10-K 1 f87871e10vk.htm FORM 10-K e10vk
 



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, 2002
 
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
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
  94111
(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

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).    Yes þ         No 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 June 30, 2002, was $2,595,016,448.

     As of March 10, 2003, there were 80,935,750 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

General

      AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland corporation, acquires, develops and operates industrial property in key distribution markets throughout North America, in Europe and in Asia. We commenced operations as a fully integrated real estate company effective with the completion of our initial public offering on November 26, 1997. Increasingly, our properties are designed for customers who value the efficient movement of goods in the world’s busiest distribution markets: large, supply-constrained locations with close proximity to airports, seaports and major freeway systems. We currently serve 2,550 customers in a portfolio (owned, managed or under development) totaling 992 buildings, encompassing approximately 94.6 million square feet (8.8 million square meters), in 30 global markets.

      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 in North America, in Europe and in Asia. We refer to AMB Property, L.P. as the “operating partnership.” As of December 31, 2002, we owned an approximate 94.5% 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. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “us” and “our” refer to AMB Property Corporation, the operating partnership and their other controlled subsidiaries, and the references to AMB Property Corporation include the operating partnership and their other controlled subsidiaries.

      Our investment strategy targets customers whose businesses are growing at a faster rate than world gross domestic product (GDP) — specifically, participants in global trade. To serve the facilities needs of these customers, we invest in major markets: transportation hubs and gateways in the U.S., and targeted distribution and airport markets internationally. Our target markets are characterized by large population densities and typically offer substantial consumer bases, proximity to large clusters of distribution-facility users and significant labor pools. When measured by annual base rents, approximately 70% of these assets are concentrated in eight U.S. hub and gateway distribution markets: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Northern New Jersey/ New York City, San Francisco Bay Area, Miami and Seattle.

      By focusing on an investment strategy that benefits from high customer demand and limited competition from new supply, we believe that over time net operating income will grow and our property values will increase. We work to implement this strategy by investing in locations that have geographic or regulatory supply constraints, high barriers to entry and close proximity to large population centers, and in buildings with customer-preferred characteristics.

      Our portfolio is comprised of strategically located industrial buildings in in-fill submarkets; in-fill locations are characterized by supply constraints on the availability of land for competing projects as well as physical, political or economic barriers to new development. A substantial majority of our owned or managed buildings function as High Throughput Distribution®, or HTD® facilities; buildings designed to quickly distribute our customers’ products, rather than store them. Our investment focus on HTD assets is based on the secular change toward lower inventory levels and expedited supply chains.

      HTD facilities have a variety of characteristics that allow the rapid transport of goods from point-to-point; examples include numerous dock doors, shallower building depths, fewer columns, large truck courts and more space for trailer parking. These facilities function best when located in convenient proximity to transportation infrastructure such as major airports and seaports. We believe that these building characteristics represent an important success factor for time-sensitive tenants such as air express, logistics and freight forwarding companies.

      As of December 31, 2002, we owned and operated (exclusive of properties that we managed for third parties) 904 industrial buildings and nine retail and other properties, totaling approximately 85.2 million

2


 

rentable square feet, located in 28 markets throughout North America and in France. As of December 31, 2002, our industrial and retail properties were 94.6% and 88.6% leased, respectively. As of December 31, 2002, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, LLC, we also managed, but did not have an ownership interest in, industrial buildings and retail centers, totaling approximately 1.7 million rentable square feet, on behalf of various clients. In addition, as of December 31, 2002, we had investments in 43 industrial buildings, totaling approximately 5.5 million rentable square feet, through unconsolidated joint ventures.

      As of December 31, 2002, we had two retail centers, four industrial properties and two development properties that we are holding for divestiture. 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.

      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, California 94111; our telephone number is (415) 394-9000. We also maintain regional offices in Boston, Massachusetts and Amsterdam, the Netherlands. As of December 31, 2002, we employed 184 individuals, 141 at our San Francisco headquarters, 42 in our Boston office and one in our Amsterdam office. Our website address is www.amb.com. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      The following marks are our registered trademarks: AMB®; Broker Alliance Partners®; Broker Alliance Program®; Customer Alliance Partners®; Customer Alliance Program®; Development Alliance Partners®; Development Alliance Program®; HTD®; High Throughput Distribution®; Institutional Alliance Partners®; Institutional Alliance Program®; Management Alliance Partners®; Management Alliance Program®; Strategic Alliance Partners®; UPREIT Alliance Partners®; and UPREIT Alliance Program®. The following mark is our unregistered trademark: Strategic Alliance Programs™.

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 well as private capital income, which enhances our returns. As of December 31, 2002, we had investments in five co-investment joint ventures with a gross book value of $1.6 billion, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

Acquisition, Development and Disposition Activity

      During 2002, we invested $403.3 million in operating properties, consisting of 43 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 5.4 million square feet, and a parking lot adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport. Our acquisitions included the investment of $166.5 million in 31 buildings, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet, through two of our co-investment joint ventures.

      During 2002, we completed industrial developments valued at $135.4 million, aggregating approximately 3.1 million square feet. We also initiated eight new industrial development projects valued at $90.6 million, aggregating approximately 1.8 million square feet, including new international industrial development projects valued at $50.3 million, aggregating approximately 1.1 million square feet.

      As of December 31, 2002, we had in our development pipeline ten industrial projects, which will total approximately 1.7 million square feet and have an aggregate estimated investment of $106.8 million upon completion and three development projects available for sale, which will total approximately 0.6 million square feet and have an aggregate estimated investment of $49.1 million upon completion. As of December 31, 2002,

3


 

we and our partners had funded an aggregate of $92.8 million and needed to fund an estimated additional $63.1 million in order to complete current and planned projects.

      During 2002, we disposed of 58 industrial buildings, two retail buildings, and an undeveloped retail land parcel, aggregating approximately 5.7 million rentable square feet, for an aggregate price of $244.0 million. During 2002, we also sold $76.9 million in operating properties, consisting of 15 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 1.9 million square feet, to one of our co-investment joint ventures. During 2002, we also completed and sold six buildings developed as part of our development-for-sale program for a net gain of $1.0 million.

