D.C, if that is the case?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Dave, its Tim. I don't know that we can, to be honest, so we've been -- obviously we've been tracking starts in projected delivery. It's not unusual where they might -- particularly in the market where people have been spending a lot of capital to get their deals permit ready. It's not uncommon where it might pull the permit, and in our case we pulled the permit at AVA 55 M [ph] in part to lock in a tax abatement, several million dollars of value. We may or may not start that over the next 12 months. So, I think, there's probably some cases like that, but I can tell you what -- I don't have a theory for you as to why maybe the permit and the start data might be diverging.
David Bragg - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Okay, do you expect D.C. starts to be lower in '14 than '13?
Timothy J. Naughton:
That's our projection. Yes.
David Bragg - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Okay, that's helpful. And then as it relates to the weather the disclosure on expenses was quite helpful, but can you explain what the impact could be on the revenue side? It looks like you're trending a little bit below plan in the Northeast in New York and with some occupancy to make up in the Northeast. So, over the course of the year, how impactful will the weather from the first quarter be on revenue growth?
Sean J. Breslin:
Dave, this is Sean, I'm not sure I could answer your question precisely. We still expect to be within the guidance range that we provided. The only comment I could say really is that as you pointed out, New England started off a bit slower as than we anticipated in terms of not only the typical occupancy gains. But as a result of that, the rent growth that we were able to push through in that region in the first quarter. That being said, it has picked up traction in the last 3 or 4 weeks as the weather turned. I'll give you a couple of statistics just availability has come down about 50 basis points over the last 3 weeks. Occupancy has trended up. So we're seeing some movement there. So it's hard to quantify exactly what the difference might be, and the impact on revenue. But on the other side of the coin Northern California is outperforming. So I'm not prepared to give you a precise answer other than we expect to be within the range we provided in terms of revenue growth for the year.
Timothy J. Naughton:
And, Dave, its Tim. Just to follow up, we are basically on plan in Q1, as Sean said, in some of the areas that we missed, we had some offsets, particularly in place like -- particularly in Northern California. It's ultimately going to turn on that one chart that you saw, I think, that showed a bit of a ramp up in terms of same unit rent. Rents that we're seeing and whether or not that holds we're running around 4% in April for -- that's for the AvalonBay legacy portfolio. At this point, but to the extent it holds in that range throughout the year, obviously that's pretty good, relative to the outlook that we gave.
David Bragg - Zelman & Associates, LLC:
Got it. And the last question relates to -- for the same-store pool, what were your renewal and new move in gains in 1Q?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure, Dave, it's Sean. I can provide you that. So for the same-store bucket in the first quarter as we quoted the blend was 2.7%, it was basically 5% on renewals and essentially flat on move ins and where we had downward pressure in New England, a little bit in New York and considering the mid-Atlantic, but was offset by gains in Pacific Northwest, Northern California and Southern California.
Operator:
Now we'll go to Derek Bower with ISI Group.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Can you just provide more clarity on the assumptions driving your 2Q guidance? Specifically what is expected a level of dispositions for the quarter? And what are the $0.02 of non-routine items attributed to?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
Sure, Derek, this is Kevin. In terms of sort of a roadmap from an OFFO perspective from 1Q to the second quarter and then touching on some of the adjustments. We had $1.63 in OFFO for the first quarter and our outlook for the second quarter in terms of OFFO is $1.66. So essentially kind of a roadmap from the first quarter to the second quarter. There's probably about $0.05 pickup in community NOI of which about $0.03 relates to the same-store NOI combined basket. And then about $0.02 from development NOI. And probably with an offset of about $0.02 in terms of interest expense and overhead combined to create $0.02 drag on that to get to a net change of $0.03 from -- in terms of OFFO sequential change. In terms of the $0.02 for next quarter, it's largely prepayment penalties, and continuing loss on the parking lot joint venture that we have, combine to produced the $0.02 in OFFO adjustments for the second quarter. And the prepayment penalties relate to some fund dispositions that are scheduled to take place in the second quarter.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
So the $230 million that's currently under contract that would be a 2Q event, correct?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
The $230 million that was under contract would be a 2Q event. That was fully on communities. There were some additional fund dispositions that are scheduled for the quarter that are in addition to that amount, and actually a couple of them have some prepayment penalties associated with them that would have a flow-through effect on our financials.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay, and any promote from a JV disposition is not included in the guidance, right?
