Uncategorized
MAA REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR 2022 RESULTS
MAA REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR 2022 RESULTS
PR Newswire
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2023
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., or MAA (NYSE: MAA), today announced operating results for the…

MAA REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR 2022 RESULTS
PR Newswire
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2023
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., or MAA (NYSE: MAA), today announced operating results for the quarter ended December 31, 2022.
Fourth Quarter 2022 Operating Results | Three months ended | Year ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Earnings per common share - diluted | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.48 | $ | 4.61 | ||||||||
Funds from operations (FFO) per Share - diluted | $ | 2.12 | $ | 2.01 | $ | 8.20 | $ | 7.20 | ||||||||
Core FFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.32 | $ | 1.90 | $ | 8.50 | $ | 7.01 |
A reconciliation of FFO and Core FFO to Net income available for MAA common shareholders, and discussion of the components of FFO and Core FFO, can be found later in this release. FFO per Share – diluted and Core FFO per Share – diluted include diluted common shares and units.
Eric Bolton, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said, "We closed 2022 with better than expected results and carry good momentum into the new year. As the broader economy adjusts to a higher interest rate environment, we believe that MAA is well positioned to capture another year of solid performance from our existing portfolio. Supported by a strong balance sheet, the company is also in position to capture new growth opportunities that we believe are likely to emerge."
Highlights
- During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA's Same Store Portfolio produced increases in property revenues, operating expenses and Net Operating Income (NOI) of 13.6%, 7.9% and 16.8%, respectively, as compared to the same period in the prior year.
- During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA closed on the disposition of a 396-unit multifamily community in Maryland and a 288-unit multifamily community in the Austin, Texas market for combined gross proceeds of $157.7 million generating a gain on sale of depreciable real estate assets of $82.8 million.
- As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA had six communities under development, representing 2,310 units once complete, with a projected total cost of $728.7 million and an estimated $437.0 million remaining to be funded.
- During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA completed the construction of MAA Windmill Hill, a multifamily development community located in the Austin, Texas market and commenced development of multifamily communities MAA Breakwater located in the Tampa, Florida market and MAA Nixie located in the Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina market.
- During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA closed on the pre-purchase of a multifamily community located in the Charlotte, North Carolina market with development expected to begin in the second half of 2023.
- As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA had a recently completed development community and a recently acquired community in lease-up. One community is expected to stabilize in the second quarter of 2023 and one in the fourth quarter of 2023.
- During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA completed the lease-up of MAA Westglenn, located in the Denver, Colorado market, MAA Park Point, located in the Houston, Texas market and MAA Robinson located in the Orlando, Florida market.
- MAA completed the redevelopment of 1,327 apartment homes during the fourth quarter of 2022, capturing average rental rate increases of approximately 10% above non-renovated units.
- MAA's balance sheet remains strong with a historically low Net Debt/Adjusted EBITDAre ratio of 3.71x and $1.3 billion of combined cash and available capacity under MAALP's unsecured revolving credit facility as of December 31, 2022.
- Subsequent to the end of the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA settled its forward sale agreements with respect to a total of 1.1 million shares of its common stock for net proceeds of approximately $204 million.
Same Store Portfolio Operating Results
To ensure comparable reporting with prior periods, the Same Store Portfolio includes properties that were owned by MAA and stabilized at the beginning of the previous year.
Same Store Portfolio results for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022 as compared to the same periods in the prior year are summarized below:
Three months ended December 31, 2022 vs. 2021 | Twelve months ended December 31, 2022 vs. 2021 | |||||||||||||||
Revenues | Expenses (1) | NOI | Average Effective | Revenues | Expenses (2) | NOI | Average Effective | |||||||||
Same Store Operating Growth | 13.6 % | 7.9 % | 16.8 % | 14.9 % | 13.5 % | 7.6 % | 17.1 % | 14.6 % |
(1) | Excludes $0.2 million in storm-related expenses related to hurricanes that are recorded in Non-Same Store operating expenses. |
(2) | Excludes $1.8 million in storm-related expenses related to hurricanes that are recorded in Non-Same Store operating expenses. |
A reconciliation of NOI, including Same Store NOI, to Net income available for MAA common shareholders, and discussion of the components of NOI, can be found later in this release.
Same Store Portfolio operating statistics for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022 are summarized below:
Three months ended December 31, 2022 | Twelve months ended December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2022 | ||||||||||||
Average Effective | Average | Average Effective | Average | Resident Turnover | ||||||||||
Same Store Operating Statistics | $ | 1,646 | 95.6 % | $ | 1,565 | 95.7 % | 46.1 % |
Same Store Portfolio lease pricing for leases effective during the fourth quarter of 2022, as compared to the prior lease, increased 2.2% for leases to new move-in residents, reflecting typically slower seasonal leasing volumes, and increased 10.1% for renewing leases, which produced an increase of 5.7% for both new and renewing leases on a blended basis. The rent-to-resident-income relationship for new leases signed during the fourth quarter of 2022 remained consistent with recent trends in the range of 22%.
Same Store Portfolio lease pricing for leases effective during the year ended December 31, 2022, as compared to the prior lease, increased 13.0% for leases to new move-in residents and increased 14.8% for renewing leases, which produced an increase of 13.9% for both new and renewing leases on a blended basis.
Acquisition and Disposition Activity
During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA closed on the pre-purchase of a multifamily community, Alta 10th, located in the Charlotte, North Carolina market. The community will be developed through a joint venture with a local developer. Approximately $10 million has been funded as of December 31, 2022, primarily related to land, with development expected to begin in the second half of 2023. During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA also acquired a six acre land parcel in the Raleigh, North Carolina market for approximately $9 million and started development of MAA Nixie on the property. MAA expects to begin multifamily development projects on four to six land parcels currently owned or under contract over the next 18 to 24 months.
During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA closed on the disposition of a 396-unit multifamily community in Maryland and a 288-unit multifamily community in the Austin, Texas market for combined gross proceeds of $157.7 million, resulting in a combined gain on the sale of depreciable real estate assets of $82.8 million.
Development and Lease-up Activity
A summary of MAA's development communities under construction as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2022 is set forth below (dollars in thousands):
Units as of | Development Costs as of | Expected Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2022 | Completions By Year | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Development | Expected | Spend | Expected | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Projects | Total | Delivered | Leased | Total | to Date | Remaining | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 2,310 | — | — | $ | 728,700 | $ | 291,699 | $ | 437,001 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
The expected average stabilized NOI yield on these communities is 5.6%. During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA funded $67.0 million of costs for current and planned projects, including predevelopment activities.
A summary of the total units, cost and the average physical occupancy of MAA's lease-up communities as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2022 is set forth below (dollars in thousands):
Total | As of December 31, 2022 | |||||||||||||
Lease-Up | Total | Physical | Spend | |||||||||||
Projects (1) | Units | Occupancy | to Date | |||||||||||
2 | 694 | 74.6 | % | $ | 198,128 |
(1) | Both lease-up projects are expected to stabilize in 2023. |
Property Redevelopment and Repositioning Activity
A summary of MAA's interior redevelopment program and Smart Home technology initiative as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2022 is set forth below:
As of December 31, 2022 | |||||||||||||||||
Units | Units | Average Cost | Increase in Average | ||||||||||||||
Completed | Completed | per Unit | Effective Rent per Unit | ||||||||||||||
QTD | YTD | YTD | YTD | ||||||||||||||
Redevelopment | 1,327 | 6,574 | $ | 6,109 | $ | 133 | |||||||||||
Smart Home | 2,921 | 24,029 | $ | 1,535 | $ | 25 | (1) |
(1) | Projected increase upon lease renewal, opt in or unit turnover. |
As of December 31, 2022, MAA had completed installation of the Smart Home technology (unit entry locks, mobile control of lights and thermostat and leak monitoring) in over 71,000 units across its apartment community portfolio since the initiative began during the first quarter of 2019.
During the fourth quarter of 2022, MAA continued its property repositioning program to upgrade and reposition the amenity and common areas at select apartment communities. The program includes targeted plans to move all units at the properties to higher rents that are expected to deliver yields on cost averaging 8%. During the year ended December 31, 2022, work continued on properties selected for this program in 2021. For the year ended December 31, 2022, MAA spent $19.3 million on this program capturing yields on cost averaging approximately 17% between completed projects and those current projects where properties have begun repricing units to higher rents.
