10-K 1 f80308e10-k.htm FORM 10-K FORM 10-K - AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION - 12/31/2002
Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


Form 10-K


     
(Mark One)
   
þ
  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
    For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001
 
or
 
o
  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission File Number 001-13545


AMB Property Corporation

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
     
Maryland
  94-3281941
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
  (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 
Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, California
  94111
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)   (Zip Code)
(415) 394-9000
(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

     
Common Stock, $.01 par value
8 1/2% Series A Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Title of Class)
  New York Stock Exchange
(Name of Exchange on Which Registered)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

      Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     o

      The aggregate market value of common shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant (based upon the closing sale price on the New York Stock Exchange) on March 20, 2002, was $2,312,576,459.

      As of March 20, 2002, there were 84,063,121 shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

      Part III incorporates by reference the Registrant’s Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders which the Registrant anticipates will be filed no later than 120 days after the end of its fiscal year pursuant to Regulation 14A.




PART I
Item 1. Business
Item 2. Properties
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
PART II
Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters
Item 6. Selected Financial and Other Data
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
For the Years Ended December 31, 2000 and 1999
Item 7a. Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
PART III
Items 10, 11, 12 and 13.
PART IV
Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on Form 8-K
SIGNATURES
EXHIBIT INDEX
First Amendment to the Fifth Amended and Restated
First Amendment to Tenth Amended and Restated
Third Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option
Amendment No. 1 to the Third Amended and Restated
2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
Second Amendment to Tenth Amended and Restated
Exhibit 10.26
Subsidiaries of AMB Property Corporation
Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP
Letter, dated March 28, 2002,


Table of Contents

PART I

 
Item 1. Business

General

      AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is one of the leading owners and operators of industrial real estate nationwide. Our investment strategy is to become a leading provider of High Throughput Distribution, or HTD, properties located near key passenger and cargo airports, highway systems and ports in major metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Northern New Jersey/ New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Southern California, Miami, and Seattle. Within each of our markets, we focus our investments in in-fill submarkets. In-fill sub-markets are characterized by supply constraints on the availability of land for competing projects as well as by having physical, political, or economic barriers to new development. High Throughput Distribution facilities are designed to serve the high-speed, high-value freight handling needs of today’s supply chain, as opposed to functioning as long-term storage facilities. We believe that the growth of the airfreight and ocean-going container business and the outsourcing of supply chain management to third party logistics companies are indicative of the changes that are occurring in the supply chain and the manner in which goods are distributed. In addition, we believe that inventory levels as a percentage of final sales are falling and that goods are moving more rapidly through the supply chain. As a result, we intend to focus our investment activities primarily on industrial properties that we believe will benefit from these changes.

      As of December 31, 2001, we owned and operated 905 industrial buildings and seven retail centers, totaling approximately 81.6 million rentable square feet, located in 26 markets nationwide. As of December 31, 2001, our industrial and retail properties were 94.5% and 89.3% leased, respectively. As of December 31, 2001, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, LLC, we also managed industrial buildings and retail centers, totaling approximately 2.7 million rentable square feet on behalf of various clients. In addition, we have invested in 40 industrial buildings, totaling approximately 4.9 million rentable square feet, through unconsolidated joint ventures.

      As of December 31, 2001, we had seven retail centers and three industrial properties, which were held for divestiture. During 2001, we disposed of 26 industrial buildings and two retail buildings, aggregating approximately 3.2 million rentable square feet, for an aggregate price of $193.4 million. Over the next few years, we intend to dispose of non-strategic assets and redeploy the resulting capital into industrial properties in supply constrained markets in the U.S. and internationally that better fit our current investment focus.

      Through our subsidiary, AMB Property, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, we are engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, management, renovation, expansion, and development of primarily industrial properties in target markets nationwide. We refer to AMB Property, L.P. as the “operating partnership”. As of December 31, 2001, we owned an approximate 94.4% general partnership interest in the operating partnership, excluding preferred units. As the sole general partner of the operating partnership, we have the full, exclusive, and complete responsibility and discretion in the day-to-day management and control of the operating partnership.

      We are self-administered and self-managed and expect that we have qualified and will continue to qualify as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes beginning with the year ending December 31, 1997. As a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, our own employees perform our administrative and management functions, rather than our relying on an outside manager for these services. Our principal executive office is located at Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, CA 94111, and our telephone number is (415) 394-9000. We also maintain a regional office in Boston, Massachusetts. As of December 31, 2001, we employed 179 individuals, 134 at our San Francisco headquarters and 45 in our Boston office.

      Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to AMB Property Corporation, the operating partnership and the other controlled subsidiaries, and the references to AMB Property Corporation include the operating partnership and the other controlled subsidiaries. The following marks are our registered trademarks: AMB®; Customer Alliance Partners®; Customer Alliance Program®;

1


Table of Contents

Development Alliance Partners®; Development Alliance Program®; eSpace®; Institutional Alliance Partners®; Institutional Alliance Program®; Management Alliance Partners®; Management Alliance Program®; UPREIT Alliance Partners®; and UPREIT Alliance Program®. The following marks are our unregistered trademarks: Broker Alliance PartnersTM; Broker Alliance ProgramTM; HTDTM; High Throughput DistributionTM; iSpaceTM; Strategic Alliance PartnersTM; and Strategic Alliance ProgramsTM.

Co-investment Joint Ventures

      Through the operating partnership, we enter into co-investment joint ventures with institutional investors. These co-investment joint ventures provide us with an additional source of capital to fund certain acquisitions, development projects, and renovation projects. As of December 31, 2001, we had investments in five co-investment joint ventures with a gross book value of $1.3 billion, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes and which are discussed below. We believe that our co-investment program will also continue to serve as a source of capital for acquisitions and developments.

      The operating partnership is the managing general partner of AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I, L.P. and, together with one of our other affiliates, owned, as of December 31, 2001, approximately 21% of the partnership interests in the Alliance Fund I. The Alliance Fund I is a co-investment partnership between us and AMB Institutional Alliance REIT I, Inc., a limited partner of the Alliance Fund I, which includes 15 institutional investors as stockholders. The Alliance Fund I is engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, management, renovation, expansion, and development of industrial buildings in target markets nationwide. As of December 31, 2001, the Alliance Fund I had received equity contributions from third party investors totaling $169.0 million, which, when combined with anticipated debt financings and our investment, creates a total capitalization of $378.0 million.

      We formed AMB Partners II, L.P. with the City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System to acquire, develop, and redevelop distribution facilities nationwide. On February 14, 2001, AMB Partners II received an equity contribution from CCSFERS of $50.0 million, which, when combined with anticipated debt financings and our investment, creates a total planned capitalization of $250.0 million. The operating partnership is the managing general partner of AMB Partners II and owned, as of December 31, 2001, 50% of AMB Partners II.

      We formed AMB-SGP, L.P. with a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, to own and operate, through a private real estate investment trust, distribution facilities nationwide. On March 23, 2001, AMB-SGP received an equity contribution from GIC of $75.0 million, which, when combined with anticipated debt financings and our investment, creates a total planned capitalization of $335.0 million. The operating partnership is the managing general partner of AMB-SGP and owned, as of December 31, 2001, approximately 50.3% of AMB-SGP.

      We formed AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II, L.P., in which AMB Alliance REIT II, Inc. became a partner on June 28, 2001. The operating partnership is the managing general partner and, together with one of our other affiliates, owned, as of December 31, 2001, approximately 20% of the partnership interests in the Alliance Fund II. The Alliance Fund II is a co-investment partnership between us and AMB Institutional Alliance REIT II, Inc., a limited partner of the Alliance Fund II, which includes 12 institutional investors as stockholders as of December 31, 2001. The Alliance Fund II is engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, management, renovation, expansion, and development of industrial buildings in target markets nationwide. As of December 31, 2001, the Alliance Fund II had received equity commitments from third party investors totaling $195.4 million, which, when combined with anticipated debt financings and our investment, creates a total planned capitalization of $488.0 million.

      The operating partnership, together with one of our other affiliates, owns, as of December 31, 2001, approximately 50% of the partnership interests in AMB/ Erie. L.P. or “Erie”. Erie is a co-investment partnership between the operating partnership and various entities related to Erie Indemnity Company, and is engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, management, renovation, expansion, and development of industrial buildings in target markets nationwide. As of December 31, 2001, Erie had received equity

2


Table of Contents

contributions from third party investors totaling $14.0 million, which, when combined with debt financings and the Company’s investment, created a total capitalization of $129.0 million.