Kevin P. O'Shea:
That is correct.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay, got it. And then just touching on the Bay Area and obviously there was some strength there. Can you talk about how much of a contribution the increase in non-same-store pull was, and would you say the better growth has been driven by you fixing some of the turnover issues you had, late last year, or is it just the market overall is performing better than expected?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Derek, this is Sean in terms of general commentary about Northern California, I'd offer few things. First, as you could tell from what we reported. The East Bay remains particularly strong. And the contribution from our ease [ph] communities there is very strong. So East Bay generally speaking strong, lower price point communities probably stronger, and we have a fairly good allocation of lower price point communities in the East Bay. San Jose has held pretty steady, and actually I'd say as we look through the year, San Jose may surprise to the upside just because the impact from supply that we're seeing there is not as much maybe as we expected I am hearing similar comments from our peers, in terms of the supplies there seems to be absorbed without an issue. Rents are starting to get pushed a little bit harder so San Jose feels good. And then San Francisco portfolio is performing well. Certainly, we have sort of the flagship asset at Mission Bay. But our -- frankly our lower price point assets in communities at Sunset Towers, Diamond Heights, Daly City, Pacifica et cetera are doing quite well. Some of those lower price point communities are putting up 9s and 10s, as an example, in terms of year-over-year growth. So I say the price point communities in San Francisco and the East Bay are doing particularly well, and San Jose seems to be on, I'd say, a positive momentum trend as we look through the rest of the year.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay, and then just in D.C. where are your new rents today and what are renewals looking like for June and July?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure, D.C. specifically just to give you some sense, so in the first quarter renewals were up about 3% and move-ins were down somewhere around 4%. Looking out to May and June in terms of the renewal offers, they're out sort of in the low- to mid-4s, they'll probably settle in the 3 to 3.5 range would be my expectation based on what I know today. To give you some sense, for example, April is trending the 3.9%, 4% range for the mid-Atlantic portfolio.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
And are new leases today worse than 4% or are they in line?
Sean J. Breslin:
In line. April is actually trending a little bit better, it's trending at around 3%.
Derek Bower - ISI Group Inc., Research Division:
So for the whole quarter it was negative 4 and April it was negative 3?
Sean J. Breslin:
Correct. April to date. Correct.
Operator:
Now we will take a question from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank.
Vincent Chao - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division:
Just, I know, we spent a lot of time talking about the OpEx impact from the weather. Just curious if you could comment on the impact on just construction activity, in general, in those weather-impacted markets, and whether or not that may have helped or hurt leasing activity given the potential delays in construction that kind of thing?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Sure, Vincent, this is Matt. I can try and answer that one. As relates to leasing activity, surprisingly, it's been pretty strong in our new lease-ups in the Northeast. We averaged 21, 22 leases a month. 22 leases a month across all of our lease-ups. But the Northeast lease-ups and certainly the mid-Atlantic lease-ups were at or above our initial projections. So we -- people were anxious to lease our brand new apartment homes in these markets even through the winter. As it relates to construction, I have not heard of any material delays at this point, due to the weather. I mean, there is a certain amount of weather days built into the schedule. In general, we have more weather days, certainly we did in the first quarter in the Northeast. But generally speaking, these are mostly jobs that take on average 2 years to build, and if you are on a 4 or 5 more weather days in January or February, they will find a way to make that up.
Operator:
And now, we'll take a question from Karin Ford with KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division:
I wanted to ask you about condo conversions sounded like there might have been a trade of a rental building to condo converter in New York recently. I just wanted to get an update on what you're hearing there in New York and in other markets, and are any of your asset sales to a condo bid?
Sean J. Breslin:
Yes, Karin, it's Sean. I'll answer your second question first. At this point, no, none of the dispositions that we either have under contract or are contemplating, we're expecting to go to a condo converter that certainly change, but that's not the expectation right at the moment. I've heard some chatter about the one deal that did convert in New York, I don't know the details, to be honest, can't tell you anything about it. There has been some chatter about condo conversions in New York and in San Francisco given the level of inventory that's currently available for sale in those markets, but I've not been close to any specific transactions to be able to give you much insight into that trend.
Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division:
That's helpful. And then just second question is do you still expect Archstone to be neutral to the same-store growth expectations for the balance of the year after it rolls in?
Sean M. Clark:
Neutral to the same-store growth expectations? We don't expect to provide -- we're not doing anything different in terms of providing different guidance than we already provided as it relates to the revenue growth from the portfolio. And we provided that in the Q1 information, so nothing has changed from our initial guidance.