Operating Strategy

      We base our operating strategy on extensive operational and service offerings, including in-house acquisitions, development, redevelopment, asset management, leasing, finance, accounting and market research. We leverage our expertise across a large customer base and have long-standing relationships with entrepreneurial real estate management and development firms in our target markets, our Strategic Alliance Partners®.

      We believe that real estate is fundamentally a local business and best operated by forging alliances with service providers in each target market. We believe that this strategy results in a mutually beneficial relationship as these alliance partners provide us with high-quality, local market expertise and intelligence. We, in turn, contribute value to the alliance relationship through national and global customer relationship development, industry knowledge, perspective and financial strength.

      While our alliance relationships give us local market benefits, we retain flexibility to focus on our core competencies: developing and executing 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 rollover 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 global portfolio. As of December 31, 2002, our industrial properties and retail centers were 94.6% leased and 88.6% leased, respectively. During 2002, average industrial base rental rates (on a cash basis) decreased by 1.0% 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 2002, we increased cash-basis same-store net operating income by 3.5% on our industrial properties. Since our initial public offering in November 1997, we have experienced average annual increases in industrial base rental rates (on a cash basis) of 14.5%; and we have experienced average quarterly increases in industrial same-store net operating income (on a cash basis) of 6.5%. While we believe that it is important to view real estate as a long-term investment, past results are not necessarily an indication of future performance.

      While occupancy levels in our industrial portfolio were similar in 2002 and 2001, rents on lease renewals and rollovers were lower in 2002 as the general contraction in business activity nationwide caused a reduction in demand for industrial warehouse facilities. This reduction in demand was evidenced by two significant factors: decreases in national industrial occupancy levels and negative net absorption of industrial facility space. Specifically, according to Torto Wheaton Research, at December 31, 2001, national industrial occupancy was 90.2%; by December 31, 2002, national occupancy fell to 88.8%. As reported by Torto Wheaton Research, national net absorption of industrial space (the change in the amount of square footage leased in existing and newly constructed industrial properties) was positive from 1989 through 2000. By contrast, Torto Wheaton Research reported that net absorption was negative by 152 million square feet in 2001 and 34 million square feet in 2002. In 2002, these factors combined to reduce market rents for industrial properties by approximately 15% to 20% nationally from peak levels at the beginning of 2001. While the level

4


 

of rental rate reduction varied by market, we strove to maintain high occupancy by pricing lease renewals and new leases with sensitivity to local market conditions.

     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 have forged relationships with third-party local property management firms through our Management Alliance Program®. We believe that these alliances 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 that 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, assumption of debt related to the acquired properties and private capital from our co-investment partners.

     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 global 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 global 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 our Development Alliance Partners. This way, we leverage the development skill, access to opportunities and capital of such developers, and we eliminate the need and expense of an extensive 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%; however, in certain cases we may own as little as 50% or as much as 98% of the joint venture. Upon completion, we generally would purchase our partner’s interest in the joint venture. We may also structure developments where we would own 100% of the asset with an incentive development fee to be paid upon completion to our development partner.

     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 partners commit new investment capital) through partnerships, limited liability companies or

5


 

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 and private capital income; however, there can be no assurance that it will continue to do so. During 2002, we sold $76.9 million in operating properties, consisting of 15 industrial buildings, aggregating approximately 1.9 million square feet, to one of our co-investment joint ventures, AMB-SGP, L.P. We recognized a gain of $3.3 million related to this sale, representing the portion of the sold properties acquired by the third-party co-investor. We also sold 30% of our interest in AMB Partners II, L.P., our co-investment joint venture with the City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, to our co-investment joint venture partner; we now own 20% of AMB Partners II, L.P. We recognized a gain of $6.3 million related to this sale.

     Growth Through Developments for Sale

      The operating partnership, through its taxable REIT subsidiaries, 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 2002, we completed and sold six value-added conversion buildings for a net gain of $1.0 million. As of December 31, 2002, we were developing three projects for sale to third parties. During 2001, we completed and sold two value-added conversion projects for a net gain of $13.2 million.

     Growth Through Global Expansion

      Over the next three to five years, we expect to have from 10% to 15% of our assets invested in international markets. Our Mexican target markets currently include Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey. Our European target markets currently include Paris, Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt and Madrid. Our Asian target markets currently include Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo. In 2002, our first year of international operation, we earned $0.7 million in rental revenues from our Mexico City, Guadalajara and Paris properties. There are many factors that could cause our entry into target markets and future capital allocation to differ from our current expectations, which are discussed under the subheading “Our International Growth is Subject to Special Political and Monetary Risks” and elsewhere under the heading “Business Risks” in this report.

      We believe that expansion into target international markets represents a natural extension of our well-established strategy to invest in industrial markets with high population densities, close proximity to large customer clusters and available labor pools, and major distribution centers serving the global supply chain. Our expansion strategy mirrors our domestic focus on in-fill locations, which are supply-constrained submarkets with political, economic or physical constraints to new development; and, land, as a high percentage of total asset value, becoming more valuable for higher and better use over time. Our international investments will extend our offering of High Throughput Distribution facilities for customers who value speed-to-market over storage. Specifically, we are focused on customers whose business is derived from world air-cargo flows, a sector expected to grow significantly faster than world GDP growth. In addition, our investments target major consumer distribution markets and customers.

      We believe that our established customer relationships, our contacts in the air cargo and logistics industries, diligent underwriting of markets and investment considerations and our strategic alliance partnerships with knowledgeable, local-market property brokers, developers and managers will assist us in competing internationally.

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.

6


 

Item 2.     Properties

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

      As of December 31, 2002, we owned 904 industrial buildings aggregating approximately 84.2 million rentable square feet, located in 28 markets throughout North America and France. Our industrial properties accounted for $501.2 million, or 97.7%, of our total annualized base rent as of December 31, 2002. Our industrial properties were 94.6% leased to over 2,300 customers, the largest of which accounted for no more than 2.6% of our annualized base rent from our industrial properties. See “Item 14. Note 17 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for segment information related to our operations.