Acquisition and Development Activity

      During 2001, we invested $428.3 million in operating properties, consisting of 65 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 6.8 million square feet, including the investment of $219.5 million in 36 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 3.8 million square feet, for three of our co-investment joint ventures.

      During 2001, we also contributed $539.2 million in operating properties, consisting of 111 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 10.8 million square feet, to three of our co-investment joint ventures. During 2001, we recognized gains of $17.8 million on the contributions, which represents the portion of the contributed properties acquired by our third-party co-investors..

      As of December 31, 2001, we and our co-investment partners had in our development pipeline: (1) 12 industrial projects, which will total approximately 3.1 million square feet and have a total estimated investment of $154.4 million upon completion; and (2) two development projects available for sale, which will total approximately 0.6 million square feet and have an aggregate estimated investment of $50.0 million upon completion. As of December 31, 2001, we and our Development Alliance Partners have funded an aggregate of $127.3 million and will need to fund an estimated additional $77.1 million in order to complete projects currently under construction.

Operating Strategy

      We are a full-service real estate company with in-house expertise in acquisitions, development and redevelopment, asset management and leasing, finance and accounting, and market research. We have long-standing relationships with many real estate management and development firms across the country, our Strategic Alliance Partners.

      We believe that real estate is fundamentally a local business and that the most effective way for us to operate is by forging alliances with service providers in every market. We believe that these collaborations allow us to: (1) leverage our national presence with the local market expertise of brokers, developers, and property managers; (2) improve the operating efficiency and flexibility of our national portfolio; (3) strengthen customer satisfaction and retention; and (4) provide a continuous pipeline of growth.

      We believe that our partners give us local market expertise and flexibility allowing us to focus on our core competencies: developing and refining our strategic approach to real estate investment and management and raising private capital to finance growth and enhance returns to stockholders.

Growth Strategies

 
Growth Through Operations

      We seek to generate internal growth through rent increases on existing space and renewals on re-tenanted space. We do this by seeking to maintain a high occupancy rate at our properties and by seeking to control expenses by capitalizing on the economies of owning, operating, and growing a large national portfolio. As of December 31, 2001, our industrial properties and retail centers were 94.5% leased and 89.3% leased, respectively. During 2001, we increased average industrial base rental rates (on a cash basis) by 20.4% from the expiring rent for that space, on leases entered into or renewed during the period. This amount excludes expense reimbursements, rental abatements, and percentage rents. During 2001, we also increased same-store net operating income by 6.3% on our industrial properties.

 
Growth Through Acquisitions and Capital Redeployment

      We believe that our significant acquisition experience, our alliance-based operating strategy, and our extensive network of property acquisition sources will continue to provide opportunities for external growth. We believe that our relationships with third party local property management firms through our Management

3


Table of Contents

Alliance Program also will create acquisition opportunities, as such managers market properties on behalf of sellers. Our operating structure also enables us to acquire properties through our UPREIT Alliance Program in exchange for limited partnership units in the operating partnership, thereby enhancing our attractiveness to owners and developers seeking to transfer properties on a tax-deferred basis. In addition to acquisitions, we seek to redeploy capital from non-strategic assets into properties that better fit our current investment focus.

      We are generally in various stages of negotiations for a number of acquisitions and dispositions, which may include acquisitions and dispositions of individual properties, acquisitions of large multi-property portfolios, and acquisitions of other real estate companies. There can be no assurance that we will consummate any of these transactions. Such transactions, if we consummate them, may be material individually or in the aggregate. Sources of capital for acquisitions may include undistributed cash flow from operations, borrowings under our unsecured credit facility, other forms of secured or unsecured debt financing, issuances of debt or equity securities by us or the operating partnership (including issuances of units in the operating partnership or its subsidiaries), proceeds from divestitures of properties, and assumption of debt related to the acquired properties.

 
Growth Through Development

      We believe that renovation and expansion of properties and development of well-located, high-quality industrial properties should continue to provide us with attractive opportunities for increased cash flow and a higher rate of return than we may obtain from the purchase of fully leased, renovated properties. Value-added properties are typically characterized as properties with available space or near-term leasing exposure, undeveloped land acquired in connection with another property that provides an opportunity for development, or properties that are well located but require redevelopment or renovation. Value-added properties require significant management attention or capital investment to maximize their return. We believe that we have developed the in-house expertise to create value through acquiring and managing value-added properties and believe that our national market presence and expertise will enable us to continue to generate and capitalize on these opportunities. Through our Development Alliance Program, we have established strategic alliances with national and regional developers to enhance our development capabilities.

      The multidisciplinary backgrounds of our employees should provide us with the skills and experience to capitalize on strategic renovation, expansion, and development opportunities. Several of our officers have extensive experience in real estate development, both with us and with national development firms. We generally pursue development projects in joint ventures with local developers. This way, we leverage the development skill, access to opportunities, and capital of such developers, and we eliminate the need and expense of an in-house development staff. Under a typical joint venture agreement with a Development Alliance Partner, we would fund 95% of the construction costs and our partner would fund 5%. Upon completion, we generally would purchase our partner’s interest in the joint venture.

 
Growth Through Co-Investments

      We co-invest with third party partners (some of whom may be clients of AMB Capital Partners, LLC, to the extent such clients commit new investment capital), through partnerships, limited liability companies, or joint ventures. We currently use a co-investment formula with each third party whereby we will own at least a 20% interest in all ventures. In general, we control all significant operating and investment decisions of our co-investment entities. We believe that our co-investment program will continue to serve as a source of capital for acquisitions and developments; however, there can be no assurance that it will continue to do so.

 
Growth Through Developments for Sale

      The operating partnership, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Headlands Realty Corporation, conducts a variety of businesses that include incremental income programs, such as our development projects available for sale to third parties. Such development properties include value-added conversion projects and build-to-sell projects. During 2001, we completed and sold two value-added conversion projects for a net gain of $13.2 million. As of December 31, 2001, we were developing two projects for sale to third parties.

4


Table of Contents

 
AMB Capital Partners

      AMB Capital Partners, LLC provides real estate investment management services on a fee basis to clients. On December 31, 2001, AMB Investment Management, Inc. was reorganized through a series of related transactions into AMB Capital Partners. On May 31, 2001, the operating partnership began consolidating its investment in AMB Investment Management by acquiring 100% of its common stock for $0.3 million. Prior to May 31, 2001, the operating partnership owned 100% of AMB Investment Management’s non-voting preferred stock (representing a 95% economic interest therein) and reflected its investment using the equity method.

BUSINESS RISKS

      See: “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Business Risks” for a complete discussion of the various risks that could adversely affect us.

Item 2.     Properties

      We operate industrial and retail properties nationwide and manage our business both by property type and by market. Industrial properties consist primarily of warehouse distribution facilities suitable for single or multiple customers and are typically comprised of multiple buildings that are leased to customers engaged in various types of businesses. As of December 31, 2001, we operated industrial properties in eight hub and gateway markets in addition to 18 other markets nationwide. As of December 31, 2001, we operated retail properties in Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, and Baltimore. Retail properties are generally leased to one or more anchor customers, such as grocery and drug stores, and various retail businesses. See “Item 14. Note 17 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for segment information related to our operations.

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

      As of December 31, 2001, we owned 905 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 81.6 million rentable square feet, located in 26 markets nationwide. Our industrial properties accounted for $494.9 million, or 96.8%, of our total annualized base rent as of December 31, 2001. Our industrial properties were 94.5% leased to over 2,900 customers, the largest of which accounted for no more than 1.3% of our annualized base rent from our industrial properties.