Capital Expenditures
A summary of MAA's capital expenditures and Funds Available for Distribution (FAD) for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 is set forth below (dollars in millions, except per Share data):
Three months ended | Year ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Core FFO | $ | 274.7 | $ | 225.2 | $ | 1,008.2 | $ | 830.6 | ||||||||
Recurring capital expenditures | (13.9) | (19.3) | (98.2) | (81.1) | ||||||||||||
Core adjusted FFO (Core AFFO) | 260.8 | 205.9 | 910.0 | 749.5 | ||||||||||||
Redevelopment, revenue enhancing, commercial and other capital | (61.9) | (39.1) | (194.9) | (154.0) | ||||||||||||
FAD | $ | 198.9 | $ | 166.8 | $ | 715.1 | $ | 595.5 | ||||||||
Core FFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.32 | $ | 1.90 | $ | 8.50 | $ | 7.01 | ||||||||
Core AFFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.20 | $ | 1.74 | $ | 7.67 | $ | 6.32 |
A reconciliation of FFO, Core FFO, Core AFFO and FAD to Net income available for MAA common shareholders, and discussion of the components of FFO, Core FFO, Core AFFO and FAD, can be found later in this release.
Balance Sheet and Financing Activities
As of December 31, 2022, MAA had $1.3 billion of combined cash and available capacity under MAALP's unsecured revolving credit facility.
Dividends and distributions paid on shares of common stock and noncontrolling interests during the fourth quarter of 2022 were $148.3 million, as compared to $121.5 million for the same period in the prior year.
In January 2023, MAA physically settled its two forward sale agreements with respect to a total of 1.1 million shares of its common stock and received net proceeds of approximately $204 million.
Balance sheet highlights as of December 31, 2022 are summarized below (dollars in billions):
Total debt to adjusted | Net Debt/Adjusted | Total debt | Average effective | Fixed rate debt as a % | Total debt average | |||||||||
28.4 % | 3.71x | $ | 4.4 | 3.4 % | 99.5 % | 7.9 |
(1) | As defined in the covenants for the bonds issued by MAALP. |
(2) | Adjusted EBITDAre is calculated for the trailing twelve month period ended December 31, 2022. |
A reconciliation of Net Debt to Unsecured notes payable and Secured notes payable and a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDAre to Net income, along with discussion of the components of Net Debt and Adjusted EBITDAre, can be found later in this release.
ESG
As of the end of 2022, MAA's corporate initiatives have led to significant progress in key social and environmental performance areas. We have achieved a 21.9% reduction in energy use intensity and a 30.8% reduction in GHG emissions intensity from our 2018 baseline, meeting our goal seven years before our original 2028 target, and we believe we are on track to achieve the same in indoor water use intensity. Additionally, we have updated 35% of our portfolio to maximize energy efficiency and now have 25 green-certified communities, with more in the pipeline.
We also have a number of community engagement efforts underway and have reported our progress through our annual Corporate Sustainability Report, CDP disclosure, and GRESB assessment, the latter of which we have now improved year over year since our first submission in 2020. We will continue to focus on deepening engagement, establishing new targets, and building an integrated pathway for ESG, which is an integral component of our continued resiliency and creates a positive impact for our residents, associates, and investors.
116th Consecutive Quarterly Common Dividend Declared
MAA declared its 116th consecutive quarterly common dividend, which was paid on January 31, 2023 to holders of record on January 13, 2023. The current annual dividend rate is $5.60 per common share, an increase of 12% from the immediately prior rate. The timing and amount of future dividends will depend on actual cash flows from operations, MAA's financial condition, capital requirements, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and other factors as MAA's Board of Directors deems relevant. MAA's Board of Directors may modify the dividend policy from time to time.
2023 Earnings and Same Store Portfolio Guidance
MAA is providing initial 2023 guidance for Net income per diluted common share, Core FFO per Share and Core AFFO per Share, along with its expectations for growth of Property revenue, Property operating expense and NOI for the Same Store Portfolio in 2023. MAA expects to update its 2023 Net income per diluted common share, Core FFO per Share and Core AFFO per Share guidance on a quarterly basis.
FFO, Core FFO and Core AFFO are non-GAAP financial measures. Acquisition and disposition activity materially affects depreciation and capital gains or losses, which combined, generally represent the majority of the difference between Net income available for common shareholders and FFO. As discussed in the definitions of non-GAAP financial measures found later in this release, MAA's definition of FFO is in accordance with the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts', or NAREIT's, definition, and Core FFO represents FFO further adjusted for items that are not considered part of MAA's core business operations. MAA believes that Core FFO is helpful in understanding operating performance in that Core FFO excludes not only depreciation expense of real estate assets and certain other non-routine items, but it also excludes certain items that by their nature are not comparable over periods and therefore tend to obscure actual operating performance.
2023 Guidance | ||
Earnings: | Full Year 2023 | |
Earnings per common share - diluted | $5.97 to $6.37 | |
Core FFO per Share - diluted | $8.88 to $9.28 | |
Core AFFO per Share - diluted | $7.96 to $8.36 | |
MAA Same Store Portfolio: | ||
Property revenue growth | 5.25% to 7.25% | |
Property operating expense growth | 5.15% to 7.15% | |
NOI growth | 5.30% to 7.30% |
MAA expects Core FFO for the first quarter of 2023 to be in the range of $2.14 to $2.30 per Share, or $2.22 per Share at the midpoint. MAA does not forecast Net income per diluted common share on a quarterly basis as MAA generally cannot predict the timing of forecasted acquisition and disposition activity within a particular quarter (rather than during the course of the full year). Additional details and guidance items are provided in the Supplemental Data to this release.
Supplemental Material and Conference Call
Supplemental data to this release can be found on the "For Investors" page of the MAA website at www.maac.com. MAA will host a conference call to further discuss fourth quarter results on February 2, 2023, at 9:00 AM Central Time. The conference call-in number is 877-830-2598. You may also join the live webcast of the conference call by accessing the "For Investors" page of the MAA website at www.maac.com. MAA's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are filed under the registrant names of Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid-America Apartments, L.P.
About MAA
MAA, an S&P 500 company, is a real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on delivering full-cycle and superior investment performance for shareholders through the ownership, management, acquisition, development and redevelopment of quality apartment communities primarily in the Southeast, Southwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. As of December 31, 2022, MAA had ownership interest in 101,986 apartment units, including communities currently in development, across 16 states and the District of Columbia. For further details, please visit the MAA website at www.maac.com or contact Investor Relations at investor.relations@maac.com, or via mail at MAA, 6815 Poplar Ave., Suite 500, Germantown, TN 38138, Attn: Investor Relations.
Forward-Looking Statements
Sections of this release contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to our expectations for future periods. Forward-looking statements do not discuss historical fact, but instead include statements related to expectations, projections, intentions or other items related to the future. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding expected operating performance and results, property stabilizations, property acquisition and disposition activity, joint venture activity, development and renovation activity and other capital expenditures, and capital raising and financing activity, as well as lease pricing, revenue and expense growth, occupancy, interest rate and other economic expectations. Words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "seeks," "estimates," "forecasts," "projects," "assumes," "will," "may," "could," "should," "budget," "target," "outlook," "proforma," "opportunity," "guidance" and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, as described below, which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the results of operations, financial conditions or plans expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained herein are reasonable, any of the assumptions could be inaccurate, and therefore such forward-looking statements included in this release may not prove to be accurate. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking statements included herein, the inclusion of such information should not be regarded as a representation by us or any other person that the results or conditions described in such statements or our objectives and plans will be achieved.
The following factors, among others, could cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements:
- inability to generate sufficient cash flows due to unfavorable economic and market conditions, changes in supply and/or demand, competition, uninsured losses, changes in tax and housing laws, or other factors;
- exposure to risks inherent in investments in a single industry and sector;
- adverse changes in real estate markets, including, but not limited to, the extent of future demand for multifamily units in our significant markets, barriers of entry into new markets which we may seek to enter in the future, limitations on our ability to increase or collect rental rates, competition, our ability to identify and consummate attractive acquisitions or development projects on favorable terms, our ability to consummate any planned dispositions in a timely manner on acceptable terms, and our ability to reinvest sale proceeds in a manner that generates favorable returns;
- failure of development communities to be completed within budget and on a timely basis, if at all, to lease-up as anticipated or to achieve anticipated results;
- unexpected capital needs;
- material changes in operating costs, including real estate taxes, utilities and insurance costs, due to inflation and other factors;
- inability to obtain appropriate insurance coverage at reasonable rates, or at all, or losses from catastrophes in excess of our insurance coverage;
- ability to obtain financing at favorable rates, if at all, or refinance existing debt as it matures;
- level and volatility of interest or capitalization rates or capital market conditions;
- the effect of any rating agency actions on the cost and availability of new debt financing;
- significant change in the mortgage financing market or other factors that would cause single-family housing or other alternative housing options, either as an owned or rental product, to become a more significant competitive product;
- ability to continue to satisfy complex rules in order to maintain our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, the ability of MAALP to satisfy the rules to maintain its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, the ability of our taxable REIT subsidiaries to maintain their status as such for federal income tax purposes, and our ability and the ability of our subsidiaries to operate effectively within the limitations imposed by these rules;
- inability to attract and retain qualified personnel;
- cyber liability or potential liability for breaches of our or our service providers' information technology systems, or business operations disruptions;
- potential liability for environmental contamination;
- changes in the legal requirements we are subject to, or the imposition of new legal requirements, that adversely affect our operations;
- extreme weather and natural disasters;
- disease outbreaks and other public health events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and measures that are taken by federal, state, and local governmental authorities in response to such outbreaks and events;
- impact of climate change on our properties or operations;
- legal proceedings or class action lawsuits;
- impact of reputational harm caused by negative press or social media postings of our actions or policies, whether or not warranted;
- compliance costs associated with numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations; and
- other risks identified in this release and in reports we file with the SEC or in other documents that we publicly disseminate.