      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 and each type’s percentage of our total portfolio based on square footage at December 31:

                     
Building Type Description 2002 2001




Warehouse
  15,000-75,000 SF, single or multi-customer     40.2%       40.3%  
Bulk Warehouse
  Over 75,000 SF, single or multi-customer     39.6%       37.8%  
Flex Industrial
  Includes assembly or R&D, single or multi-customer     7.5%       9.6%  
Light Industrial
  Smaller customers, 15,000 SF or less, higher office finish     6.5%       7.3%  
Trans-Shipment
  Unique configurations for truck terminals and cross-docking     2.3%       1.8%  
Air Cargo
  On-tarmac or airport land for transfer of air cargo goods     2.6%       1.6%  
Office
  Single or multi-customer, used strictly for office     1.3%       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. In addition, most of our leases include fixed rental increases or CPI rental increases. Lease terms typically range from three to ten years, with an average of six years, excluding renewal options. However, the majority of our industrial leases do not include renewal options.

      Overview of Major Target Markets. Our industrial properties are located near key passenger and air cargo airports, key interstate highways, and seaports in major domestic metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Northern New Jersey/New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Miami and Seattle. Our international industrial facilities are located in major distributions markets including Mexico City, Guadalajara and Paris. 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 constraints to the supply of additional industrial properties.

7


 

Industrial Market Operating Statistics

      As of December 31, 2002, we operated in eight domestic hub and gateway markets, in addition to 20 other markets throughout North America and France. 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. San Total Total
Dallas/ Los New Jersey/ Francisco Hub Other
Atlanta Chicago(1) Ft. Worth Angeles New York Bay Area Miami Seattle Markets Markets Total











Square feet owned(1)
    7,235,434       7,821,563       3,728,532       12,205,784       7,487,729       11,296,618       4,432,361       4,857,434       58,975,455       25,227,567       84,203,022  
Our pro rata share
of square feet
    4,699,741       6,049,044       2,740,714       8,544,968       5,121,955       8,801,807       4,008,449       3,008,807       42,885,515       22,413,294       65,298,809  
Occupancy Percentage
    90.8%       94.5%       96.3%       97.7%       97.1%       94.7%       95.7%       97.2%       95.5%       92.5%       94.6%  
Annualized base rent (000’s)
    $27,187       $34,879       $14,761       $71,391       $46,997       $94,458       $30,357       $22,718       $342,748       $158,461       $501,209  
Annualized base rent
per square foot
    $4.14       $4.72       $4.11       $5.99       $6.46       $8.83       $7.31       $4.81       $6.09       $6.79       $6.29  
Lease expirations as a percentage of ABR:
                                                                                       
 
2003.
    11.9%       19.7%       16.3%       17.7%       16.7%       14.6%       12.6%       22.3%       16.1%       13.7%       15.4%  
 
2004.
    13.1%       21.9%       18.8%       15.8%       28.4%       15.1%       22.4%       18.1%       18.5%       10.4%       16.0%  
 
2005.
    20.7%       16.3%       22.5%       14.7%       9.3%       16.8%       20.6%       11.4%       15.9%       15.8%       16.0%  
 
2006.
    17.8%       22.1%       13.8%       16.0%       8.2%       10.4%       14.3%       11.1%       13.5%       11.0%       12.8%  
 
2007.
    6.4%       7.8%       8.0%       11.0%       15.4%       12.1%       15.5%       19.6%       12.1%       16.6%       13.4%  
Weighted average lease terms Original
    6.0 years       6.3 years       5.4 years       5.9 years       5.5 years       5.8 years       5.9 years       6.0 years       5.9 years       7.0 years       6.2 years  
 
Remaining
    3.9 years       2.3 years       1.9 years       3.1 years       2.9 years       3.0 years       3.0 years       3.0 years       3.0 years       4.0 years       3.3 years  
Tenant Retention
(Year-to-date)
    64.7%       88.1%       55.6%       83.4%       96.3%       60.7%       57.3%       65.2%       74.0%       74.7%       74.2%  
Rent increases on
renewals and rollovers
    -8.3%       -5.6%       3.4%       10.8%       11.7%       -8.0%       -15.1%       -12.2%       -1.8%       1.0%       -1.0%  
Same space leased
    1,121,943       1,220,090       387,071       2,092,507       1,566,866       2,083,734       706,839       1,124,633       10,303,683       4,396,916       14,700,599  
Same store cash basis NOI growth
    -2.8%       5.7%       2.1%       2.1%       -5.3%       15.1%       4.0%       -4.9%       5.2%       -0.4%       3.5%  
Square feet owned in same store pool(2)
    5,160,923       6,492,649       3,413,679       9,319,905       5,280,207       8,775,561       4,342,361       3,520,291       46,305,576       21,693,009       67,998,585  
Total market square footage(3)
    7,587,220       11,992,828       4,328,659       15,080,058       7,914,243       12,298,081       4,968,046       4,984,898       69,154,033       25,432,716       94,586,749  


(1)  Includes all industrial consolidated operating properties and excludes industrial developments and renovation projects.
 
(2)  Same store pool excludes properties purchased or developments stabilized after December 31, 2000.
 
(3)  Total market square footage includes industrial and retail operating properties, development properties, unconsolidated properties, properties managed for third parties and reallocation of on-tarmac properties.

8


 

Industrial Operating Portfolio Overview

      As of December 31, 2002, our 904 industrial buildings were diversified across 28 markets throughout North America and France. The average age of our industrial properties is 19 years (since the property was built or substantially renovated). 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 (1) Square Feet Leased (000’s) Base Rent of Leases Square Foot









Hub and Gateway Markets:
                                                               
 
Atlanta
    61       7,235,434       8.6 %     90.8 %   $ 27,187       5.4 %     183     $ 4.14  
 
Chicago (2)
    92       7,821,563       9.3       94.5       34,879       7.0       184       4.72  
 
Dallas/ Ft. Worth
    41       3,728,532       4.4       96.3       14,761       2.9       105       4.11  
 
Los Angeles (3)
    144       12,205,784       14.5       97.7       71,391       14.2       364       5.99  
 
N. New Jersey/ New York City
    79       7,487,729       8.9       97.1       46,997       9.4       254       6.46  
 
San Francisco Bay Area
    143       11,296,618       13.4       94.7       94,458       18.8       400       8.83  
 
Miami
    42       4,342,361       5.2       95.7       30,557       6.1       225       7.31  
 
Seattle
    47       4,857,434       5.8       97.2       22,718       4.5       168       4.81  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
   