      Property Characteristics. Our industrial properties, which consist primarily of warehouse distribution facilities suitable for single or multiple customers, are typically comprised of multiple buildings. The following table identifies type and characteristics of our industrial buildings:

             
Building Type Description % of Portfolio



Warehouse
 
15,000-75,000 SF, single or multi-customer
    40.3%  
Bulk Warehouse
 
Over 75,000 SF, single or multi-customer
    37.8%  
Flex Industrial
 
May include assembly or R&D, single or multi-customer, higher parking ratios
    9.6%  
Light Industrial
 
Smaller customers, 15,000 SF or less, higher office finish
    7.3%  
Trans-Shipment
 
Unique configurations for truck terminals and specialized cross-docking
    1.8%  
Air Cargo
 
On-tarmac or airport land for transfer of air cargo goods
    1.6%  
Office
 
Single or multi-customer, used strictly for office
    1.5%  

      Lease Terms. Our industrial properties are typically subject to lease on a “triple net basis,” in which customers pay their proportionate share of real estate taxes, insurance, and operating costs, or are subject to leases on a “modified gross basis,” in which customers pay expenses over certain threshold levels. Lease terms typically range from three to ten years, with an average of six years, excluding renewal options. The majority of the industrial leases do not include renewal options.

5


Table of Contents

      Overview of Major Target Markets. Our industrial properties are located near key passenger and air cargo airports, key interstate highways, and sea ports in major metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Northern New Jersey, the San Francisco Bay Area, Southern California, Miami, and Seattle. We believe our industrial properties’ strategic location, transportation network and infrastructure, and large consumer and manufacturing bases support strong demand for industrial space.

      Within these metropolitan areas, our industrial properties are concentrated in locations with limited new construction opportunities within established, relatively large submarkets, which we believe should provide a higher rate of occupancy and rent growth than properties located elsewhere. These in-fill locations are typically near major passenger and air cargo facilities, seaports or convenient to major highways and rail lines, and are proximate to a diverse labor pool. There is typically broad demand for industrial space in these centrally located submarkets due to a diverse mix of industries and types of industrial uses, including warehouse distribution, light assembly and manufacturing. We generally avoid locations at the periphery of metropolitan areas where there are fewer supply constraints.

Industrial Market Operating Statistics

      As of December 31, 2001, we operated in eight hub and gateway markets, in addition to 18 other markets nationwide. The following table represents properties in which we own a fee simple interest or a controlling interest (consolidated), and excludes properties in which we only own a non-controlling interest (unconsolidated) and properties under development.

                                                                                           
No. New San Total Total
Dallas/ Jersey/ Francisco Southern Hub Other
Atlanta Chicago(1) Ft. Worth New York Bay Area California(2) Miami Seattle Markets Markets Total











Square feet owned
    6,010,428       8,101,685       5,589,196       6,047,153       11,192,942       11,904,910       4,432,368       3,763,469       56,952,144       24,598,736       81,550,880  
Occupancy Percentage
    91.0 %     95.8 %     96.8 %     91.8 %     94.9 %     95.9 %     94.9 %     88.2 %     94.2 %     95.2 %     94.5 %
Annualized base rent (000’s)
  $ 24,372     $ 35,097     $ 25,942     $ 38,372     $ 99,624     $ 64,589     $ 31,958     $ 19,812     $ 339,766     $ 123,651     $ 463,417  
Annualized base rent per square foot
  $ 4.46     $ 4.52     $ 4.79     $ 6.91     $ 9.38     $ 5.66     $ 7.76     $ 5.97     $ 6.33     $ 5.28     $ 6.01  
Lease expirations as a percentage of ABR:(3) 2002
    15.8 %     11.0 %     18.5 %     9.7 %     11.4 %     14.0 %     21.9 %     17.1 %     13.7 %     18.4 %     14.9 %
 
2003.
    14.5 %     26.9 %     17.2 %     21.7 %     13.6 %     17.8 %     12.0 %     29.0 %     17.5 %     12.9 %     16.3 %
 
2004.
    16.5 %     17.0 %     17.6 %     14.1 %     15.0 %     18.4 %     21.4 %     20.7 %     16.9 %     13.6 %     16.0 %
Weighted average lease terms
                                                                                       
 
Original
    5.3 years       6.7 years       5.6 years       6.4 years       5.9 years       6.6 years       5.9 years       5.3 years       6.1 years       6.8 years       6.3 years  
 
Remaining
    3.1 years       2.9 years       2.9 years       3.5 years       3.1 years       3.4 years       2.9 years       2.5 years       3.1 years       3.6 years       3.3 years  
Tenant Retention (year-to-date)
    69.9 %     84.4 %     71.7 %     65.2 %     34.4 %     73.5 %     62.9 %     77.0 %     67.6 %     65.2 %     66.8 %
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers
    0.5 %     8.3 %     7.6 %     12.9 %     56.2 %     20.6 %     -4.3 %     9.1 %     21.3 %     19.1 %     20.4 %
Square feet leased
    772,074       1,496,943       833,228       481,766       1,385,835       1,075,779       1,100,524       812,412       7,958,561       3,988,612       11,947,173  
Same store cash basis NOI growth
    -4.9 %     1.1 %     9.7 %     3.1 %     23.7 %     4.3 %     -0.5 %     -0.4 %     8.1 %     2.6 %     6.3 %
Square feet owned in same store pool(4)
    4,258,623       6,942,817       4,737,897       3,652,692       7,563,658       5,625,212       2,193,976       3,479,316       38,454,191       21,711,246       60,165,437  


(1)  We also have an ownership interest in 36 industrial buildings totaling 4.0 million square feet in the Chicago market through our investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
 
(2)  We also have an ownership interest in 4 industrial buildings totaling 0.9 million square feet in the Southern California market through an unconsolidated joint venture.
 
(3)  Calculated as monthly rent at expiration multiplied by 12.
 
(4)  Same store pool as of December 31, 2001, excludes properties purchased or developments stabilized after December 31, 1999.

Industrial Property Summary

      As of December 31, 2001, our 905 industrial buildings were diversified across 26 markets nationwide. The average age of our industrial properties is 20 years (since the property was built or substantially renovated).

6


Table of Contents

The following table represents properties in which we own a fee simple interest or a controlling interest (consolidated), and excludes properties in which we only own a non-controlling interest (unconsolidated).
                                                                       
Total Percentage Percentage Annualized
Rentable of Total Annualized of Total Base Rent
Number of Square Rentable Percentage Base Rent Annualized Number per Leased
Industrial Properties Buildings Feet(3) Square Feet Leased (000’s) Base Rent of Leases Square Foot









Hub and Gateway Markets:
                                                               
 
Atlanta
    55       6,010,428       7.4 %     91.0 %   $ 24,372       5.3 %     171     $ 4.46  
 
Chicago(1)
    91       8,101,685       9.9       95.8       35,097       7.6       190       4.52  
 
Dallas/ Ft. Worth
    65       5,589,196       6.9       96.8       25,942       5.6       211       4.79  
 
Northern New Jersey/ New York City
    67       6,047,153       7.4       91.8       38,372       8.3       228       6.91  
 
San Francisco Bay Area
    142       11,192,942       13.7       94.9       99,624       21.5       386       9.38  
 
Southern California(2)
    144       11,904,910       14.6       95.9       64,589       13.9       352       5.66  
 
Miami
    42       4,342,361       5.3       94.9       31,958       6.9       219       7.76  
 
Seattle
    42       3,763,469       4.6       88.2       19,812       4.3       163       5.97  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
   
Subtotal/ Weighted Average
    648       56,952,144       69.8       94.2       339,766       73.4       1,920       6.33  
Other Markets:
                                                               
 
Austin
    9       1,365,873       1.7       93.5       9,754       2.1       28       7.64  
 
Baltimore/ Washington D.C. 
    60       3,790,944       4.6       96.3       28,704       6.2       279       7.86  
 
Boston
    39       4,632,528       5.7       99.6       22,866       4.9       56       4.96  
 
Charlotte
    10       729,836       0.9       55.4       1,665       0.4       24       4.12  
 
Cincinnati
    6       812,053       1.0       92.7       2,587       0.6       12       3.44  
 
Columbus
    2       465,433       0.6       100.0       1,415       0.3       2       3.04  
 
Houston
    28       2,788,474       3.4       92.8       9,907       2.1       136       3.83  
 
Memphis
    17       1,883,845       2.3       98.6       9,537       2.1       47       5.13  
 
Minneapolis
    42       4,441,909       5.5       96.9       17,836       3.8       204       4.14  
 
New Orleans
    5       411,689       0.5       99.7       2,004       0.4       47       4.88  
 
Newport News
    1       60,215       0.1       100.0       745       0.2       3       12.37  
 
Orlando
    19       1,845,494       2.3       96.0       7,476       1.6       85       4.22  
 
Portland
    5       676,104       0.8       98.4       2,816       0.6       10       4.23  
 
San Diego
    5       276,167       0.3       86.8       1,974       0.4       19       8.23  
 
Other On-Tarmac
    9       418,172       0.5       86.4       4,365       0.9       36       12.08  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
   
Subtotal/ Weighted Average
    257       24,598,736       30.2       95.2       123,651       26.6       988       5.28  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
     
Total/ Weighted Average
    905       81,550,880       100.0 %     94.5 %   $ 463,417       100.0 %     2,908     $ 6.01  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 


(1)  We also have an ownership interest in 36 industrial buildings totaling 4.0 million square feet in the Chicago market through our investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
 
(2)  We also have an ownership interest in 4 industrial buildings totaling 0.9 million square feet in the Southern California market through our investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
 
(3)  In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2001, we manage, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, 2.0 million, 0.6 million, and 0.1 million additional square feet of industrial, retail, and other properties, respectively.