New factors may also emerge from time to time that could have a material adverse effect on our business. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements contained in this release to reflect events, circumstances or changes in expectations after the date of this release.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS | ||||||||||||||||
Dollars in thousands, except per share data | Three months ended December 31, | Year ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Rental and other property revenues | $ | 527,965 | $ | 463,575 | $ | 2,019,866 | $ | 1,778,082 | ||||||||
Net income available for MAA common shareholders | $ | 192,699 | $ | 184,719 | $ | 633,748 | $ | 530,103 | ||||||||
Total NOI (1) | $ | 346,791 | $ | 296,477 | $ | 1,296,172 | $ | 1,106,917 | ||||||||
Earnings per common share: (2) | ||||||||||||||||
Basic | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.49 | $ | 4.62 | ||||||||
Diluted | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.48 | $ | 4.61 | ||||||||
Funds from operations per Share - diluted: (2) | ||||||||||||||||
FFO (1) | $ | 2.12 | $ | 2.01 | $ | 8.20 | $ | 7.20 | ||||||||
Core FFO (1) | $ | 2.32 | $ | 1.90 | $ | 8.50 | $ | 7.01 | ||||||||
Core AFFO (1) | $ | 2.20 | $ | 1.74 | $ | 7.67 | $ | 6.32 | ||||||||
Dividends declared per common share | $ | 1.4000 | $ | 1.0875 | $ | 4.9875 | $ | 4.1625 | ||||||||
Dividends/Core FFO (diluted) payout ratio | 60.3 | % | 57.2 | % | 58.7 | % | 59.4 | % | ||||||||
Dividends/Core AFFO (diluted) payout ratio | 63.6 | % | 62.5 | % | 65.0 | % | 65.9 | % | ||||||||
Consolidated interest expense | $ | 38,084 | $ | 39,108 | $ | 154,747 | $ | 156,881 | ||||||||
Mark-to-market debt adjustment | 13 | (36) | (77) | (270) | ||||||||||||
Debt discount and debt issuance cost amortization | (1,528) | (1,474) | (5,985) | (5,383) | ||||||||||||
Capitalized interest | 2,582 | 1,939 | 8,728 | 9,720 | ||||||||||||
Total interest incurred | $ | 39,151 | $ | 39,537 | $ | 157,413 | $ | 160,948 | ||||||||
Amortization of principal on notes payable | $ | 358 | $ | 337 | $ | 1,401 | $ | 1,516 |
(1) | A reconciliation of the following items and discussion of their respective components can be found later in this release: (i) NOI to Net income available for MAA common shareholders; and (ii) FFO, Core FFO and Core AFFO to Net income available for MAA common shareholders. |
(2) | See the "Share and Unit Data" section for additional information. |
Dollars in thousands, except share price | ||||||||
December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2021 | |||||||
Gross Assets (1) | $ | 15,543,912 | $ | 15,133,343 | ||||
Gross Real Estate Assets (1) | $ | 15,336,793 | $ | 14,865,818 | ||||
Total debt | $ | 4,414,903 | $ | 4,516,690 | ||||
Common shares and units outstanding | 118,645,269 | 118,542,994 | ||||||
Share price | $ | 156.99 | $ | 229.44 | ||||
Book equity value | $ | 6,210,419 | $ | 6,184,092 | ||||
Market equity value | $ | 18,626,121 | $ | 27,198,505 | ||||
Net Debt/Adjusted EBITDAre (2) | 3.71x | 4.39x |
(1) | A reconciliation of Gross Assets to Total assets and Gross Real Estate Assets to Real estate assets, net, along with discussion of their components, can be found later in this release. |
(2) | Adjusted EBITDAre is calculated for the trailing twelve month period for each date presented. A reconciliation of the following items and discussion of their respective components can be found later in this release: (i) Net Debt to Unsecured notes payable and Secured notes payable; and (ii) EBITDA, EBITDAre and Adjusted EBITDAre to Net income. |
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS | ||||||||||||||||
Dollars in thousands, except per share data (Unaudited) | Three months ended | Year ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Revenues: | ||||||||||||||||
Rental and other property revenues | $ | 527,965 | $ | 463,575 | $ | 2,019,866 | $ | 1,778,082 | ||||||||
Expenses: | ||||||||||||||||
Operating expenses, excluding real estate taxes and insurance | 106,594 | 100,164 | 435,108 | 404,288 | ||||||||||||
Real estate taxes and insurance | 74,580 | 66,934 | 288,586 | 266,877 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization | 138,237 | 135,495 | 542,998 | 533,433 | ||||||||||||
Total property operating expenses | 319,411 | 302,593 | 1,266,692 | 1,204,598 | ||||||||||||
Property management expenses | 17,034 | 15,210 | 65,463 | 55,732 | ||||||||||||
General and administrative expenses | 14,742 | 14,121 | 58,833 | 52,884 | ||||||||||||
Interest expense | 38,084 | 39,108 | 154,747 | 156,881 | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of depreciable real estate assets | (82,799) | (85,913) | (214,762) | (220,428) | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of non-depreciable real estate assets | — | (609) | (809) | (811) | ||||||||||||
Other non-operating expense (income) | 23,465 | (19,345) | 42,713 | (33,902) | ||||||||||||
Income before income tax expense | 198,028 | 198,410 | 646,989 | 563,128 | ||||||||||||
Income tax benefit (expense) | 458 | (7,790) | 6,208 | (13,637) | ||||||||||||
Income from continuing operations before real estate joint venture activity | 198,486 | 190,620 | 653,197 | 549,491 | ||||||||||||
Income from real estate joint venture | 450 | 296 | 1,579 | 1,211 | ||||||||||||
Net income | 198,936 | 190,916 | 654,776 | 550,702 | ||||||||||||
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests | 5,315 | 5,275 | 17,340 | 16,911 | ||||||||||||
Net income available for shareholders | 193,621 | 185,641 | 637,436 | 533,791 | ||||||||||||
Dividends to MAA Series I preferred shareholders | 922 | 922 | 3,688 | 3,688 | ||||||||||||
Net income available for MAA common shareholders | $ | 192,699 | $ | 184,719 | $ | 633,748 | $ | 530,103 | ||||||||
Earnings per common share - basic: | ||||||||||||||||
Net income available for common shareholders | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.49 | $ | 4.62 | ||||||||
Earnings per common share - diluted: | ||||||||||||||||
Net income available for common shareholders | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.48 | $ | 4.61 |
SHARE AND UNIT DATA | ||||||||||||||||
Shares and units in thousands | Three months ended December 31, | Year ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Net Income Shares (1) | ||||||||||||||||
Weighted average common shares - basic | 115,398 | 115,158 | 115,344 | 114,717 | ||||||||||||
Effect of dilutive securities | 251 | 458 | 239 | 322 | ||||||||||||
Weighted average common shares - diluted | 115,649 | 115,616 | 115,583 | 115,039 | ||||||||||||
Funds From Operations Shares And Units | ||||||||||||||||
Weighted average common shares and units - basic | 118,568 | 118,433 | 118,538 | 118,400 | ||||||||||||
Weighted average common shares and units - diluted | 118,646 | 118,637 | 118,618 | 118,519 | ||||||||||||
Period End Shares And Units | ||||||||||||||||
Common shares at December 31, | 115,480 | 115,337 | 115,480 | 115,337 | ||||||||||||
Operating Partnership units at December 31, | 3,165 | 3,206 | 3,165 | 3,206 | ||||||||||||
Total common shares and units at December 31, | 118,645 | 118,543 | 118,645 | 118,543 |
(1) | For additional information on the calculation of diluted common shares and earnings per common share, please refer to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in MAA's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, expected to be filed with the SEC on or about February 16, 2023. |
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS | ||||||||
Dollars in thousands (Unaudited) | ||||||||
December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2021 | |||||||
Assets | ||||||||
Real estate assets: | ||||||||
Land | $ | 2,008,364 | $ | 1,977,813 | ||||
Buildings and improvements and other | 12,841,947 | 12,454,439 | ||||||
Development and capital improvements in progress | 332,035 | 247,970 | ||||||
15,182,346 | 14,680,222 | |||||||
Less: Accumulated depreciation | (4,302,747) | (3,848,161) | ||||||
10,879,599 | 10,832,061 | |||||||
Undeveloped land | 64,312 | 24,015 | ||||||
Investment in real estate joint venture | 42,290 | 42,827 | ||||||
Real estate assets, net | 10,986,201 | 10,898,903 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | 38,659 | 54,302 | ||||||
Restricted cash | 22,412 | 76,296 | ||||||
Other assets | 193,893 | 255,681 | ||||||
Total assets | 11,241,165 | 11,285,182 | ||||||
Liabilities and equity | ||||||||
Liabilities: | ||||||||
Unsecured notes payable | $ | 4,050,910 | $ | 4,151,375 | ||||
Secured notes payable | 363,993 | 365,315 | ||||||
Accrued expenses and other liabilities | 615,843 | 584,400 | ||||||
Total liabilities | 5,030,746 | 5,101,090 | ||||||
Redeemable common stock | 20,671 | 30,185 | ||||||
Shareholders' equity: | ||||||||
Preferred stock | 9 | 9 | ||||||
Common stock | 1,152 | 1,151 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital | 7,202,834 | 7,230,956 | ||||||
Accumulated distributions in excess of net income | (1,188,854) | (1,255,807) | ||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (10,052) | (11,132) | ||||||
Total MAA shareholders' equity | 6,005,089 | 5,965,177 | ||||||
Noncontrolling interests - Operating Partnership units | 163,595 | 165,116 | ||||||
Total Company's shareholders' equity | 6,168,684 | 6,130,293 | ||||||