Subtotal/ Weighted Average
    649       58,975,455       70.0       95.5       342,748       68.4       1,883       6.09  
Other Markets:
                                                               
 
Austin
    9       1,365,873       1.6       94.1       9,559       1.9       27       7.44  
 
Baltimore/ Washington D.C
    63       4,105,921       4.9       96.9       30,749       6.1       287       7.73  
 
Boston
    38       4,401,018       5.2       95.1       22,933       4.6       57       5.48  
 
Charlotte
    10       729,836       0.9       55.9       1,900       0.4       24       4.66  
 
Cincinnati
    6       812,053       1.0       95.1       2,512       0.5       13       3.25  
 
Columbus
    2       465,433       0.6       48.4       683       0.1       1       3.03  
 
Guadalajara, Mexico
    5       687,088       0.8       88.3       3,691       0.7       13       6.08  
 
Memphis
    17       1,883,845       2.2       97.4       9,014       1.8       46       4.91  
 
Mexico City
    1       786,979       0.9       100.0       4,246       0.8       1       5.40  
 
Minneapolis
    42       4,456,905       5.3       95.9       18,382       3.7       203       4.30  
 
New Orleans
    5       411,689       0.5       94.5       1,959       0.4       47       5.04  
 
Newport News
    1       60,215       0.1       78.8       584       0.1       3       12.31  
 
Orlando
    19       1,845,494       2.2       81.9       6,608       1.3       80       4.37  
 
Paris, France
    1       67,415       0.1       100.0       677       0.1       1       10.04  
 
Portland
    5       676,104       0.8       100.0       2,940       0.6       11       4.35  
 
San Diego
    5       276,167       0.3       100.0       2,545       0.5       21       9.22  
 
On-Tarmac (4)
    26       2,195,532       2.6       91.0       39,479       7.9       167       19.76  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
   
Subtotal/ Weighted Average
    255       25,227,567       30.0       92.5       158,461       31.6       1,002       6.79  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 
     
Total/ Weighted Average
    9 04       84,203,022       100.0 %     94.6 %   $ 501,209       100.0 %     2,885     $ 6.29  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 


(1)  In addition to owned square feet, we manage, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, LLC, 1.7 million additional square feet of industrial, retail and other properties.
 
(2)  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.
 
(3)  We also have an ownership interest in 7 industrial buildings totaling 1.4 million square feet in the Los Angeles market through our investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.
 
(4)  Includes on-tarmac airport air cargo facilities at 11 airports.

9


 

Industrial Lease Expirations

      The following table summarizes the lease expirations for our industrial properties for leases in place as of December 31, 2002, 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 Rent Annualized
Year of Lease Expiration (1) Square Feet (000s) (2) Base Rent




2003 (3)
    14,068,516     $ 82,252       15.4 %
2004.
    13,476,638       85,679       16.0  
2005.
    13,542,987       84,741       16.0  
2006.
    9,916,313       68,271       12.8  
2007.
    9,572,812       71,905       13.4  
2008.
    6,265,707       38,605       7.2  
2009.
    3,697,563       21,802       4.1  
2010.
    2,589,890       26,418       4.9  
2011.
    1,898,797       21,040       3.9  
2012.
    2,593,493       19,794       3.7  
2013 and beyond
    1,508,054       14,131       2.6  
     
     
     
 
 
Total
    79,130,770     $ 534,638       100.0 %
     
     
     
 


(1)  Schedule includes in-place leases and leases with future commencement dates.
 
(2)  Calculated as monthly rent at expiration multiplied by 12.
 
(3)  Includes month-to-month leases totaling 0.5 million square feet.

10


 

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






United States Government(4)(5)
    30       642,264       0.8 %   $ 13,150       2.6 %
FedEx Corporation (4)
    30       727,965       0.9       9,608       1.9  
Harmonic Inc.
    3       241,980       0.3       4,776       0.9  
Proctor & Gamble Manufactura
    2       797,168       1.0       4,308       0.8  
International Paper Company
    7       541,379       0.7       4,069       0.8  
Abgenix, Inc.
    2       97,887       0.1       3,607       0.7  
County of Los Angeles (6)
    12       248,078       0.3       3,551       0.7  
Waitex International Co. Ltd.
    5       504,940       0.6       3,212       0.6  
Ford Motor Company
    1       610,878       0.8       3,034       0.6  
Ahold NV
    7       680,565       0.8       2,879       0.6  
TJX Companies, Inc.
    4       699,157       0.9       2,824       0.6  
FMI International
    3       439,390       0.5       2,533       0.5  
Wells Fargo and Company
    5       213,432       0.3       2,510       0.5  
Danzas AEI International
    7       352,476       0.4       2,472       0.5  
United Airlines Inc. (4)
    4       121,381       0.2       2,437       0.5  
Home Depot USA Inc.
    3       577,813       0.7       2,392       0.5  
BAX Global Inc. (4)
    4       151,452       0.2       2,332       0.5  
Forward Air Corporation
    7       344,765       0.4       2,249       0.4  
CNF Inc.
    9       545,495       0.4       2,242       0.4  
Boeing Company
    5       457,565       0.6       2,237       0.4  
Johnson & Johnson
    4       129,449       0.2       2,196       0.4  
Applied Materials, Inc.
    1       290,557       0.4       2,152       0.4  
Cirrus Logic
    1       48,384       0.1       2,113       0.4  
United Liquors, Ltd.
    1       440,000       0.5       2,057       0.4  
DJ Air Services, Inc.
    1       51,920       0.1       2,054       0.4  
             
             
         
 
Total
            9,756,340       12.1 %   $ 86,994       17.0 %
             
             
         


(1)  Customer(s) may be a subsidiary of or an entity affiliated with the named customer. We also hold a lease at Park One with an annualized base rent of $6.5 million, which is not included because it is not an industrial operating property.
 
(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)  United States Government includes the United States Postal Service (USPS), U.S. Customs and the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA).
 
(6)  County of Los Angeles includes Children’s Services, the Fire Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff and the Unified School District.