7


Table of Contents

Industrial Property Lease Expirations

      The following table summarizes the lease expirations for our industrial properties for leases in place as of December 31, 2001, without giving effect to the exercise of renewal options or termination rights, if any, at or prior to the scheduled expirations.

                           
Annualized Percentage of
Rentable Base Annualized
Square Rent Base
Year of Lease Expiration(1) Feet (000s)(2) Rent




2002(3)
    13,350,901     $ 73,908       14.9 %
2003
    14,728,382       80,699       16.3  
2004
    12,906,827       79,341       16.0  
2005
    11,288,977       74,129       15.0  
2006
    8,784,213       57,282       11.6  
2007
    5,079,752       32,259       6.5  
2008
    3,435,363       17,830       3.6  
2009
    2,473,353       15,053       3.1  
2010
    1,878,760       27,908       5.6  
Thereafter
    3,116,389       36,448       7.4  
     
     
     
 
 
Total/ Weighted Average
    77,042,917     $ 494,857       100.0 %
     
     
     
 


(1)  Schedule includes executed leases that commence after December 31, 2001. Schedule excludes leases expiring December 31, 2001.
 
(2)  Calculated as monthly rent at expiration multiplied by 12.
 
(3)  Includes month-to-month leases and hold-over customers.

Customer Information

      Largest Property Customers. Our 25 largest industrial property customers by annualized base rent are set forth in the table below.

                                           
Percentage of Percentage of
Number Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate
of Rentable Leased Annualized Annualized
Industrial Customer Name(1) Leases Square Feet Square Feet(2) Base Rent Base Rent(3)






FedEx Corporation
    27       586,238       0.7 %   $ 6,251       1.3 %
International Paper Company
    7       557,299       0.7       4,353       0.9  
Abgenix, Inc. 
    2       97,887       0.1       3,489       0.7  
Harmonic Inc. 
    2       198,480       0.3       3,481       0.7  
United Liquors, Ltd. 
    2       755,000       1.0       3,286       0.7  
Hyseq, Inc. 
    3       59,300       0.1       3,176       0.7  
Novera Optics, Inc. 
    1       55,610       0.1       2,776       0.6  
Wells Fargo and Company
    5       215,052       0.3       2,663       0.6  
Integrated Airline Services(4)
    4       231,161       0.3       2,595       0.5  
County of Los Angeles(5)
    9       168,519       0.2       2,586       0.5  
CNF Inc. 
    11       358,165       0.5       2,307       0.5  
Forward Air Corporation
    7       344,765       0.4       2,212       0.5  
Exel plc
    7       520,404       0.7       2,168       0.5  
Applied Materials, Inc. 
    1       290,557       0.4       2,152       0.4  
Iron Mountain Records Management
    9       415,008       0.5       2,106       0.4  
Acer America Corporation
    4       261,932       0.3       2,067       0.4  
United States Government(4)(6)
    11       421,063       0.5       2,065       0.4  
Cirrus Logic
    1       48,384       0.1       2,032       0.4  
FMI International
    2       367,771       0.5       1,999       0.4  
Danzas AEI International
    6       288,476       0.4       1,965       0.4  
AM Cosmetics Inc. 
    1       326,500       0.4       1,954       0.4  
Airborne Express(4)
    7       242,967       0.3       1,950       0.4  
NCS Pearson
    1       226,076       0.3       1,919       0.4  
Johnson & Johnson
    4       129,449       0.2       1,918       0.4  
Rite Aid Corporation
    3       550,116       0.7       1,883       0.4  
             
             
         
 
Total
            7,716,179       9.9 %   $ 65,353       13.6 %
             
             
         


(1)  Customer(s) may be a subsidiary of or an entity affiliated with the named customer.
 
(2)  Computed as aggregate leased square feet divided by the aggregate leased square feet of the industrial and retail properties.
 
(3)  Computed as aggregate annualized base rent divided by the aggregate annualized base rent of the industrial and retail and other properties.
 
(4)  Apron rental amount (but not square footage) are included.
 
(5)  County of Los Angeles includes Children’s Services, the Fire Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff, and the Unified School District.
 
(6)  United States Government includes the United States Postal Service (USPS), U.S. Customs, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

8


Table of Contents

OPERATING AND LEASING STATISTICS

Total Industrial Portfolio Summary

      The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for all of our industrial properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999.

Industrial Operating and Leasing Statistics (1)

                             
2001 2000 1999



Square feet owned at December 31(2)
    81,550,880       77,795,989       65,194,364  
Occupancy percentage at December 31
    94.5 %     96.4 %     95.9 %
Weighted average lease term:
                       
 
Original
    6.3 years       6.4 years       6.4 years  
 
Remaining
    3.3 years       3.5 years       3.5 years  
Tenant retention
    66.8 %     59.0 %     72.0 %
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers
    20.4 %     25.6 %     12.9 %
 
SF leased
    11,947,173       11,940,560       7,567,062  
Second generation tenant improvements and leasing commissions per sq. ft.:
                       
 
Renewals
  $ 0.99     $ 1.22     $ 1.22  
 
Re-tenanted(3)
    3.25       2.27       2.74  
     
     
     
 
   
Weighted average(3)
  $ 2.05     $ 1.86     $ 1.64  
     
     
     
 
Recurring capital expenditures:
                       
 
Tenant improvements
  $ 8,168     $ 10,237     $ 10,515  
 
Lease commissions and other lease costs
    19,822       17,679       10,430  
 
Building improvements
    19,852       11,031       5,521  
     
     
     
 
   
Sub-total
    47,842       38,947       26,466  
 
JV Partners’ share of capital expenditures
    (5,824 )     (3,323 )     (1,576 )
     
     
     
 
   
Our share of recurring capital expenditures
  $ 42,018     $ 35,624     $ 24,890  
     
     
     
 


(1)  Includes all consolidated operating properties and excludes development and renovation projects.
 
(2)  In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2001, we manage, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, 2.7 million additional square feet of industrial, retail, and other properties. We also have investments in 4.9 million square feet of industrial properties through our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures.
 
(3)  Consists of all leases renewing or re-tenanting with lease terms greater than one year.

9


Table of Contents

Industrial Same Store Operating Statistics

      The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for our same store properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999. For an explanation of our same store properties, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Results of Operations.”

                           
2001 2000 1999



Square feet in same store pool
    60,165,437       52,145,350       35,128,748  
 
% of total industrial square feet
    73.8 %     68.8 %     53.8 %
Occupancy percentage at period end
    94.6 %     96.8 %     96.2 %
Tenant retention
    64.5 %     59.2 %     69.2 %
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers
    23.5 %     27.0 %     12.8 %
 
SF leased
    9,964,366       9,868,579       4,994,868  
Cash basis net operating income growth % increase
                       
 
Revenues
    6.4 %     7.3 %     4.3 %
 
Expenses
    6.9 %     3.5 %     (0.6 )%
 
NOI
    6.3 %     8.5 %     5.9 %

RETAIL PROPERTIES

      At December 31, 2001, we owned ten retail centers aggregating approximately 1.3 million rentable square feet. Our retail properties accounted for $16.1 million, or 3.2%, of annualized base rent at December 31, 2001. Our retail properties were 89.3% leased to over 160 customers. Our retail properties have an average age of nine years since they were built, expanded, or renovated.