Noncontrolling interests - consolidated real estate entities | 21,064 | 23,614 | ||||||
Total equity | 6,189,748 | 6,153,907 | ||||||
Total liabilities and equity | $ | 11,241,165 | $ | 11,285,182 |
RECONCILIATION OF FFO, CORE FFO, CORE AFFO AND FAD TO NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR MAA COMMON SHAREHOLDERS | ||||||||||||||||
Amounts in thousands, except per share and unit data | Three months ended December 31, | Year ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||
2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | |||||||||||||
Net income available for MAA common shareholders | $ | 192,699 | $ | 184,719 | $ | 633,748 | $ | 530,103 | ||||||||
Depreciation and amortization of real estate assets | 136,469 | 133,634 | 535,835 | 526,220 | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of depreciable real estate assets | (82,799) | (85,913) | (214,762) | (220,428) | ||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization of real estate assets of real estate | 155 | 153 | 621 | 616 | ||||||||||||
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests | 5,315 | 5,275 | 17,340 | 16,911 | ||||||||||||
FFO attributable to the Company | 251,839 | 237,868 | 972,782 | 853,422 | ||||||||||||
Loss on embedded derivative in preferred shares (1) | 10,743 | 16,052 | 21,107 | 4,560 | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of non-depreciable real estate assets | — | (609) | (809) | (811) | ||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on investments, net of tax (1)(2) | 4,786 | (26,644) | 35,822 | (40,875) | ||||||||||||
Casualty related (recoveries) charges, net (3) | (759) | (480) | (29,930) | 1,524 | ||||||||||||
Loss on debt extinguishment (1) | — | — | 47 | 13,391 | ||||||||||||
Legal costs and settlements, net (1) | 8,000 | (1,451) | 8,535 | (2,167) | ||||||||||||
COVID-19 related costs (1) | 73 | 390 | 575 | 1,301 | ||||||||||||
Mark-to-market debt adjustment (4) | (13) | 36 | 77 | 270 | ||||||||||||
Core FFO | 274,669 | 225,162 | 1,008,206 | 830,615 | ||||||||||||
Recurring capital expenditures | (13,825) | (19,297) | (98,168) | (81,106) | ||||||||||||
Core AFFO | 260,844 | 205,865 | 910,038 | 749,509 | ||||||||||||
Redevelopment capital expenditures | (23,755) | (15,835) | (101,035) | (85,467) | ||||||||||||
Revenue enhancing capital expenditures | (26,472) | (13,645) | (65,572) | (43,133) | ||||||||||||
Commercial capital expenditures | (1,938) | (1,539) | (4,692) | (3,842) | ||||||||||||
Other capital expenditures (5) | (9,822) | (8,086) | (23,595) | (21,561) | ||||||||||||
FAD | $ | 198,857 | $ | 166,760 | $ | 715,144 | $ | 595,506 | ||||||||
Dividends and distributions paid | $ | 148,306 | $ | 121,505 | $ | 554,532 | $ | 485,898 | ||||||||
Weighted average common shares - diluted | 115,649 | 115,616 | 115,583 | 115,039 | ||||||||||||
FFO weighted average common shares and units - diluted | 118,646 | 118,637 | 118,618 | 118,519 | ||||||||||||
Earnings per common share - diluted: | ||||||||||||||||
Net income available for common shareholders | $ | 1.67 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 5.48 | $ | 4.61 | ||||||||
FFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.12 | $ | 2.01 | $ | 8.20 | $ | 7.20 | ||||||||
Core FFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.32 | $ | 1.90 | $ | 8.50 | $ | 7.01 | ||||||||
Core AFFO per Share - diluted | $ | 2.20 | $ | 1.74 | $ | 7.67 | $ | 6.32 |
(1) | Included in Other non-operating expense (income) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
(2) | For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, loss (gain) on investments are presented net of tax benefit of $1.3 million and $9.5 million, respectively. For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2021, loss (gain) on investments are presented net of tax expense of $7.1 million and $10.8 million, respectively. |
(3) | For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, MAA incurred $5.8 million in casualty losses related to winter storm Elliot (primarily building repairs, landscaping and asset write-offs). During the year ended December 31, 2021, MAA incurred $26.0 million in casualty losses related to winter storm Uri. The majority of the storm costs are expected to be or have been reimbursed through insurance coverage. An insurance recovery was recognized in Other non-operating expense (income) in the amount of the recognized losses that MAA expects to recover. Additional costs related to the storms that are not expected to be recovered through insurance coverage, along with other unrelated casualty losses and recoveries, including the receipt of insurance proceeds that exceeded its recorded casualty losses from winter storm Uri, are reflected in Casualty related (recoveries) charges, net. For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, MAA recognized a gain of $1.4 million and $29.0 million, respectively, from the receipt of insurance proceeds that exceeded its casualty losses related to winter storm Uri. These adjustments are primarily included in Other non-operating expense (income). |
(4) | Included in Interest expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
(5) | For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, $1.1 million and $3.1 million, respectively, of corporate related capital expenditures are excluded from other capital expenditures. For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2021, $12.7 million and $44.5 million, respectively, of reconstruction-related capital expenditures relating to winter storm Uri and corporate related capital expenditures are excluded from other capital expenditures. The capital expenditures relating to winter storm Uri have been reimbursed through insurance coverage. |
RECONCILIATION OF NET OPERATING INCOME TO NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR MAA COMMON SHAREHOLDERS | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars in thousands | Three Months Ended | Year Ended | ||||||||||||||||||
December 31, | September 30, | December 31, | December 31, | December 31, | ||||||||||||||||
Net Operating Income | ||||||||||||||||||||
Same Store NOI | $ | 332,199 | $ | 315,616 | $ | 284,425 | $ | 1,242,695 | $ | 1,061,572 | ||||||||||
Non-Same Store and Other NOI | 14,592 | 13,744 | 12,052 | 53,477 | 45,345 | |||||||||||||||
Total NOI | 346,791 | 329,360 | 296,477 | 1,296,172 | 1,106,917 | |||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization | (138,237) | (136,879) | (135,495) | (542,998) | (533,433) | |||||||||||||||
Property management expenses | (17,034) | (16,262) | (15,210) | (65,463) | (55,732) | |||||||||||||||
General and administrative expenses | (14,742) | (12,188) | (14,121) | (58,833) | (52,884) | |||||||||||||||
Interest expense | (38,084) | (38,637) | (39,108) | (154,747) | (156,881) | |||||||||||||||
Gain (loss) on sale of depreciable real estate | 82,799 | (1) | 85,913 | 214,762 | 220,428 | |||||||||||||||
Gain on sale of non-depreciable real estate | — | 431 | 609 | 809 | 811 | |||||||||||||||
Other non-operating (expense) income | (23,465) | (1,718) | 19,345 | (42,713) | 33,902 | |||||||||||||||
Income tax benefit (expense) | 458 | 1,256 | (7,790) | 6,208 | (13,637) | |||||||||||||||
Income from real estate joint venture | 450 | 341 | 296 | 1,579 | 1,211 | |||||||||||||||
Net income attributable to noncontrolling | (5,315) | (3,392) | (5,275) | (17,340) | (16,911) | |||||||||||||||
Dividends to MAA Series I preferred | (922) | (922) | (922) | (3,688) | (3,688) | |||||||||||||||
Net income available for MAA common | $ | 192,699 | $ | 121,389 | $ | 184,719 | $ | 633,748 | $ | 530,103 |
RECONCILIATION OF EBITDA, EBITDAre AND ADJUSTED EBITDAre TO NET INCOME | ||||||||||||||||
Dollars in thousands | Three Months Ended | Year Ended | ||||||||||||||
December 31, | December 31, | December 31, | December 31, | |||||||||||||
Net income | $ | 198,936 | $ | 190,916 | $ | 654,776 | $ | 550,702 | ||||||||
Depreciation and amortization | 138,237 | 135,495 | 542,998 | 533,433 | ||||||||||||
Interest expense | 38,084 | 39,108 | 154,747 | 156,881 | ||||||||||||
Income tax (benefit) expense | (458) | 7,790 | (6,208) | 13,637 | ||||||||||||
EBITDA | 374,799 | 373,309 | 1,346,313 | 1,254,653 | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of depreciable real estate assets | (82,799) | (85,913) | (214,762) | (220,428) | ||||||||||||
Adjustments to reflect the Company's share of | 338 | 338 | 1,357 | 1,352 | ||||||||||||
EBITDAre | 292,338 | 287,734 | 1,132,908 | 1,035,577 | ||||||||||||
Loss on embedded derivative in preferred shares (1) | 10,743 | 16,052 | 21,107 | 4,560 | ||||||||||||
Gain on sale of non-depreciable real estate assets | — | (609) | (809) | (811) | ||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on investments (1) | 6,068 | (33,713) | 45,357 | (51,714) | ||||||||||||
Casualty related (recoveries) charges, net (2) | (759) | (480) | (29,930) | 1,524 | ||||||||||||
Loss on debt extinguishment (1) | — | — | 47 | 13,391 | ||||||||||||
Legal costs and settlements, net (1) | 8,000 | (1,451) | 8,535 | (2,167) | ||||||||||||
COVID-19 related costs (1) | 73 | 390 | 575 | 1,301 | ||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDAre | $ | 316,463 | $ | 267,923 | $ | 1,177,790 | $ | 1,001,661 |
(1) | Included in Other non-operating expense (income) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. |