11


 

OPERATING AND LEASING STATISTICS

Industrial Operating and Leasing Statistics

      The following table summarizes key operating and leasing statistics for all of our industrial properties as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000:

                             
2002 2001 2000



Square feet owned at December 31(1)(2)
    84,203,022       81,550,880       77,795,989  
Occupancy percentage at December 31.
    94.6 %     94.5 %     96.4 %
Weighted average lease term:
                       
 
Original
    6.2 years       6.3 years       6.4 years  
 
Remaining
    3.3 years       3.3 years       3.5 years  
Tenant retention
    74.2 %     66.8 %     59.0 %
Same Space Leasing Activity:(3)
                       
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers
    (1.0 )%     20.4 %     25.6 %
 
Same space square footage commencing (millions)
    14.7       11.9       11.9  
2nd generation leasing activity:(4)
                       
 
Renewals
  $ 1.30     $ 0.99     $ 1.22  
 
Re-tenanted
    2.45       3.25       2.27  
     
     
     
 
   
Weighted average
  $ 1.90     $ 2.05     $ 1.86  
     
     
     
 
 
Same space square footage commencing (millions)
    19.0       13.9       n/a  


(1)  Includes all consolidated operating properties and excludes industrial development and renovation projects.
 
(2)  In addition to owned square feet as of December 31, 2002, we manage, through our subsidiary, AMB Capital Partners, 1.7 million additional square feet of industrial, retail and other properties. We also have investments in 5.5 million square feet of industrial properties through our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures.
 
(3)  Consists of second-generation leases renewing or re-tenanting with current and prior lease terms greater than one year.
 
(4)  Second generation leasing activity includes total tenant improvements, lease commissions and other leasing costs incurred during the leasing of second generation space. Costs incurred prior to leasing available space are not included until such space is leased. Second generation space excludes newly developed space or space vacant at acquisition.

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, 2002, 2001 and 2000. The same store pool excludes properties purchased and developments stabilized after December 31, 2000. For an explanation of our same store

12


 

properties, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Results of Operations.”
                           
2002 2001 2000



Square feet in same store pool at December 31.
    67,998,585       60,165,437       52,145,350  
 
% of total industrial square feet
    80.8 %     73.8 %     68.8 %
Occupancy percentage at period end
    94.6 %     94.6 %     96.8 %
Tenant retention
    73.3 %     64.5 %     59.2 %
Rent increases on renewals and rollovers
    (1.4 )%     23.5 %     27.0 %
 
Same space square footage commencing (millions)
    13.8       10.0       9.9  
Cash basis net operating income growth % increase
                       
 
Revenues
    3.9 %     6.4 %     7.3 %
 
Expenses
    5.1 %     6.9 %     3.5 %
 
NOI
    3.5 %     6.3 %     8.5 %

RETAIL PROPERTIES

Retail and Other Property Summary

      The following table sets forth the rentable square footage of our retail centers and other properties as of December 31, 2002, and represents properties in which we own a fee simple interest or a controlling interest (consolidated).

                           
Total Annualized
Rentable Percentage Base Rent
Retail Properties Square Feet Leased (000’s)(1)




Around Lenox(3)
    120,946       67.1 %   $ 2,185  
Beacon Center
    63,240       61.9       754  
Charles & Chase
    48,000       100.0       300  
Howard & Western(4)
    88,544       94.3       1,196  
Mazzeo Drive
    88,420       100.0       717  
Novato Fair Shopping Center(3)
    126,193       90.1       1,002  
Palm Aire
    131,233       96.9       1,648  
Springs Gate land(3)
    n/a       n/a       n/a  
The Plaza at Delray(3)(4)
    332,908       91.5       4,161  
     
     
     
 
 
Total/ Weighted Average
    999,484       88.6 %   $ 11,963  
     
     
     
 


(1)  Annualized base rent means the monthly contractual amount under existing leases at December 31, 2002, 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, 2002.
 
(3)  We hold an interest in this property through a joint venture interest in a limited partnership.
 
(4)  This property is held for divestiture as of December 31, 2002.

      Our retail properties have an average age of 12 years since they were built, expanded or renovated. During 2002, we sold two retail properties totaling approximately 0.3 million rentable square feet and an undeveloped retail land parcel. As of December 31, 2002, we had two retail centers, aggregating approximately 0.4 million rentable square feet, held for divestiture.

13


 

Development Pipeline

      The following table sets forth the properties owned by us as of December 31, 2002, 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 Alliance Stabilization Square Feet at Total Ownership
Project Location Partner® Date Completion Investment(1) Percentage







(Dollars in thousands)
2003 Deliveries
                                           
 
1. Van Nuys Buildings 3 & 4
  Van Nuys, CA     Trammell Crow Company       January       161,000     $ 12,600       95 %
 
2. Dulles Airport Park Building 300
  Dulles, VA     Seefried Properties       April       77,000       5,600       21 %
 
3. Airport South Building 700
  College Park, GA     Seefried Properties       July       64,000       4,100       20 %
 
4. Sunset Distribution Center(3)
  Brea, CA     None       July       348,000       18,100       20 %
 
5. Suwanee Creek Phase V
  Atlanta, GA     Seefried Properties       July       167,000       6,000       100 %
 
6. Des Plaines Distribution Center(4)
  Des Plaines, IL     Seefried Properties       August       36,000       6,900       18 %
 
7. Paris Nord Distribution II
  Paris, France     None       September       101,000       8,300       100 %
 
8. Carson Town Center, SE
  Carson, CA     Mar Ventures       September       349,000       23,200       95 %
 
9. Houston Air Cargo
  Houston, TX     Trammell Crow Company       October       156,000       10,800       20 %
                         
     
         
Total 2003 Deliveries
                        1,459,000       95,600       60 %
% Pre-leased/funded-to-date (2)
                        33 %   $ 57,700 (2)        
Weighted Average Estimated
  Yield
                                9.9%/ 9.4%          
GAAP/ Cash(5)
                                           
2004 Deliveries
                                           
10. Airport Logistics Park of Singapore Phase I
  Changi, Singapore     Boustead Projects       September       234,000       11,200       50 %
                         
     
         
% Pre-leased/funded-to-date(2)
                        0 %   $ 100          
Weighted Average Estimated
  Yield
                              11.9%/ 11.9%
GAAP/ Cash(5)
                                           
Total Scheduled Deliveries(1)
                        1,693,000     $ 106,800       59 %
                         
     
         
% Pre-leased/funded-to-date (2)
                        28 %   $ 57,800 (2)        
Weighted Average Estimated
  Yield GAAP/ Cash(5)
                              10.1%/ 9.7%


(1)  Represents total estimated cost or renovation, expansion or development, including initial acquisition costs, Development Alliance Partner® earnouts and associated equity carry costs. The estimates are based on our current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change. Excludes 178 acres of land held for future development and other acquisition-related costs totaling $27.1 million.
 