      During 2001, we sold two retail properties totaling approximately 0.3 million rentable square feet. As of December 31, 2001, we had seven retail centers, aggregating approximately 1.3 million rentable square feet, held for divestiture.

Retail Property Summary

      The following table sets forth the rentable square footage of our retail centers as of December 31, 2001, and represents properties in which we own a fee simple interest or a controlling interest (consolidated). Around Lenox, Howard & Western, Mazzeo Drive, Northridge Plaza, Palm Aire, Springsgate, and The Plaza at Delray are all properties held for divestiture as of December 31, 2001.

                                           
Annualized
Total Annualized Base Rent
Rentable Percentage Base Rent Number per Leased
Retail Properties Square Feet Leased (000’s)(1) of Leases Square Foot(2)






Around Lenox(3)(4)
    121,517       71.9 %   $ 2,139       16     $ 24.47  
Beacon Center
    150,245       100.0       2,395       8       15.94  
Charles & Chase
    48,000       100.0       300       1       6.25  
Howard & Western(4)
    88,544       88.0       1,088       10       13.97  
Mazzeo Drive(4)
    88,420       100.0       717       1       8.11  
Northridge Plaza(3)(4)
    229,010       90.7       3,190       34       15.35  
Novato Fair Shopping Center(3)
    126,069       93.3       955       18       8.12  
Palm Aire(3)(4)
    130,865       100.0       1,709       29       13.06  
Springs Gate(3)(4)
    n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a  
The Plaza at Delray(3)(4)
    331,863       80.2       3,559       43       13.37  
     
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total/ Weighted Average
    1,314,533       89.3 %   $ 16,052       160     $ 13.67  
     
     
     
     
     
 

10


Table of Contents


(1)  Annualized base rent means the monthly contractual amount under existing leases at December 31, 2001, multiplied by 12. This amount excludes expense reimbursements, rental abatements, and percentage rents.
 
(2)  Calculated as total Annualized Base Rent divided by total rentable square feet actually leased as of December 31, 2001.
 
(3)  We hold an interest in this property through a joint venture interest in a limited partnership.
 
(4)  This property is held for divestiture.

Development Pipeline

      The following table sets forth the properties owned by us as of December 31, 2001, which were undergoing renovation, expansion, or new development. No assurance can be given that any of such projects will be completed on schedule or within budgeted amounts.

Industrial Development and Renovation Deliveries

                                                         
Estimated Estimated Estimated Our
Development Stabilization Square Feet Total Ownership
Project Location Alliance Partner Date at Completion Investment(1) Percentage







(Dollars in thousands)
2002 Deliveries                                                
  1.     Portland Air Cargo     Portland, OR       Trammell Crow Company       February       159,000     $ 12,800       95 %
  2.     Van Nuys (Buildings 3 - 6)     Van Nuys, CA       Trammell Crow Company       February       315,000       23,000       95 %
  3.     Monte Vista Spectrum     Chino, CA       Majestic Realty       June       577,000       23,200       50 %
  4.     Cabot Business Park (Lot 1 - 2)     Mansfield, MA       National Development of NE       June       114,000       14,600       90 %
  5.     Dulles Airport park (Phase I)     Dulles, VA       Seefried Properties       July       168,000       12,000       21 %
  6.     Suwanee Creek (Phase IV) )     Atlanta, GA       Seefried Properties       August       233,000       7,600       100 %
  7.     Airport South Building 800     College Park, GA       Seefried Properties       September       60,000       3,200       50 %
  8.     Airport South Building 900     College Park, GA       Seefried Properties       September       30,000       1,700       50 %
  9.     Southfield Logistics Center(3)     Forest Park, GA       None       October       799,000       17,600       21 %
  10.     Airport South Building 400     College Park, GA       Seefried Properties       December       103,000       4,800       50 %
                                     
     
     
 
         Total 2002 Deliveries                             2,558,000       120,500       64 %
         % Pre-leased/funded-to-date(2)                             61 %   $ 91,900          
2003 Deliveries                                                
  11.     Carson Town Center, SE     Carson, CA       Mar Ventures       May       349,000       23,100       95 %
  12.     Houston Air Cargo     Houston, TX       Trammell Crow Company       October       156,000       10,800       19 %
                                     
     
     
 
         Total 2003 Deliveries                             505,000       33,900       71 %
                                     
     
         
         % Pre-leased/funded-to-date(2)                             14 %   $ 9,300          
        Total Scheduled Deliveries(1)                             3,063,000     $ 154,400       66 %
                                     
     
         
         % Pre-leased/funded-to-date(2)                             54 %   $ 100,300          


(1)  Represents total estimated cost or renovation, expansion, or development, including initial acquisition costs, debt and equity carry, and partner earnouts. The estimates are based on our current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change. Excludes 268 acres of land and other acquisition-related costs totaling approximately $44.3 million.
 
(2)  As of December 31, 2001, our share of such amounts funded to date was $57.8 million and $8.5 million, respectively, for a total of $66.3 million funded to date.
 
(3)  Represents a renovation project.

11


Table of Contents

HEADLANDS REALTY CORPORATION(1)

Development Projects Held for Sale

                                             
Development Estimated Estimated Estimated Our
Alliance Stabilization Square Feet at Total Ownership
Project(2) Market PartnerTM Date Completion Investment(3) Percentage







(Dollars in thousands)
Development Properties Value-Added Conversion(4)
                                       
 
None
                                       
Build-to-Sell(5)
                                       
1. Novato Fair Shopping Center
  SF Bay Area   AIG     August 2002       134,000     $ 15,700       50 %
2. Carson Town Center SW
  Southern California   Mar Ventures     July 2003       431,000       34,300       100 %
                     
     
         
 
Total Build-to-Sell Properties
                    565,000       50,000       84 %
                     
     
         
   
% Pre-leased/funded-to-date(6)
                    32 %     27,000          
   
Total Scheduled Deliveries
                    565,000     $ 50,000       84 %
                     
     
         
   
% Pre-leased/funded-to-date(6)
                    32 %     27,000          


(1)  Headlands Realty Corporation is a wholly-owned taxable REIT subsidiary.
 
(2)  Headlands Realty Corporation intends to sell these properties within two years of completion.
 
(3)  Represents total estimated cost of renovation, expansion, or development, including initial acquisition costs, debt and equity carry, and partner earnouts. The estimates are based on the Company’s current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change.
 
(4)  Represents existing properties or land that Headlands Realty is leasing from the operating partnership and is upgrading for sale to a third party.
 
(5)  Represents build-to-suit and speculative development or redevelopment.
 
(6)  As of December 31, 2001, our share of amounts funded to date was $20.5 million.

Properties Held Through Joint Ventures, Limited Liability Companies, and Partnerships

 
Consolidated:

      As of December 31, 2001, we held interests in joint ventures, limited liability companies, and partnerships with third parties, which are consolidated in our consolidated financial statements. Such investments are consolidated because: (1) we own a majority interest; or (2) we exercise significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, and changes in financing. Under the agreements governing the joint ventures, we and the other party to the joint venture may be required to make additional capital contributions, and subject to certain limitations, the joint ventures may incur additional debt. Such agreements also impose certain restrictions on the transfer of joint venture interests by us or the other party to the joint venture and provide certain rights to us or the other party to the joint venture to sell its interest to the joint venture or to the other joint venture partner on terms specified in the agreement. All of the joint ventures terminate in 2024 or later, but may end earlier if a joint venture ceases to hold any interest in or have any obligations relating to the property held by the joint venture. See “Item 14. Note 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

12


Table of Contents

Industrial Consolidated Joint Ventures

                                                       
Our JV Partners’
Ownership Number of Square Gross Book Share
Joint Ventures Percentage Buildings Feet(1) Value(2) Debt of Debt







(Dollars in thousands)
Operating Properties:
                                               
Co-investment joint ventures:
                                               
 
AMB-SGP(3)
    50 %     59       6,783,749     $ 304,902     $ 206,790     $ 103,395  
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I(4)
    21 %     100       4,947,862       356,298       155,856       124,090  
 
AMB Erie(5)
    50 %     52       3,855,178       195,218       101,431       50,941  
 
AMB Partners II(6)
    50 %     47       3,637,122       184,426       113,485       58,492  
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II(4)
    20 %     33       3,600,936       223,184       208,215       166,572  
             
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total co-investment joint ventures
    37 %     291       22,824,847       1,264,028       785,777       503,490  
Other Joint Ventures
    92 %     33       2,778,065       233,124       48,814       2,626  
             
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total Operating Properties
    45 %     324       25,602,912       1,497,152       835,591       506,116  
             
     
     
     
     
 
Development Alliance Joint Ventures:
                                               
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I(4)
    21 %     5       1,123,000       29,564       8,453       6,678  
 
AMB Partners II(6)
    50 %     3       193,000       7,488              
 
Other Development Alliance Joint Ventures
    93 %     9       937,000       31,503              
             
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total Development Alliances
    57 %     17       2,253,000       68,555       8,453       6,678  
             
     
     
     
     
 
     
Total Industrial Consolidated Joint Ventures
    46 %     341       27,855,912     $ 1,565,707     $ 844,044     $ 512,794  
             
     
     
     
     
 


(1)  For development properties, this represents estimated square feet at completion of development for committed phases of development and renovation projects.
 