(2) | For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, MAA incurred $5.8 million in casualty losses related to winter storm Elliot (primarily building repairs, landscaping and asset write-offs). During the year ended December 31, 2021, MAA incurred $26.0 million in casualty losses related to winter storm Uri. The majority of the storm costs are expected to be or have been reimbursed through insurance coverage. An insurance recovery was recognized in Other non-operating expense (income) in the amount of the recognized losses that MAA expects to recover. Additional costs related to the storms that are not expected to be recovered through insurance coverage, along with other unrelated casualty losses and recoveries, including the receipt of insurance proceeds that exceeded its recorded casualty losses from winter storm Uri, are reflected in Casualty related (recoveries) charges, net. For the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2022, MAA recognized a gain of $1.4 million and $29.0 million, respectively, from the receipt of insurance proceeds that exceeded its casualty losses related to winter storm Uri. These adjustments are primarily included in Other non-operating expense (income). |
RECONCILIATION OF NET DEBT TO UNSECURED NOTES PAYABLE AND SECURED NOTES PAYABLE | ||||||||
Dollars in thousands | ||||||||
December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2021 | |||||||
Unsecured notes payable | $ | 4,050,910 | $ | 4,151,375 | ||||
Secured notes payable | 363,993 | 365,315 | ||||||
Total debt | 4,414,903 | 4,516,690 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | (38,659) | (54,302) | ||||||
1031(b) exchange proceeds included in Restricted cash (1) | (9,186) | (64,452) | ||||||
Net Debt | $ | 4,367,058 | $ | 4,397,936 |
(1) | Included in Restricted cash in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. |
RECONCILIATION OF GROSS ASSETS TO TOTAL ASSETS | ||||||||
Dollars in thousands | ||||||||
December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2021 | |||||||
Total assets | $ | 11,241,165 | $ | 11,285,182 | ||||
Accumulated depreciation | 4,302,747 | 3,848,161 | ||||||
Gross Assets | $ | 15,543,912 | $ | 15,133,343 |
RECONCILIATION OF GROSS REAL ESTATE ASSETS TO REAL ESTATE ASSETS, NET | ||||||||
Dollars in thousands | ||||||||
December 31, 2022 | December 31, 2021 | |||||||
Real estate assets, net | $ | 10,986,201 | $ | 10,898,903 | ||||
Accumulated depreciation | 4,302,747 | 3,848,161 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | 38,659 | 54,302 | ||||||
1031(b) exchange proceeds included in Restricted cash (1) | 9,186 | 64,452 | ||||||
Gross Real Estate Assets | $ | 15,336,793 | $ | 14,865,818 |
(1) | Included in Restricted cash in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. |
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
Adjusted EBITDAre
For purposes of calculations in this release, Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Income Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization for real estate, or Adjusted EBITDAre, represents EBITDAre further adjusted for items that are not considered part of MAA's core operations such as adjustments related to the fair value of the embedded derivative in the MAA Series I preferred shares, gain or loss on sale of non-depreciable assets, gain or loss on investments, casualty related (recoveries) charges, net, gain or loss on debt extinguishment, legal costs and settlements, net and COVID-19 related costs. As an owner and operator of real estate, MAA considers Adjusted EBITDAre to be an important measure of performance from core operations because Adjusted EBITDAre does not include various income and expense items that are not indicative of operating performance. MAA's computation of Adjusted EBITDAre may differ from the methodology utilized by other companies to calculate Adjusted EBITDAre. Adjusted EBITDAre should not be considered as an alternative to Net income as an indicator of operating performance.
Core Adjusted Funds from Operations (Core AFFO)
Core AFFO is composed of Core FFO less recurring capital expenditures. Core AFFO should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders as an indicator of operating performance. As an owner and operator of real estate, MAA considers Core AFFO to be an important measure of performance from operations because Core AFFO measures the ability to control revenues, expenses and recurring capital expenditures.
Core Funds from Operations (Core FFO)
Core FFO represents FFO as adjusted for items that are not considered part of MAA's core business operations such as adjustments related to the fair value of the embedded derivative in the MAA Series I preferred shares, gain or loss on sale of non-depreciable assets, gain or loss on investments, net of tax, casualty related (recoveries) charges, net, gain or loss on debt extinguishment, legal costs and settlements, net, COVID-19 related costs, mark-to-market debt adjustments and other non-core items. While MAA's definition of Core FFO may be similar to others in the industry, MAA's methodology for calculating Core FFO may differ from that utilized by other REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other REITs. Core FFO should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders as an indicator of operating performance. MAA believes that Core FFO is helpful in understanding its core operating performance between periods in that it removes certain items that by their nature are not comparable over periods and therefore tend to obscure actual operating performance.
EBITDA
For purposes of calculations in this release, Earnings Before Interest, Income Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization, or EBITDA, is composed of net income plus depreciation and amortization, interest expense, and income taxes. As an owner and operator of real estate, MAA considers EBITDA to be an important measure of performance from core operations because EBITDA does not include various expense items that are not indicative of operating performance. EBITDA should not be considered as an alternative to Net income as an indicator of operating performance.
EBITDAre
For purposes of calculations in this release, Earnings Before Interest, Income Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization for real estate, or EBITDAre, is composed of EBITDA further adjusted for the gain or loss on sale of depreciable asset sales and adjustments to reflect MAA's share of EBITDAre of unconsolidated affiliates. As an owner and operator of real estate, MAA considers EBITDAre to be an important measure of performance from core operations because EBITDAre does not include various expense items that are not indicative of operating performance. While MAA's definition of EBITDAre is in accordance with NAREIT's definition, it may differ from the methodology utilized by other companies to calculate EBITDAre. EBITDAre should not be considered as an alternative to Net income as an indicator of operating performance.
Funds Available for Distribution (FAD)
FAD is composed of Core FFO less total capital expenditures, excluding development spending, property acquisitions, capital expenditures relating to significant casualty losses that management expects to be reimbursed by insurance proceeds and corporate related capital expenditures. FAD should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders as an indicator of operating performance. As an owner and operator of real estate, MAA considers FAD to be an important measure of performance from core operations because FAD measures the ability to control revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
Funds From Operations (FFO)
FFO represents net income available for MAA common shareholders (calculated in accordance with GAAP) excluding gain or loss on disposition of operating properties and asset impairment, plus depreciation and amortization of real estate assets, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, and adjustments for joint ventures. Because net income attributable to noncontrolling interests is added back, FFO, when used in this document, represents FFO attributable to the Company. While MAA's definition of FFO is in accordance with NAREIT's definition, it may differ from the methodology for calculating FFO utilized by other companies and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other companies. FFO should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders as an indicator of operating performance. MAA believes that FFO is helpful in understanding operating performance in that FFO excludes depreciation and amortization of real estate assets. MAA believes that GAAP historical cost depreciation of real estate assets is generally not correlated with changes in the value of those assets, whose value does not diminish predictably over time, as historical cost depreciation implies.
Gross Assets
Gross Assets represents Total assets plus Accumulated depreciation. MAA believes that Gross Assets can be used as a helpful tool in evaluating its balance sheet positions. MAA believes that GAAP historical cost depreciation of real estate assets is generally not correlated with changes in the value of those assets, whose value does not diminish predictably over time, as historical cost depreciation implies.