(2)  As of December 31, 2002, our share of amounts funded to date for 2003 deliveries was $36.8 million.
 
(3)  Represents a renovation project.
 
(4)  This is a 79-door truck terminal.
 
(5)  The yield on international projects is on an after-tax basis.

14


 

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AVAILABLE FOR SALE(1)

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







(Dollars in thousands)
Value-Added Conversion
                                   
None
                                   
Build-to-Sell(4)
                                   
1. Carson Town Center SW
  Southern California   Mar Ventures   Completed     247,000     $ 18,900       95%  
2. Novato Fair Shopping Center
  SF Bay Area   AIG   November 2003     134,000       18,300       50%  
3. Wilsonville Phase II
  Southern California   Trammell Crow   March 2004     250,000       11,900       100%  
                 
     
         
 
Total Build-to-Sell Properties
                631,000       49,100       79%  
                 
     
         
   
Funded-to-date
                        35,000 (5)        


(1)  Excludes 47 acres of land and other acquisition-related costs totaling $11.2 million.
 
(2)  We intend 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 our current estimates and forecasts and are subject to change.
 
(4)  Represents build-to-suit and speculative development or redevelopment.
 
(5)  As of December 31, 2002, our share of amounts funded to date was $27.0 million.

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

     Consolidated

      As of December 31, 2002, 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 we own a majority interest or 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. See “Item 14. Note 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

15


 

INDUSTRIAL CONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURES

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







(Dollars in thousands)
Operating Joint Ventures:
                                               
Co-investment joint ventures with AMB:
                                               
 
AMB/ Erie(3)
    50 %     32       2,837,459     $ 166,184     $ 58,248     $ 29,124  
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I(4)
    21 %     103       5,902,060       393,827       171,813       136,413  
 
AMB Partners II(5)
    20 %     56       4,416,908       237,173       120,874       91,428  
 
AMB-SGP(6)
    50 %     73       8,594,016       379,207       252,475       126,238  
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II(4)
    20 %     56       5,725,598       337,865       227,955       182,216  
             
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total co-investment joint ventures
    31 %     320       27,476,041       1,514,256       831,365       565,419  
Other Joint Ventures
    92 %     41       4,094,640       320,721       80,250       4,944  
             
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total Operating Joint Ventures
    42 %     361       31,570,681       1,834,977       911,615       570,363  
             
     
     
     
     
 
Development Alliance Joint Ventures:
                                               
 
AMB/ Erie(3)
    50 %                 13,985              
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I(4)
    21 %     2       233,000       9,933       9,748       7,701  
 
AMB Partners II(5)
    20 %     1       64,000       3,006              
 
AMB Institutional Alliance Fund II(4)
    20 %     3       384,000       17,805              
 
Other Development Alliance Joint Ventures
    93 %     8       757,000       52,674              
             
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total Development Joint Ventures
    64 %     14       1,438,000       97,403       9,748       7,701  
             
     
     
     
     
 
     
Total Industrial Consolidated Joint Ventures
    43 %     375       33,008,681     $ 1,932,380     $ 921,363     $ 578,064  
             
     
     
     
     
 


(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)  AMB Erie is a co-investment partnership formed in 1998 with the Erie Insurance Company and certain related entities.
 
(4)  AMB Institutional Alliance Fund I (closed in 2000) and II (closed in 2001) are co-investment partnerships with institutional investors, which invest through private REITs.
 
(5)  AMB Partners II is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with the City and County of San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System. In November 2002, CCSF increased its ownership in AMB Partners II from 50% to 80% by acquiring an additional 30% partnership interest in AMB Partners II from us.
 
(6)  AMB-SGP is a co-investment partnership formed in 2001 with Industrial JV Pte Ltd, a subsidiary of GIC Real Estate Pte Ltd., the real estate investment subsidiary of the government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

16


 

RETAIL AND OTHER CONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURES

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







(Dollars in thousands)
Operating Joint Ventures
                                           
 
1. Around Lenox
  Atlanta     90%       120,946     $ 21,408     $ 9,424     $ 942  
 
2. Palm Aire
  Miami     100%       131,233       18,787              
 
3. Plaza at Delray(2)
  Miami     76%       332,908       41,306              
         
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total Operating Joint Ventures
        85%       585,087       81,501       9,424       942  
         
     
     
     
     
 
Development Alliance Joint Venture
                                           
 
4. Springs Gate land(3)
  Miami     100%             6,717              
 
5. Novato Fair Shopping Center
  SF Bay Area     50%       134,000       14,522       7,806       3,903  
         
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total Development Joint Ventures
        66%       134,000       21,239       7,806       3,903  
         
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total Retail Consolidated Joint Ventures
        81%       719,087     $ 102,740     $ 17,230     $ 4,845  
         
     
     
     
     
 


(1)  Represents the book value of the property (before accumulated depreciation) owned by the joint-venture entity and excludes net other assets.
 
(2)  Included as properties held for divestiture.
 
(3)  Represents 26 acres of land for future development. We sold 13 acres of our 39 acres in December 2002.

17


 

     Unconsolidated Joint Ventures, Mortgage Investments and Other Investments:

      As of December 31, 2002, we held interests in four 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, 2002, we held one mortgage investment from which we receive interest income.

UNCONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURES,

MORTGAGE AND OTHER INVESTMENTS
                                             
Our Net Our Our
Total Equity Ownership Share
Joint Ventures Market Alliance Partner Square Feet Investment Percentage of Debt







(Dollars in thousands)
1. Elk Grove Du Page
  Chicago     Hamilton Partners       4,046,721     $ 58,966       56%     $ 13,438  
2. Pico Rivera
  Southern California     Majestic Realty       855,600       2,444       50%       16,826  
3. Monte Vista Spectrum
  Southern California     Majestic Realty       576,700       2,983       50%       9,024  
4. Airport Logistics Park of Singapore Phase I(1)
  Singapore     Boustead Projects       234,000       35       50%        
                 
     
             
 
Total Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
                5,713,021     $ 64,428       56%     $ 39,288  
                 
     
             
 
                                             
Mortgage
Mortgage Investment Market Maturity Receivable(2) Rate





(Dollars in thousands)
1. Pier 1(3)
  SF Bay Area     May 2026     $ 13,133       13.0%                  
                                             
Our
Ownership
Other Investments Market Property Type Investment Percentage





(Dollars in thousands)
1. Park One(4)
  Southern California     Parking Lot     $ 75,500       100%                  


(1)  Square feet for development alliance joint ventures represents estimated square feet at completion of development project.
 
(2)  We also hold inter-company loans that we eliminate in consolidation.
 
(3)  We also have a 0.1% unconsolidated equity interest (with a 33% economic interest) in this property and have an option to purchase the remaining equity interest beginning January 1, 2007, and expiring December 31, 2009.
 
(4)  Park One is a 19.9 acre parking lot with 2,720 parking spaces and 12 billboard signs in the Los Angeles market, immediately adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport.

Secured Debt

      As of December 31, 2002, we had $1.3 billion of indebtedness, net of unamortized premiums, secured by deeds of trust on 104 properties. As of December 31, 2002, the total gross investment value of those properties secured by debt was $2.6 billion. Of the $1.3 billion of secured indebtedness, $893.1 million was joint venture debt secured by properties with a gross investment value of $1.6 billion. 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, 2002, the value of the properties securing the respective obligations in each case exceeded the principal amount of the outstanding obligations.

18


 

Item 3.     Legal Proceedings

      As of December 31, 2002, there were no pending legal proceedings to which we were a party or of which any of our properties was the subject, the adverse determination of which we anticipate would have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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

      None.

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 10, 2003, there were approximately 352 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 or payable by us during the period from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2002.

                           
Year High Low Dividend




2002
                       
 
1st Quarter
  $ 27.60     $ 25.26     $ 0.410  
 
2nd Quarter
    31.00       27.46       0.410  
 
3rd Quarter
    30.83       26.35       0.410  
 
4th Quarter
    28.92       24.99       0.410  
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       0.370  
 
2nd Quarter
    23.63       21.25       0.370  
 
3rd Quarter
    24.94       23.00       0.370  
 
4th Quarter
    26.06       23.25       0.370  

19


 

Item 6.     Selected Financial and Other Data

SELECTED COMPANY FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA (1)

      The following table sets forth selected consolidated historical financial and other data for AMB Property Corporation on an historical basis as of and for the years ended December 31:

                                             
2002 2001 2000 1999 1998





(Dollars in thousands, except per share mounts)
Operating Data
                                       
 
Total revenues
  $ 615,843     $ 562,777     $ 447,098     $ 420,023     $ 338,521  
 
Income before minority interests
    148,505       148,742       151,639       144,209       113,671  
 
Income from continuing operations
    94,371       121,653       107,847       163,975       102,526  
 
Net income available to common stockholders
    116,153       125,053       113,282       167,603       108,954  
 
Net income from continuing operations per common share:
                                       
   
Basic (2)
    1.03       1.29       1.18       1.80       1.15  
   
Diluted (2)
    1.02       1.28       1.18       1.80       1.15  
 
Net income per common share:
                                       
   
Basic (2)
    1.39       1.49       1.35       1.94       1.27  
   
Diluted (2)
    1.37       1.47       1.35       1.94       1.26  
 
Dividends declared per common share
    1.64       1.58       1.48       1.40       1.37  
Other Data
                                       
 
Funds from operations (3)
    217,628       212,907       208,651       191,147       170,407  
 
Cash flows provided by (used in):
                                       
   
Operating activities
    288,801       288,562       261,175       190,391       177,180  
   
Investing activities
    (318,471 )     (363,152 )     (726,499 )     63,732       (793,366 )
   
Financing activities
    45,931       127,303       452,370       (240,721 )     604,202  
Balance Sheet Data
                                       
 
Investments in real estate at cost
  $ 4,925,982     $ 4,530,711     $ 4,026,597     $ 3,249,452     $ 3,369,060  
 
Total assets
    4,992,494       4,768,943       4,433,207       3,631,175       3,571,327  
 
Total consolidated debt
    2,235,361       2,143,714       1,843,857       1,279,662       1,376,638  
 
Our share of total debt
    1,691,737       1,655,386       1,681,161       1,168,218       1,348,107  
 
Contractual obligations (4)
    2,609,935       2,329,152       2,002,884       1,279,662       1,376,638  
 
Stockholders’ equity
    1,684,150       1,752,342       1,767,930       1,829,259       1,765,360  


(1)  Certain items in the consolidated financial statements for prior periods have been reclassified to conform with current classifications with no effect on net income or stockholders’ equity.
 
(2)  Basic and diluted net income per weighted average share equals the net income available to common stockholders divided by 83,310,885 and 84,795,987 shares, respectively, for 2002; 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; and 85,876,383 and 86,235,176 shares, respectively, for 1998.
 
(3)  Funds from Operations, or FFO, is defined as income from operations before minority interest plus real estate depreciation, discontinued operations’ FFO and adjustments 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 FFO is an appropriate measure of performance for a real estate investment trust because it is widely used by investors and analysts. While FFO 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 of America, or GAAP, and it should not be considered as an alternative to these indicators in evaluating liquidity or operating performance. Further, FFO as disclosed by other real estate investment trusts may not be comparable. For a presentation of and a quantitative reconciliation of FFO with the most directly comparable financial measure to FFO calculated in accordance with GAAP, please see the supplemental earnings table in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
 
(4)  Contractual obligations include short-term and long-term debt payments and lease obligations. Amounts due within one year were $160.3 million, $103.5 million, $54.1 million, $128.1 million and $14.1 million as of December 31, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively.

20


 

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

      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

21


 

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 under long-term operating leases at our properties, including reimbursements from customers for certain operating costs and our private capital business. 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. Although the weak economy has decreased customer demand for new space and has limited or in some cases lowered rent growth, many types of investors are acquiring industrial real estate. In 2002, we capitalized on this opportunity by accelerating our portfolio repositioning program through the disposition of 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 of America (“GAAP”). 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.