(2)  Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net other assets.
 
(3)  A co-investment partnership with GIC Real Estate Pte Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
 
(4)  Represents a co-investment partnership with a private institutional REIT.
 
(5)  Represents a co-investment partnership with the Erie Insurance Group.
 
(6)  Represents a co-investment partnership with the City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System.

13


Table of Contents

Retail Consolidated Joint Ventures

                                                   
Our JV Partners’
Ownership Square Gross Book Share
Properties Market Percentage Feet(1) Value(2) Debt of Debt







(Dollars in thousands)
Development Alliance Joint Venture
                                               
1.  Springs Gate(3)(4)
    Miami       100 %         $ 10,214     $     $  
                     
     
     
     
 
 Subtotal
            100 %           10,214              
                     
     
     
     
 
Other Joint Ventures
                                               
2.  Around Lenox(3)
    Atlanta       90 %     121,517       20,925       9,730       973  
3.  Palm Aire(3)
    Miami       100 %     130,865       19,905       7,071       1,011  
4.  Northridge Plaza(3)
    Miami       100 %     229,010       36,341              
5.  Plaza Delray(3)
    Miami       98 %     331,863       39,165       22,029       4,428  
                     
     
     
     
 
 Subtotal
                    813,255       116,336       38,830       6,412  
                     
     
     
     
 
 
Total
            98 %     813,255     $ 126,550     $ 38,830     $ 6,412  
                     
     
     
     
 


(1)  For development properties, this represents estimated square feet at completion of development project.
 
(2)  Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated depreciation) owned by the joint venture entity and excludes net other assets.
 
(3)  Included as part of retail properties held for divestiture.
 
(4)  Represents 39 acres of land for future development.

 
Unconsolidated and Mortgage Investments:

      As of December 31, 2001, we held interests in three equity investment joint ventures that are unconsolidated in our financial statements. The management and control over significant aspects of these investments are with the third party joint venture partner. In addition, as of December 31, 2001, we held two mortgage investments from which we receive interest income.

Unconsolidated Joint Ventures

And Mortgage Investments
                                           
Our Our Our
Total Net Equity Ownership Share
Properties Market Square Feet(1) Investment Percentage of Debt






(Dollars in thousands)
Operating Joint Ventures:
                                       
1.  Elk Grove Du Page
    Chicago       4,046,721     $ 59,447       56 %   $ 15,300  
2.  Pico Rivera
    Southern California       855,600       9,430       50 %     17,084  
             
     
             
 
Total Operating Joint Ventures
            4,902,321       68,918       55 %     32,084  
             
     
             
 
Development Alliance Joint Venture:
                                       
3.  Monte Vista Spectrum
    Southern California       577,000       2,179       50 %     6,844  
             
     
             
 
  Total Unconsolidated Joint                                        
  Ventures             5,479,321     $ 71,097       55 %   $ 38,928  
             
     
             
 

14


Table of Contents

                                   
Mortgage
Properties Market Maturity Receivable Rate





Mortgage Investment
                               
1.  Pier 1
    SF Bay Area       May 2026     $ 13,214       13.00 %
2.  Manhattan Village Shopping Center(2)
    Southern California       September 2002       74,000       9.50 %
                     
         
 
Total Mortgage Investments
                  $ 87,214          
                     
         


(1)  Square feet for development alliance joint ventures represents estimated square feet at completion of development project.
 
(2)  We re-negotiated this mortgage and received a $5.0 million pay-down on the principal balance and increased the interest rate to 9.5% from 8.75% in 2001.

Secured Debt

      As of December 31, 2001, we had $1.2 billion of indebtedness, net of unamortized premiums, secured by deeds of trust on 99 properties. As of December 31, 2001, the total gross investment value of those properties secured by debt was $2.3 billion. Of the $1.2 billion of secured indebtedness, $759.4 million was joint venture debt. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “Item 14. Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” included in this report. We believe that as of December 31, 2001, the value of the properties securing the respective obligations in each case exceeded the principal amount of the outstanding obligations.

Item 3.     Legal Proceedings

      As of December 31, 2001, there were no pending legal proceedings to which we are a party or of which any of our properties are the subject, the adverse determination of which we anticipate would have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Item 4.     Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

      None.

15


Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5.     Market For Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters

      Our common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 21, 1997, under the symbol “AMB.” As of March 15, 2002, there were approximately 382 holders of record of our common stock (excluding shares held through The Depository Trust Company, as nominee). Set forth below are the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as reported on the NYSE composite tape, and the distribution per share paid by us during the period from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2001.

                           
Year High Low Distribution




2001
                       
 
1st Quarter
    25.56       23.71       0.395  
 
2nd Quarter
    25.76       22.90       0.395  
 
3rd Quarter
    26.64       23.35       0.395  
 
4th Quarter
    26.21       23.30       0.395  
2000
                       
 
1st Quarter
    21.50       19.25       0.37  
 
2nd Quarter
    23.63       21.25       0.37  
 
3rd Quarter
    24.94       23.00       0.37  
 
4th Quarter
    26.06       23.25       0.37  
1999
                       
 
1st Quarter
    22.94       20.50       0.35  
 
2nd Quarter
    23.50       20.56       0.35  
 
3rd Quarter
    23.00       20.00       0.35  
 
4th Quarter
    21.13       18.13       0.35  

16


Table of Contents

Item 6.     Selected Financial and Other Data

SELECTED COMPANY AND PREDECESSOR FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA

      The following table sets forth selected consolidated historical financial and other data for AMB Property Corporation and its predecessor on an historical basis as of and for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997. Prior to November 26, 1997 (our initial public offering date), AMB Property Corporation’s predecessor provided real estate investment management services to institutional investors.

                                                     
Pro Forma(1) Historical(2)
2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1997






(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
Operating Data
                                               
 
Total revenues
  $ 600,845     $ 480,207     $ 448,183     $ 358,887     $ 284,674     $ 56,062  
 
Income before minority interests
    165,672       165,599       159,321       123,750       103,903       18,885  
 
Net income available to common stockholders
    125,053       113,282       167,603       108,954       99,508       18,228  
 
Net income per common share:
                                               
   
Basic(3)
    1.49       1.35       1.94       1.27       1.16       1.39  
   
Diluted(3)
    1.47       1.35       1.94       1.26       1.15       1.38  
 
Dividends per common share
    1.58       1.48       1.40       1.37       1.37       0.13  
Other Data
                                               
 
EBITDA(4)
  $ 431,543     $ 349,353     $ 318,319     $ 252,353     $ 195,218          
 
Operating earnings(5)
    93,631       112,138       116,810       108,954       99,508          
 
Funds from operations(6)
    213,513       208,651       191,147       170,407       147,409          
 
Cash flows provided by (used in):
                                               
   
Operating activities
    288,562       261,175       190,391       177,180       131,621          
   
Investing activities
    (363,152 )     (726,499 )     63,732       (793,366 )     (607,768 )        
   
Financing activities
    127,303       452,370       (240,721 )     604,202       553,199          
Balance Sheet Data
                                               
 
Investments in real estate at cost
  $ 4,530,711     $ 4,026,597     $ 3,249,452     $ 3,369,060             $ 2,442,999  
 
Total assets
    4,760,893       4,425,626       3,621,550       3,562,885               2,506,255  
 
Total consolidated debt(7)
    2,135,664       1,836,276       1,270,037       1,368,196               685,652  
 
Our share of total debt
    1,655,386       1,681,161       1,168,218       1,348,107               672,945  
 
Stockholders’ equity
    1,752,342       1,767,930       1,829,259       1,765,360               1,668,030  


(1)  Pro forma 1997 financial and other data has been prepared as if our formation transactions, our initial public offering, and certain property acquisitions and divestitures in 1997 had occurred on January 1, 1997.
 