Gross Real Estate Assets
Gross Real Estate Assets represents Real estate assets, net plus Accumulated depreciation, Cash and cash equivalents and 1031(b) exchange proceeds included in Restricted cash. MAA believes that Gross Real Estate Assets can be used as a helpful tool in evaluating its balance sheet positions. MAA believes that GAAP historical cost depreciation of real estate assets is generally not correlated with changes in the value of those assets, whose value does not diminish predictably over time, as historical cost depreciation implies.
Net Debt
Net Debt represents Unsecured notes payable and Secured notes payable less Cash and cash equivalents and 1031(b) exchange proceeds included in Restricted cash. MAA believes Net Debt is a helpful tool in evaluating its debt position.
Net Operating Income (NOI)
Net Operating Income represents Rental and other property revenues less Total property operating expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, for all properties held during the period, regardless of their status as held for sale. NOI should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders. MAA believes NOI is a helpful tool in evaluating operating performance because it measures the core operations of property performance by excluding corporate level expenses and other items not related to property operating performance.
Non-Same Store and Other NOI
Non-Same Store and Other NOI represents Rental and other property revenues less Total property operating expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, for all properties classified within the Non-Same Store and Other Portfolio during the period. Non-Same Store and Other NOI includes all storm-related expenses related to hurricanes. Non-Same Store and Other NOI should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders. MAA believes Non-Same Store and Other NOI is a helpful tool in evaluating operating performance because it measures the core operations of property performance by excluding corporate level expenses and other items not related to property operating performance.
Same Store NOI
Same Store NOI represents Rental and other property revenues less Total property operating expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, for all properties classified within the Same Store Portfolio during the period. Same Store NOI excludes storm-related expenses related to hurricanes. Same Store NOI should not be considered as an alternative to Net income available for MAA common shareholders. MAA believes Same Store NOI is a helpful tool in evaluating operating performance because it measures the core operations of property performance by excluding corporate level expenses and other items not related to property operating performance.
OTHER KEY DEFINITIONS
Average Effective Rent per Unit
Average Effective Rent per Unit represents the average of gross rent amounts after the effect of leasing concessions for occupied units plus prevalent market rates asked for unoccupied units, divided by the total number of units. Leasing concessions represent discounts to the current market rate. MAA believes average effective rent is a helpful measurement in evaluating average pricing. It does not represent actual rental revenue collected per unit.
Average Physical Occupancy
Average Physical Occupancy represents the average of the daily physical occupancy for an applicable period.
Development Communities
Communities remain identified as development until certificates of occupancy are obtained for all units under development. Once all units are delivered and available for occupancy, the community moves into the Lease-up Communities portfolio.
Lease-up Communities
New acquisitions acquired during lease-up and newly developed communities remain in the Lease-up Communities portfolio until stabilized. Communities are considered stabilized when achieving 90% average physical occupancy for 90 days.
Non-Same Store and Other Portfolio
Non-Same Store and Other Portfolio includes recently acquired communities, communities in development or lease-up, communities that have been disposed of or identified for disposition, communities that have experienced a significant casualty loss, stabilized communities that do not meet the requirements defined by the Same Store Portfolio, retail properties and commercial properties.
Resident Turnover
Resident turnover represents resident move outs excluding transfers within the Same Store Portfolio as a percentage of expiring leases on a rolling twelve month basis as of the end of the reported quarter.
Same Store Portfolio
MAA reviews its Same Store Portfolio at the beginning of each calendar year, or as significant transactions or events warrant. Communities are generally added into the Same Store Portfolio if they were owned and stabilized at the beginning of the previous year. Communities are considered stabilized when achieving 90% average physical occupancy for 90 days. Communities that have been approved by MAA's Board of Directors for disposition are excluded from the Same Store Portfolio. Communities that have experienced a significant casualty loss are also excluded from the Same Store Portfolio.
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/maa-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2022-results-301736655.html
SOURCE MAA
Uncategorized
Debate Continues On Whether Bitcoin Is A Suitable Hedge For Hyperinflation
Bitcoin, the world’s first decentralized digital currency, has been gaining traction in recent years as a potential hedge against hyperinflation in fiat…

Bitcoin, the world’s first decentralized digital currency, has been gaining traction in recent years as a potential hedge against hyperinflation in fiat currencies. As the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. dollar has been the subject of much debate regarding its stability and potential vulnerability to hyperinflation.
As Coindesk explains, Twitter was ablaze with reactions to former Coinbase Chief Technology Officer Balaji Srinivasan accepting a bet proposed by James Medlock that, due to hyperinflation in the United States, a single bitcoin would be worth $1 million in just 90 days.
This prompted CoinDesk Chief Content Officer Michael J. Casey to discuss the future of bitcoin on the publication’s All About Bitcoin podcast. The discussion is an extension of Bitcoin suitability as an inflation hedge that has been raging ever since Satoshi Nakamoto first developed this novel form of currency.
In general, many proponents of Bitcoin argue that the cryptocurrency’s finite supply and decentralized nature make it a viable alternative to traditional currencies, while others remain skeptical of its ability to serve as a hedge against inflation.
The U.S. dollar has been the world’s reserve currency since the end of World War II, and its stability has been a cornerstone of the global financial system. However, the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply dramatically in recent years to stimulate the economy, leading some to worry about the potential for inflation.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also put pressure on the economy, causing Federal Reserve to again begin increasing its balance sheet after a brief period of quantitative tightening. This, in response to consumers pulling their money out of the banking system to the tune of $475 billion last week alone. According to the Fed’s updated balance sheet, approximately two-thirds of the Fed’s quantitative tightening program—a program designed to reduce its balance sheet which was a year in the making—has been reversed.
The overarching fear among many analysts is that with bond market inversion signaling the economy is headed into recession, and with the Fed Funds rate a five percent, the Federal Reserve will soon be forced to enact another round of quantitative easing. Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $395.5 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays, according to the Office of Management and Budget. And this total is rising.
Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy tool used by central banks to increase the money supply and encourage lending and investment. It involves the purchase of government securities or other assets by the central bank, which injects money into the economy and increases the amount of credit available to banks and other financial institutions.
Hyperflation And Bitcoin Debate
As mentioned off the top, the debate about whether Bitcoin can mitigate the effects of hyperinflation is a conversation that will continue to gain traction over time. This is due to fears that the money supply is again headed for a dramatic increase, due to the recent banking crisis which may require a massive influx or capital, upcoming recession support spending, higher interest payment of federal debt, and more.
Hyperinflation is a situation in which a country experiences a rapid and out-of-control increase in prices, often resulting in the collapse of its currency. It is usually caused by an excessive increase in the money supply, which reduces the currency’s purchasing power. This scenario is not hypothetical, as history has seen several instances of hyperinflation.
For example, Germany’s hyperinflation in the 1920s resulted in people burning money for fuel and using it as wallpaper, while Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation in the 2000s led to people using billion-dollar notes as napkins.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a finite supply of 21 million coins, with approximately 18.6 million already in circulation. This means that the supply of Bitcoin is limited and cannot be increased, theoretically making it immune to the effects of inflation caused by an increase in the money supply.
In addition, Bitcoin is decentralized, meaning that it is not controlled by any central authority, government, or financial institution. This makes it less vulnerable to the effects of political instability, such as hyperinflation caused by government mismanagement of the economy.
The Case Against Bitcoin As A Suitable (Hyper)Inflation Hedge
Some critics argue that Bitcoin is not a viable alternative to fiat currencies, including the U.S. dollar. They point out that Bitcoin’s price is highly volatile, with wild swings in value that make it difficult to use as a stable store of value. In addition, Bitcoin is not widely accepted as a means of payment, with only a small percentage of businesses accepting it as a form of payment. This limits its usefulness as a currency and makes it more difficult for individuals to use it as a hedge against inflation.
Another issue with Bitcoin as a hedge against hyperinflation is its lack of intrinsic value. While traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar are backed by the government and have a certain amount of value due to their widespread acceptance, Bitcoin’s value is based solely on market demand. This makes it more vulnerable to market forces and less reliable as a long-term store of value.
It is worth noting in any conversation about Bitcoin vs. hyperinflation that its finite money supply does not guarantee that it will be a suitable inflation hedge. If governments are able to corral the gateways in which Bitcoin can be spent, acquired or transacted on, it is possible that transaction volume will never reach a critical mass to become a widescale alternative form of currency.
Despite these criticisms, many Bitcoin believers continue to purchase the cryptocurrency as a potential hedge against hyperinflation. Its decentralized nature and finite supply make it an attractive alternative to fiat currencies that are subject to political and economic instability. In addition, the increasing adoption of Bitcoin by businesses and individuals is making it more mainstream, which could further increase its value over time.
Given Bitcoin’s recent performance in the face of the U.S. banking calamity, there may be more believers than detractors give credit for.