Karin A. Ford - KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Research Division:
Is it roughly -- is the same-store growth guidance roughly the same for the 2 different portfolios, though?
Sean M. Clark:
We provided initial guidance that was -- the midpoint was 3.625 overall for the AvalonBay portfolio.
Timothy J. Naughton:
And we provided the Q2 to Q4 guidance.
Sean M. Clark:
Q2 to Q4 for the combined, yes, I don't have that outlook right in front of me. But nothing's changed from what we've provided in terms of guidance at this point.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] . Next we will go to Tayo Okusanya with Jefferies.
George Hoglund - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
This is George Hugland on for Tayo. Just a couple of questions on the Boston market. First one, on the Assembly Road project, can you just give an update there? It looks like it was pushed back a quarter. And also just curious on how our rents are trending there?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, this is Matt, George. We did actually get our first [indiscernible] at Assembly Road, earlier this week or late last week. So that was one we definitely did suffer some delays. Some of it may have been weather-related, but, I think, a lot of it was related to -- just it's very complex mixed-use construction. It's a joint venture or partnership with Federal Realty. So we have actually a backlog of leasing activity, folks that have been waiting to move-in for us to get those [indiscernible]. We should be off to the races now on the lease-up, but we're only about 10% leased there, so again, we don't really mark the rents to market until we can get up to about 20%. And particularly in a situation like that where people haven't even been able -- the 10% they leased, they haven't actually walked the apartments. It's all been off of plans. So again, I would anticipate by the next quarter's release, we'll have more on that.
George Hoglund - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay, and then also can you just comment on how new rental rates are trending in Downtown Boston?
Sean J. Breslin:
Sure, George, this is Sean. I don't know if I have those specific communities with me to be able to quote you that. But I can give you the region overall if that helps. I can tell you that Downtown Boston, right now, is actually holding up a little bit better than we anticipated, in terms of expected rent change. I mentioned earlier in my comments, that the infill markets, Mid Highlands, as an example, Chestnut Hill, a couple of phases of the Bruce Center have actually been doing pretty well. Keep in mind, our sample in the core of Boston if you really looking urban high-rise, is essentially the Prudential Center. Sorry, I don't have the [indiscernible] numbers right in front of me, but we can get back to you on that, if you'd like, that information.
George Hoglund - Jefferies LLC, Research Division:
Okay, that would be great. And also just on the Stuart Street construction project. How big of an impact was there? There was, I guess, a partial collapse at that structure?
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
Yes, George, this is Matt again. Obviously a very unfortunate incident there where some steel was apparently perhaps overloaded on an upper floor and fell through temporary decking that had been put in place. The way these buildings gets built its a concrete core, that goes up first, and then you basically you put the lightweight steel up. And that's up multiple stories above where the concrete permanent floor is. So, the temporary decking got collapsed and lost on about 5 or 6 stories there at that structure. But there's a recovery plan in place, and there is -- the team has worked very well with the city of Boston and all the inspectors involved. So they are now well into the recovery plan, and we do not expect any material impact there on the economics of that deal.
Operator:
Now we'll go to Michael Salinsky with RBC Capital Markets.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Tom, we're definitely going to miss you. And, Kevin, you've got big shoes to fill here. Tim, first question you talked previously about '14 being the peak in deliveries given what we're seeing in permitting, I know, you talked about D.C., but is that still the expectation in '14 is the peak, and then you see a drop down or do you expect '15 to be comparable at this point, from what you're seeing?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Mike in our markets, it is. I can't speak for the U.S. overall, but in our markets, we are expecting still deliveries to peak. Just under 2% of inventory in 2014 and to come down both in '15 and '16 from those levels based upon starts that have already occurred and starts that we're projecting here over the next 6 to 9 months.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Okay, that's helpful. Second of all, in your presentation, you provided an interesting chart on replacement costs there. Can you talk about the growth you've seen in replacement costs year-over-year? And then, as you go forward, given the activity, we've seen in some of the other sectors picking up on the construction side. Is it your expectation that rents can keep pace with the growth in replacement costs over the next couple of years?