(2)  The historical 1997 results represent our predecessor’s historical financial and other data for the period January 1, 1997 through November 25, 1997. The financial and other data of AMB Property Corporation and the properties acquired in our formation transactions have been included from November 26, 1997 to December 31, 1997.
 
(3)  Basic and diluted net income per share equals the net income available to common stockholders divided by 84,174,644 and 85,214,066 shares, respectively for 2001; 83,697,170 and 84,155,306 shares, respectively, for 2000; 86,271,862 and 86,347,487 shares, respectively, for 1999; 85,876,383 and 86,235,176 shares, respectively, for 1998; and pro forma net income divided by 85,874,513 and 86,156,556 shares, respectively, for 1997.
 
(4)  EBITDA is computed as income before divestiture of properties, net of minority interests and impairment charges, and minority interests plus interest expense, income taxes, and depreciation and amortization. We believe that in addition to cash flows and net income, EBITDA is a useful financial performance measure for assessing the operating performance of a real estate investment trust because, together with net income and cash flows, EBITDA provides investors with an additional basis to evaluate the ability of a real estate investment trust to incur and service debt and to fund acquisitions and other capital expenditures. Includes our pro rata share of EBITDA in an unconsolidated joint venture. EBITDA is not a measurement of operating performance calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and should not be considered as a substitute for operating income, net income, cash flows from operations, or other statement of operations or cash flow data prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. EBITDA may not be indicative of our historical operating results nor our potential future results. While EBITDA is frequently used as a measure of operations and the ability to meet debt service requirements, it is not necessarily comparable to other similarly titled captions of other real estate investment trusts.
 
(5)  Operating earnings represents income before gains from dispositions of real estate, net of minority interests and impairment reserves on properties held for divestiture and operating properties, less minority interests’ share of net income and preferred stock dividends. It excludes the preferred unit redemption premium. We believe that in addition to cash flows and net income, operating earnings is a useful financial performance measure for assessing the operating performance of a real estate investment trust because, together with

17


Table of Contents

net income and cash flows, operating earnings provides investors with an additional basis to evaluate the ability of a real estate investment trust to incur and service debt and to fund acquisitions and other capital expenditures. Operating earnings is not a measurement of operating performance calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and should not be considered as a substitute for operating income, net income, cash flows from operations, or other statement of operations or cash flow data prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Operating earnings may not be indicative of our historical operating results nor our potential future results. While operating earnings is frequently used as a measure of operations and the ability to meet debt service requirements, it is not necessarily comparable to other similarly titled captions of other real estate investment trusts.
 
(6)  Funds from Operations, or FFO, is defined as income from operations before minority interest, gains or losses from sale of real estate, and extraordinary losses plus real estate depreciation and adjustment to derive our pro rata share of the FFO of unconsolidated joint ventures, less minority interests’ pro rata share of the FFO of consolidated joint ventures and preferred stock dividends. In accordance with the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trust White Paper on funds from operations, we include the effects of straight-line rents in funds from operations. We believe that funds from operations is an appropriate measure of performance for a real estate investment trust. While funds from operations is a relevant and widely used measure of operating performance of real estate investment trusts, it does not represent cash flow from operations or net income as defined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and it should not be considered as an alternative to these indicators in evaluating liquidity or operating performance. Further, funds from operations as disclosed by other real estate investment trusts may not be comparable.
 
(7)  Secured debt includes unamortized debt premiums of approximately $6.8 million, $9.9 million, $10.1 million, $15.2 million, and $18.3 million as of December 31, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997, respectively. See Notes 2 and 7 of the notes to consolidated financial statements.

Item 7.     Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

      You should read the following discussion and analysis of our consolidated financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the notes to consolidated financial statements. Statements contained in this discussion that are not historical facts may be forward-looking statements. Such statements relate to our future performance and plans, results of operations, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and operating improvements and costs. You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “intends,” “plans,” “pro forma,” “estimates,” or “anticipates‘ or the negative of these words and phrases or similar words or phrases. You can also identify forward-looking statements by discussions of strategy, plans, or intentions. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties and you should not rely upon them as predictions of future events. There is no assurance that the events or circumstances reflected in forward-looking statements will occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements are necessarily dependent on assumptions, data, or methods that may be incorrect or imprecise and we may not be able to realize them.

      The following factors, among others, could cause actual results and future events to differ materially from those set forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:

  •  defaults or non-renewal of leases by customers;
 
  •  increased interest rates and operating costs;
 
  •  our failure to obtain necessary outside financing;
 
  •  difficulties in identifying properties to acquire and in effecting acquisitions;
 
  •  our failure to successfully integrate acquired properties and operations;
 
  •  our failure to divest of properties that we have contracted to sell or to timely reinvest proceeds from any such divestitures;
 
  •  risks and uncertainties affecting property development and construction (including construction delays, cost overruns, our inability to obtain necessary permits, and public opposition to these activities);
 
  •  our failure to qualify and maintain our status as a real estate investment trust under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
 
  •  environmental uncertainties;
 
  •  risks related to natural disasters;

18


Table of Contents

  •  financial market fluctuations;
 
  •  changes in real estate and zoning laws;
 
  •  increases in real property tax rates; and
 
  •  risks of doing business internationally.

      Our success also depends upon economic trends generally, including interest rates, income tax laws, governmental regulation, legislation, population changes, and those other risk factors discussed in the section entitled “Business Risks” in this report. We caution you not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our analysis only and speak as of the date of this report or as of the dates indicated in the statements.

GENERAL

      We commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate company in connection with the completion of our initial public offering on November 26, 1997, and elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with our initial tax return for the year ended December 31, 1997. AMB Property Corporation and the operating partnership were formed shortly before the consummation of our initial public offering.

      We generate revenue primarily from rent received from customers at our properties, including reimbursements from customers for certain operating costs. In addition, our growth is, in part, dependent on our ability to increase occupancy rates or increase rental rates at our properties and our ability to continue the acquisition and development of additional properties. Our income would be adversely affected if a significant number of customers were unable to pay rent or if we were unable to rent our industrial space on favorable terms. Certain significant expenditures associated with an investment in real estate (such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes, and maintenance costs) generally do not decline when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the property. Moreover, as the general partner of the operating partnership, we generally will be liable for all of the operating partnership’s unsatisfied obligations other than non-recourse obligations, including the operating partnership’s obligations as the general partner of the co-investment joint ventures. Any such liabilities could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and ability to pay dividends on, and the market price of, our stock.

Critical Accounting Policies

      Our discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, and contingencies as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our assumptions and estimates on an on-going basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

      REIT Compliance. We elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 1997. We currently intend to operate so as to qualify as a real estate investment trust under the Internal Revenue Code and believe that our current organization and method of operation comply with the rules and regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code to enable us to continue to qualify as a real estate investment trust. However, it is possible that we have been organized or have operated in a manner that would not allow us to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or that our future operations could cause us to fail to qualify.

19


Table of Contents

Qualification as a real estate investment trust requires us to satisfy numerous requirements (some on an annual and others on a quarterly basis) established under highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations, and involves the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. For example, in order to qualify as a real estate investment trust, we must derive at least 95% of our gross income in any year from qualifying sources. In addition, we must pay dividends to stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our real estate investment trust taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and by excluding capital gains) and must satisfy specified asset tests on a quarterly basis. These provisions and the applicable treasury regulations are more complicated in our case because we hold our assets through the operating partnership. Legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations, or court decisions could significantly change the tax laws with respect to qualification as a real estate investment trust or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification. However, we are not aware of any pending tax legislation that would adversely affect our ability to operate as a real estate investment trust.