The post Debate Continues On Whether Bitcoin Is A Suitable Hedge For Hyperinflation appeared first on The Dales Report.
cryptocurrency bitcoin pandemic covid-19 currenciesUncategorized
Southwest Airlines Wants to End a Major Passenger Problem
The company has a novel way to end a practice that passengers hate.

The company has a novel way to end a practice that passengers hate.
Southwest Airlines boards its planes in a way very different from that of any of its major rivals.
As fans and detractors of the brand know, the airline does not offer seat assignments. Instead, passengers board by group and number. When you check into your flight, Southwest assigns you to the A, B, or C boarding groups and gives you a number 1-60. The A group boards first in numerical order.
DON'T MISS: Delta Move Is Bad News For Southwest, United Airlines Passengers
In theory, people board in the assigned order and can claim any seat that's available. In practice, the airline's boarding process leaves a lot of gray area that some people exploit. Others simply don't know exactly what the rules are.
If, for example, you are traveling with a friend who has a much later boarding number, is it okay to save a middle seat for that person?
Generally, that's okay because middle seats are less desirable, but technically it's not allowed. In general practice, if you move into the second half of the plane, no passenger will fight for a specific middle seat, but toward the front some may claim a middle seat.
There's less grey area, however, when it comes to trying to keep people from sitting in unoccupied seats. That's a huge problem for the airline, one that Southwest has tried to address in a humorous way.
Image source: Shutterstock
Southwest Airlines Has a Boarding Problem
When Southwest boards its flights it generally communicates to passengers about how full it expects the plane to be. In very rare cases, the airline will tell passengers when the crowd is small and they can expect that nobody will have to sit in a middle seat.
In most cases, however, at least since air travel has recovered after the covid pandemic, the airline usually announces that the flight is full or nearly full as passengers board. That's a de facto (and sometimes explicit) call not to attempt to discourage people from taking open seats in your row.
Unfortunately, many passengers know that sometimes when the airline says a flight is full, that's not entirely true. There might be a few no shows or a few seats that end up being open for one reason or another.
That leads to passengers -- at least a few of them on nearly every flight -- going to great lengths to try to end up next to an empty seat. Southwest has tried lots of different ways to discourage this behavior and has now resorted to humor in an effort to stop the seat hogs.
Southwest Uses Humor to Address a Pain Point
The airline recently released a video that addressed what it called "discouraged but crafty strategies to get a row to yourself" on Southwest. The video shows a man demonstrating all the different ways people try to dissuade other passengers from taking the open seats in their row.
These include, but are not limited to:
- Laying out across the whole row.
- Holding your arm up to sort of block the seats.
- Being too encouraging about someone taking the seat.
- Actually saying no when someone asks if they can have an open seat.
The airline also detailed a scenario it called "the fake breakup," where the person in the seat holds a loud phone conversation where he pretends he's being broken up with.
That one seems a bit of a reach, especially when Southwest left the most common seat-saving tactic out of its video -- simply putting some of your stuff in the open seat to make it appear unavailable.
Related Link:
link pandemicUncategorized
Das: Is A Full-Blown Global Banking Crisis In The Offing?
Das: Is A Full-Blown Global Banking Crisis In The Offing?
Authored by Styajit Das via NewIndianExpress.com,
If everything is fine, then why…

Authored by Styajit Das via NewIndianExpress.com,
If everything is fine, then why are US banks borrowing billions at punitive rates at the discount window... a larger amount than in 2008/9?
Financial crashes like revolutions are impossible until they are inevitable. They typically proceed in stages. Since central banks began to increase interest rates in response to rising inflation, financial markets have been under pressure.
In 2022, there was the crypto meltdown (approximately $2 trillion of losses).
The S&P500 index fell about 20 percent. The largest US technology companies, which include Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, lost around $4.6 trillion in market value The September 2022 UK gilt crisis may have cost $500 billion. 30 percent of emerging market countries and 60 percent of low-income nations face a debt crisis. The problems have now reached the financial system, with US, European and Japanese banks losing around $460 billion in market value in March 2023.
While it is too early to say whether a full-fledged financial crisis is imminent, the trajectory is unpromising.
***
The affected US regional banks had specific failings. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank ("SVB") highlighted the interest rate risk of financing holdings of long-term fixed-rate securities with short-term deposits. SVB and First Republic Bank ("FRB") also illustrate the problem of the $250,000 limit on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") coverage. Over 90 percent of failed SVB and Signature Bank as well as two-thirds of FRB deposits were uninsured, creating a predisposition to a liquidity run in periods of financial uncertainty.
The crisis is not exclusively American. Credit Suisse has been, to date, the highest-profile European institution affected. The venerable Swiss bank -- which critics dubbed 'Debit Suisse' -- has a troubled history of banking dictators, money laundering, sanctions breaches, tax evasion and fraud, shredding documents sought by regulators and poor risk management evidenced most recently by high-profile losses associated with hedge fund Archegos and fintech firm Greensill. It has been plagued by corporate espionage, CEO turnover and repeated unsuccessful restructurings.
In February 2023, Credit Suisse announced an annual loss of nearly Swiss Franc 7.3 billion ($7.9 billion), its biggest since the financial crisis in 2008. Since the start of 2023, the bank's share price had fallen by about 25 percent. It was down more than 70 percent over the last year and nearly 90 percent over 5 years. Credit Suisse wealth management clients withdrew Swiss Franc 123 billion ($133 billion) of deposits in 2022, mostly in the fourth quarter.
The categoric refusal -- "absolutely not" -- of its key shareholder Saudi National Bank to inject new capital into Credit Suisse precipitated its end. It followed the announcement earlier in March that fund manager Harris Associates, a longest-standing shareholder, had sold its entire stake after losing patience with the Swiss Bank’s strategy and questioning the future of its franchise.
While the circumstances of individual firms exhibit differences, there are uncomfortable commonalities - interest rate risk, uninsured deposits and exposure to loss of funding.
***
Banks globally increased investment in high-quality securities -- primarily government and agency backed mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). It was driven by an excess of customer deposits relative to loan demand in an environment of abundant liquidity. Another motivation was the need to boost earnings under low-interest conditions which were squeezing net interest margin because deposit rates were largely constrained at the zero bound. The latter was, in part, driven by central bank regulations which favour customer deposit funding and the risk of loss of these if negative rates are applied.
Higher rates resulted in unrealised losses on these investments exceeding $600 billion as at end 2022 at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured US banks. If other interest-sensitive assets are included, then the loss for American banks alone may be around $2,000 billion. Globally, the total unrealised loss might be two to three times that.
Pundits, most with passing practical banking experience, have criticised the lack of hedging. The reality is that eliminating interest rate risk is costly and would reduce earnings. While SVB's portfolio's duration was an outlier, banks routinely invest in 1- to 5-year securities and run some level of the resulting interest rate exposure.
Additional complexities inform some investment portfolios. Japanese investors have large holdings of domestic and foreign long-maturity bonds. The market value of these fixed-rate investments have fallen. While Japanese short-term rates have not risen significantly, rising inflationary pressures may force increases that would reduce the margin between investment returns and interest expense reducing earnings.
It is unclear how much of the currency risk on these holdings of Japanese investors is hedged. A fall in the dollar, the principal denomination of these investments, would result in additional losses. The announcement by the US Federal Reserve ("the Fed") of coordinated action with other major central banks (Canada, England, Japan, Euro-zone and Switzerland) to provide US dollar liquidity suggests ongoing issues in hedging these currency exposures.
Banking is essentially a confidence trick because of the inherent mismatch between short-term deposits and longer-term assets. As the rapid demise of Credit Suisse highlights, strong capital and liquidity ratios count for little when depositors take flight.
Banks now face falling customer deposits as monetary stimulus is withdrawn, the build-up of savings during the pandemic is drawn down and the economy slows. In the US, deposits are projected to decline by up to 6 percent. Financial instability and apprehension about the solvency of individual institutions can, as recent experience corroborates, result in bank runs.
***
The fact is that events have significantly weakened the global banking system. A 10 percent loss on bank bond holdings would, if realised, decrease bank shareholder capital by around a quarter. This is before potential loan losses, as higher rates affect interest-sensitive sectors of the economy, are incorporated.
One vulnerable sector is property, due to high levels of leverage generally employed.
House prices are falling albeit from artificially high pandemic levels. Many households face financial stress due to high mortgage debt, rising repayments, cost of living increases and lagging real income. Risks in commercial real estate are increasing. The construction sector globally shows sign of slowing down. Capital expenditure is decreasing because of uncertainty about future prospects. Higher material and energy costs are pushing up prices further lowering demand.
Heavily indebted companies, especially in cyclical sectors like non-essential goods and services and many who borrowed heavily to get through the pandemic will find it difficult to repay debt. The last decade saw an increase in leveraged purchases of businesses. The value of outstanding US leveraged loans used in these transactions nearly tripled from $500 billion in 2010 to around $1.4 trillion as of August 2022, comparable to the $1.5 trillion high-yield bond market. There were similar rises in Europe and elsewhere.