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well it's interesting, I mean, if you look at these 2 charts side by side, they're important to consider together, right, it's the relationship between rents and replacement costs that ultimately drive whether there ought to be new supply. Both of these actually indexed about 3% inflation over 15-year period. So again sort of supports the notion that you're roughly at equilibrium. But we're at levels where the economics do still support new supply. We are still pursuing new deals as are many of our peers not as many made sense as they did in 2009 and '10 and '11, that is just the nature of cycles. But we are still seeing plenty of stuff that we think underwrites and makes sense in terms of the basis we've been at, as well as the projected economics. I think this -- I think the chart on the right captures our experience of the replacement costs pretty well. If you just look back at our total cost per unit, we just went over the $300,000 per unit mark really for the first time since like 2007, recently. With a more concentrated portfolio in the urban markets, and so, I think, this is pretty accurate. This is an index that we -- is a proprietary that we put together based upon both construction costs and land cost trends, but it actually matches our intuition and our own experience. So we feel pretty good about the -- about what it's telling us. It sort of matches -- it matches our experience at least at the moment. So I don't know if that answers your question, but there have been some markets where construction costs, particularly on the West Coast have still moved up 8% to 10% over the last year. But on the East Coast it's been much more -- we see much more normalized levels in the 3%, 4%, 5% range on a year-over-year basis.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
Just in light of that last comment, is there any markets then today where that equilibrium has gotten out of whack to where it doesn't make sense to be putting new construction today? Or where you think there is a significant catch up potential?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, well certainly parts of D.C. don't make sense, but you still might be surprised, which -- how many do still make sense if you just look at where assets are continuing to trade in this market. But there's still some that are just -- one, it's current -- in some cases, it's current economics but in more cases it's about where we think the market might be going over the next year or 2. So plenty of submarkets in D.C. that we wouldn't consider at this point, in the cycle. There are -- when you look at some of the urban costs and construction costs in the Northeast, that's giving challenging. I would say to -- you take the deal like National Street, it makes sense in part because of our are our land basis, is actually very, very attractive relative to what you could secure land today at. So there's some for sure that where the risk-adjusted economics don't make sense based upon where the assets might trade.
Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division:
And just a final question then in terms of same-store composition change going into second quarter, obviously with Archstone quite a bit of Southern California, as well as D.C. Just can you give us a sense of what D.C. and Los Angeles increased to as a percentage of the overall same-store bucket versus currently?
Sean M. Clark:
Yes, Matt's looking it up here, Mike, this is Sean. My recollection is that the D.C. portfolio becomes about 16%, 17% on a combined basis. Give us just a second we can take a peek at it for you. We'll send you a note with that, Mike, with precise numbers.
Operator:
We'll take our next question from Paula Poskon with Robert W. Baird.
Paula J. Poskon - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division:
Just a question on the suburban focus on development. Are you thinking more -- should we be thinking more in terms of your traditional Avalon-type garden style community or are you thinking more of a high-rise footprint in transit hubs, such as may be a rest [ph] in town center versus the Center City?
Timothy J. Naughton:
Yes, Paula, that's a great question. Actually it's been -- if you look at just our Development Right pipeline versus currently under construction, the amount of garden is about the same. But really the shift has been from high rise to what we think of as mid-rise, which is a combination of wood-frame wrap or wood-frame podium. And those are often in either -- on transit TOD-type locations or certainly employment, and retail center-type locations. So that's really probably been the bigger shift, is really been from central core to kind of ex-urban infill-type sites where the economics are still dramatically different. If you just looked at the cost basis, call it as Stuart Street, or an Exeter, or an Nasser street in downtown Boston versus Assembly Row, which is only 3 miles away in Summerville. You're talking 50%, 60% of the basis in some cases. So that's been probably more the focus of the shift over the last 12 to 24 months in reality.
Matthew H. Birenbaum:
This is Matt. Couple of numbers on that. What we currently have under construction is about 25% garden and the balance is evenly split between mid and high rise, 38% mid, 38% high. In our Development Rights -- Development Rights pipeline, the future starts, the garden percentage doesn't really change that's 25%. The high-rise drops from 38% to 15% and the mid rise is what moves to about 60% of the pipeline. Is that -- the bulk of what we're going to be starting is the wrap and podium deals in the infill suburban locations.
Operator:
At this time, we have no further questions, so I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Tim Naughton for any additional or closing remarks.
Timothy J. Naughton:
Well, thank you, operator. And Tom, I think you got off pretty easy this quarter. Just a lot of thank you's. But anyway, thanks for being on the call today, and we look forward to seeing many of you, unfortunately without Tom, at the [indiscernible] conference in early June in New York. So look forward to seeing you there. Thanks. Take care.
Operator:
And that does conclude today's call. We thank everyone again for their participation.