      If we fail to qualify as a real estate investment trust in any taxable year, then we will be required to pay federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Unless we are entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we would be disqualified from treatment as a real estate investment trust for the four taxable years following the year during which we lost qualification. If we lose our real estate investment trust status, then our net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders would be significantly reduced for each of the years involved and we would no longer be required to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, our annual fee on our unsecured credit facility may increase and certain rights that preferred limited partnership unitholders in our affiliates have to exchange their preferred units for shares of our preferred stock may be triggered.

      Investments in Real Estate. Investments in real estate are stated at cost unless circumstances indicate that cost cannot be recovered, in which case, the carrying value of the property is reduced to estimated fair value. Carrying values for financial reporting purposes are reviewed for impairment on a property-by-property basis whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a property may not be recoverable. Impairment is recognized when estimated expected future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) are less than the carrying amount of the property. The estimation of expected future net cash flows is inherently uncertain and relies on assumptions regarding current and future market conditions and the availability of capital. If impairment analysis assumptions change, then an adjustment to the carrying amount of our long-lived assets could occur in the future period in which the assumptions change. To the extent that a property is impaired, the excess of the carrying amount of the property over its estimated fair value is charged to income. We evaluated our properties held for divestiture and operating properties for impairment and reduced their carrying value by $18.6 million and $5.9 million in 2001 and 2000, respectively. We believe that there are no additional impairments of the carrying values of our investments in real estate at December 31, 2001.

      Investment in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures. We have non-controlling limited partnership interests in three separate unconsolidated joint ventures. We account for the joint ventures using the equity method of accounting. We have a 56.1% interest in a joint venture, which owns an aggregate of 36 industrial buildings totaling approximately 4.0 million square feet. We also have a 50% interest in each of two other operating and development alliance joint ventures. Our net equity investment in these joint ventures is shown as Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures on our consolidated balance sheets.

      Investments in Other Companies. Investments in other companies were accounted for on a cost basis and realized gains and losses were included in current earnings. For our investments in private companies, we periodically reviewed our investments to determine if the value of such investments had been permanently impaired. During 2001, we recognized a loss on our investments in other companies totaling $20.8 million, including our investment in Webvan Group, Inc. We had previously recognized gains and losses on our investment in Webvan Group, Inc. as a component of other comprehensive income. As of December 31, 2001, we had realized a loss on 100% of our investments in other companies.

20


Table of Contents

      Rental Revenues. We record rental revenue from long-term operating leases on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases and maintain an allowance for estimated losses that may result from the inability of our customers to make required payments. If customers fail to make contractual lease payments that are greater than our bad-debt reserves, then we may have to recognize additional bad debt charges in future periods.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

      The analysis below includes changes attributable to acquisitions, development activity and divestitures and the changes resulting from properties that we owned during both the current and prior year reporting periods, excluding development properties prior to being stabilized (generally defined as 90% leased or 12 months after we receive a certificate of occupancy for the building). We refer to these properties as the same store properties. For the comparison between the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, the same store industrial properties consisted of properties aggregating approximately 60.2 million square feet. The properties acquired in 2000 consisted of 145 buildings, aggregating approximately 10.5 million square feet, and the properties acquired during 2001 consisted of 65 buildings, aggregating 6.8 million square feet. In 2000, property divestitures consisted of one retail center and 25 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 2.5 million square feet, and property divestitures during 2001 consisted of 24 industrial and two retail buildings, aggregating approximately 3.2 million square feet. Our future financial condition and results of operations, including rental revenues, may be impacted by the acquisition of additional properties and dispositions. Our future revenues and expenses may vary materially from historical rates.

For the Years Ended December 31, 2001 and 2000

                                   
Rental Revenues 2001 2000 $ Change % Change





(Dollars in millions)
Same store
  $ 400.2     $ 376.7     $ 23.5       6.2 %
2000 acquisitions
    97.1       25.6       71.5       279.3 %
2001 acquisitions
    22.8             22.8        
Developments
    27.0       14.6       12.4       84.9 %
Divestitures
    10.9       37.1       (26.2 )     (70.6 )%
Straight-line rents
    10.1       10.2       (0.1 )     (1.0 )%
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total
  $ 568.1     $ 464.2     $ 103.9       22.4 %
     
     
     
     
 

      The growth in rental revenues in same store properties resulted primarily from the incremental effect of cash rental rate increases on renewals and rollovers, fixed rent increases on existing leases, and reimbursement of expenses, partially offset by lower average occupancies. During 2001, the same store rent increases on industrial renewals and rollovers (cash basis) was 23.5% on 10.0 million square feet leased.

                                 
Investment Management and Other Income 2001 2000 $ Change % Change





Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures
  $ 5.5     $ 5.2     $ 0.3       5.8 %
Investment management income
    11.0       4.3       6.7       155.8 %
Interest and other income
    16.3       6.5       9.8       150.8 %
     
     
     
     
 
Total
  $ 32.8     $ 16.0     $ 16.8       105.0 %
     
     
     
     
 

      The $6.7 million increase in investment management income was due primarily to increased asset management and acquisition fees and priority distributions from our co-investment joint ventures. The $9.8 million increase in interest and other income was primarily due to interest income from our mortgage note on the retail center that we sold in 2000 and from interest income resulting from higher average cash balances.

21


Table of Contents

                                     
Property Operating Expenses and Real Estate Taxes 2001 2000 $ Change % Change





(Exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
                               
Rental expenses
  $ 69.0     $ 50.6     $ 18.4       36.4 %
Real estate taxes
    69.2       57.2       12.0       21.0 %
     
     
     
     
 
 
Property operating expenses
  $ 138.2     $ 107.8     $ 30.4       28.2 %
     
     
     
     
 
Same store
  $ 93.2     $ 87.2     $ 6.0       6.9 %
2000 acquisitions
    27.9       7.1       20.8       293.0 %
2001 acquisitions
    4.4             4.4        
Developments
    9.6       4.3       5.3       123.3 %
Divestitures
    3.1       9.2       (6.1 )     (66.3 )%
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total
  $ 138.2     $ 107.8     $ 30.4       28.2 %
     
     
     
     
 

      The increase in same store properties’ operating expenses primarily relates to increases in common area maintenance expenses of $2.3 million, real estate taxes of $2.5 million, and insurance expense of $0.8 million.

                                   
Other Expenses 2001 2000 $ Change % Change





Interest, including amortization
  $ 129.0     $ 90.3     $ 38.7       42.9 %
Depreciation and amortization
    111.4       90.4       21.0       23.2 %
General and administrative
    35.8       23.7       12.1       51.1 %
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total
  $ 276.2     $ 204.4     $ 71.8       35.1 %
     
     
     
     
 

      The increase in interest expense was primarily due to the issuance of additional unsecured senior debt securities and an increase in secured debt balances, partially offset by decreased borrowings on our unsecured credit facility. The secured debt issuances were primarily for our co-investment joint ventures’ properties. The increase in depreciation expense was due to the increase in our net investment in real estate. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to increased personnel and occupancy costs. In addition, the consolidation of AMB Investment Management, Inc. (predecessor-in-interest to AMB Capital Partners, LLC) and Headlands Realty Corporation on May 31, 2001, resulted in an increase in general and administrative expenses of $4.9 million.

      During 2001, we recognized $20.8 million of losses on investments in other companies, related to our investment in Webvan Group, Inc. and other technology-related companies. The loss reflects a 100% write-down of the book value of the investments.

      During 2001, we retired $55.2 million of secured debt prior to maturity primarily in connection with property divestitures and early prepayments. We recognized a net extraordinary loss of $0.6 million related to the early retirement of debt, resulting from prepayment penalties, partially offset by the write-off of debt premiums.

For the Years Ended December 31, 2000 and 1999

                                   
Rental Revenues 2000 1999 $ Change % Change





(Dollars in millions)
Same store
  $ 314.4     $ 293.3     $ 21.1       7.2 %
1999 acquisitions
    85.1       41.0       44.1       107.6 %
2000 acquisitions
    28.0             28.0        
Developments
    7.0       4.2       2.8       66.7 %
Divestitures
    19.5       90.4       (70.9 )     (78.4 )%
Straight-line rents
    10.2       10.8       (0.6 )     (5.6 )%