Business bankruptcies are increasing in Europe and the UK although they fell in the US in 2022. The effects of higher rates are likely to take time to emerge due to staggered debt maturities and the timing of re-pricing. Default rates are projected to rise globally resulting in bank bad debts, reduced earnings and erosion of capital buffers.
***
There is a concerted effort by financial officials and their acolytes to reassure the population and mainly themselves of the safety of the financial system. Protestations of a sound banking system and the absence of contagion is an oxymoron. If the authorities are correct then why evoke the ‘systemic risk exemption’ to guarantee all depositors of failed banks? If there is liquidity to meet withdrawals then why the logorrhoea about the sufficiency of funds? If everything is fine, then why have US banks borrowed $153 billion at a punitive 4.75% against collateral at the discount window, a larger amount than in 2008/9? Why the compelling need for authorities to provide over $1 trillion in money or force bank mergers?
John Kenneth Galbraith once remarked that "anyone who says he won't resign four times, will". In a similar vein, the incessant repetition about the absence of any financial crisis suggests exactly the opposite.
***
The essential structure of the banking is unstable, primarily because of its high leverage where around $10 of equity supports $100 of assets. The desire to encourage competition and diversity, local needs, parochialism and fear of excessive numbers of systemically important and 'too-big-to-fail' institutions also mean that there are too many banks.
There are over 4,000 commercial banks in the US insured by the FDIC with nearly $24 trillion in assets, most of them small or mid-sized. Germany has around 1,900 banks including 1,000 cooperative banks, 400 Sparkassen, and smaller numbers of private banks and Landesbanken. Switzerland has over 240 banks with only four (now three) major institutions and a large number of cantonal, regional and savings banks.
Even if they were adequately staffed and equipped, managers and regulators would find it difficult to monitor and enforce rules. This creates a tendency for 'accidents' and periodic runs to larger banks.
Deposit insurance is one favoured means of ensuring customer safety and assured funding. But that entails a delicate balance between consumer protection and moral hazard - concerns that it might encourage risky behaviour. There is the issue of the extent of protection.
In reality, no deposit insurance system can safeguard a banking system completely, especially under conditions of stress. It would overwhelm the sovereign's balance sheet and credit. Banks and consumers would ultimately have to bear the cost.
Deposit insurance can have cross-border implications. Thought bubbles like extending FDIC deposit coverage to all deposits for even a limited period can transmit problems globally and disrupt currency markets. If the US guarantees all deposits, then depositors might withdraw money from banks in their home countries to take advantage of the scheme setting off an international flight of capital. The movement of funds would aggravate any dollar shortages and complicate hedging of foreign exchange exposures. It may push up the value of the currency inflicting losses on emerging market borrowers and reducing American export competitiveness.
In effect, there are few if any neat, simple answers.
***
This means the resolution of any banking crisis relies, in practice, on private sector initiatives or public bailouts.
The deposit of $30 billion at FRB by a group of major banks is similar to actions during the 1907 US banking crisis and the 1998 $3.6 billion bailout of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management. Such transactions, if they are unsuccessful, risk dragging the saviours into a morass of expanding financial commitments as may be the case with FRB.
A related option is the forced sale or shotgun marriage. It is unclear how given systemic issues in banking, the blind lending assistance to the deaf and dumb strengthens the financial system. Given the ignominious record of many bank mergers, it is puzzling why foisting a failing institution onto a healthy rival constitutes sound policy.
HSBC, which is purchasing SVB's UK operations, has a poor record of acquisitions that included Edmond Safra's Republic Bank which caused it much embarrassment and US sub-prime lender Household International just prior to the 2008 crisis. The bank's decision to purchase SVB UK for a nominal £1 ($1.20) was despite a rushed due diligence and admissions that it was unable to fully analyse 30 percent of the target's loan book. It was justified as 'strategic' and the opportunity to win new start-up clients.
On 19 March 2023, Swiss regulators arranged for a reluctant UBS, the country's largest bank, to buy Credit Suisse after it become clear that an emergency Swiss Franc 50 billion ($54 billion) credit line provided by the Swiss National Bank was unlikely to arrest the decline. UBS will pay about Swiss Franc 0.76 a share in its own stock, a total value of around Swiss Franc 3 billion ($3.2 billion). While triple the earlier proposed price, it is nearly 60 percent lower than CS’s last closing price of Swiss Franc1.86.
Investors cheered the purchase as a generational bargain for UBS. This ignores Credit Suisse's unresolved issues including toxic assets and legacy litigation exposures. It was oblivious to well-known difficulties in integrating institutions, particularly different business models, systems, practices, jurisdictions and cultures. The purchase does not solve Credit Suisse's fundamental business and financial problems which are now UBS’s.
It also leaves Switzerland with the problem of concentrated exposure to a single large bank, a shift from its hitherto preferred two-bank model. Analysts seemed to have forgotten that UBS itself had to be supported by the state in 2008 with taxpayer funds after suffering large losses to avoid the bank being acquired by foreign buyers.
***
The only other option is some degree of state support.
The UBS acquisition of Credit Suisse requires the Swiss National Bank to assume certain risks. It will provide a Swiss Franc 100 billion ($108 billion) liquidity line backed by an enigmatically titled government default guarantee, presumably in addition to the earlier credit support. The Swiss government is also providing a loss guarantee on certain assets of up to Swiss Franc 9 billion ($9.7 billion), which operates after UBS bears the first Swiss Franc 5 billion ($5.4 billion) of losses.
The state can underwrite bank liabilities including all deposits as some countries did after 2008. As US Treasury Secretary Yellen reluctantly admitted to Congress, the extension of FDIC coverage was contingent on US officials and regulators determining systemic risk as happened with SVB and Signature. Another alternative is to recapitalise banks with public money as was done after 2008 or finance the removal of distressed or toxic assets from bank books.
Socialisation of losses is politically and financially expensive.
Despite protestations to the contrary, the dismal truth is that in a major financial crisis, lenders to and owners of systemic large banks will be bailed out to some extent.
European supervisors have been critical of the US decision to break with its own standard of guaranteeing only the first $250,000 of deposits by invoking a systemic risk exception while excluding SVB as too small to be required to comply with the higher standards applicable to larger banks. There now exist voluminous manuals on handling bank collapses such as imposing losses on owners, bondholders and other unsecured creditors, including depositors with funds exceeding guarantee limit, as well as resolution plans designed to minimise the fallout from failures. Prepared by expensive consultants, they serve the essential function of satisfying regulatory checklists. Theoretically sound reforms are not consistently followed in practice. Under fire in trenches, regulators concentrate on more practical priorities.
The debate about bank regulation misses a central point. Since the 1980s, the economic system has become addicted to borrowing-funded consumption and investment. Bank credit is central to this process. Some recommendations propose a drastic reduction in bank leverage from the current 10-to-1 to a mere 3-to1. The resulting contraction would have serious implications for economic activity and asset values.
In Annie Hall, Woody Allen cannot have his brother, who thinks he is a chicken, treated by a psychiatrist because the family needs the eggs. Banking regulation flounders on the same logic.
As in all crises, commentators have reached for the 150-year-old dictum of Walter Bagehot in Lombard Street that a central bank's job is "to lend in a panic on every kind of current security, or every sort on which money is ordinarily and usually lent."
Central bankers are certainly lending, although advancing funds based on the face value of securities with much lower market values would not seem to be what the former editor of The Economist had in mind. It also ignores the final part of the statement that such actions "may not save the bank; but if it do not, nothing will save it."
Banks everywhere remain exposed. US regional banks, especially those with a high proportion of uninsured deposits, remain under pressure.
European banks, in Germany, Italy and smaller Euro-zone economies, may be susceptible because of poor profitability, lack of essential scale, questionable loan quality and the residual scar tissue from the 2011 debt crisis.
Emerging market banks' loan books face the test of an economic slowdown. There are specific sectoral concerns such as the exposure of Chinese banks to the property sector which has necessitated significant ($460 billion) state support.
Contagion may spread across a hyper-connected financial system from country to country and from smaller to larger more systematically important banks. Declining share prices and credit ratings downgrades combined with a slowdown in inter-bank transactions, as credit risk managers become increasingly cautious, will transmit stress across global markets.
For the moment, whether the third banking crisis in two decades remains contained is a matter of faith and belief. Financial markets will test policymakers' resolve in the coming days and weeks.
-
Government16 hours ago
As We Sell Off Our Strategic Oil Reserves, Ponder This
-
Government17 hours ago
The Disinformation-Industrial Complex Vs Domestic Terror
-
Uncategorized1 hour ago
Debate Continues On Whether Bitcoin Is A Suitable Hedge For Hyperinflation
-
Uncategorized1 hour ago
Southwest Airlines Wants to End a Major Passenger Problem