      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 earnings.

      Rental Revenues. We record rental revenue from 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, security deposits and letters of credit, then we may have to recognize additional bad debt charges in future periods. Each period we review our outstanding accounts receivable, including straight-line rents, for doubtful accounts and provide allowances as needed. Historically, our bad debt expense has been between 50 and 150 basis points of total revenues.

22


 

      Consolidated Joint Ventures. Minority interests represent the limited partnership interests in the operating partnership and interests held by certain third parties in several real estate joint ventures, aggregating approximately 33.8 million square feet, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes. Such investments are consolidated because we own a majority interest or we exercise significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, investment activity and changes in financing.

      Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures. We have non-controlling limited partnership interests in four separate unconsolidated joint ventures. These investments are not consolidated because we do not exercise significant control over major operating decisions such as approval of budgets, selection of property managers, investment activity and changes in financing. We account for the joint ventures using the equity method of accounting.

      Stock-based Compensation Expense. In 2002, we adopted the expense recognition provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. We value stock options issued using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and recognize this value as an expense over the period in which the options vest. Under this standard, recognition of expense for stock options is retroactively applied to all options granted after the beginning of the year of adoption. Prior to 2002, we followed the intrinsic method set forth in APB Opinion 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. During 2002, we awarded 2.0 million stock options to employees. In accordance with SFAS No. 123, we will recognize the associated expense over the three to five-year vesting periods. The expense is included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

      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. 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. It is our current intention to adhere to these requirements and maintain our REIT status. As a REIT, we generally will not be subject to corporate level federal income tax on net income that we distribute currently to our stockholders. As such, no provision for federal income taxes has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. As a REIT, we still may be subject to certain state, local and foreign taxes on our income and property and to federal income and excise taxes on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be required to pay federal and state income tax on the net taxable income, if any, from the activities conducted through our taxable REIT subsidiaries.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

      The analysis below includes changes attributable to acquisitions, development activity, 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, 2002 and 2001, the same store industrial properties consisted of properties aggregating approximately 68.0 million square feet. The properties acquired during 2002 consisted of 43 buildings, aggregating approximately 5.4 million square feet. The properties acquired during 2001 consisted of 65 buildings, aggregating approximately 6.8 million square feet. In 2002, property divestitures consisted of 58 industrial buildings and two retail centers, aggregating approximately 5.7 million square feet. In 2001, property divestitures 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.

      While occupancy levels in our industrial portfolio were similar in 2002 and 2001, rents on lease renewals and rollovers were lower in 2002 as the general contraction in business activity nationwide caused a reduction

23


 

in demand for industrial warehouse facilities. This reduction in demand was evidenced by two significant factors: decreases in national industrial occupancy levels and negative net absorption of industrial facility space. Specifically, according to Torto Wheaton Research, at December 31, 2001, national industrial occupancy was 90.2%; by December 31, 2002, national occupancy fell to 88.8%. As reported by Torto Wheaton Research, national net absorption of industrial space (the change in the amount of square footage leased in existing and newly constructed industrial properties) was positive from 1989 through 2000. By contrast, Torto Wheaton Research reported that net absorption was negative by 152.0 million square feet in 2001 and 34.0 million square feet in 2002. These factors combined to reduce market rents for industrial properties by approximately 15% to 20% nationally from peak levels at the beginning of 2001. While the level of rental rate reduction varied by market, we strove to maintain high occupancy by pricing lease renewals and new leases with sensitivity to local market conditions.

For the Years Ended December 31, 2002 and 2001

                                     
Rental Revenues 2002 2001 $ Change % Change





(Dollars in millions)
Industrial:
                               
 
Same store
  $ 490.9     $ 472.4     $ 18.5       3.9 %
 
2001 acquisitions
    46.7       20.3       26.4       130.0 %
 
2002 acquisitions
    21.2             21.2        
 
Developments
    20.2       9.6       10.6       110.4 %
 
Divestitures
    21.9       31.3       (9.4 )     (30.0 )%
Retail
    16.9       24.3       (7.4 )     (30.5 )%
Discontinued operations
    (40.3 )     (38.0 )     2.3        
Straight-line rents
    11.0       10.1       0.9       8.9 %
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total
  $ 588.5     $ 530.0     $ 58.5       11.0 %
     
     
     
     
 

      The growth in rental revenues in same store properties resulted primarily from increased lease termination fees, fixed rent increases on existing leases and reimbursement of expenses, partially offset by lower average occupancies. Industrial same store occupancy was 94.6% at December 31, 2002, and 95.0% at December 31, 2001. Year-to-date, the same store rent decrease on industrial renewals and rollovers (cash basis) was (1.4%) on 13.8 million square feet leased. The increase in straight-line rents was partially offset by write-offs associated with lease terminations. In 2002, lease termination fees increased $9.5 million, net of straight-line rent adjustments and lease cost and tenant improvement write-downs, over 2001.

                                   
Private Capital and Other Income 2002 2001 $ Change % Change





Equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures
  $ 5.7     $ 5.5     $ 0.2       3.6 %
Private capital income
    11.2       11.0       0.2       1.8 %
Interest and other income
    10.4       16.3       (5.9 )     (36.2 )%
     
     
     
     
 
 
Total
  $ 27.3     $ 32.8     $ (5.5 )     (16.8 )%
     
     
     
     
 

      The decrease in interest and other income was primarily due to the repayment of the $74.0 million mortgage note in July 2002. We carried a 9.5% mortgage note secured by the retail center that we sold in September 2000 in the principal amount of $74.0 million.

24


 

                                     
Property Operating Expenses and Real Estate Taxes
(Exclusive of depreciation and amortization) 2002 2001 $ Change % Change





Rental expenses
  $ 77.5     $ 64.5     $ 13.0       20.2 %
Real estate taxes
    68.4       63.3       5.1       8.1 %
     
     
     
     
 
 
Property operating expenses
  $ 145.9     $ 127.8     $ 18.1       14.2 %
     
     
     
     
 
Industrial:
                               
 
Same store
  $ 118.3     $ 112.6     $ 5.7       5.1 %
 
2001 acquisitions
    11.0       3.9       7.1       182.1 %
 
2002 acquisitions
    6.8             6.8        
 
Developments
    7.2       3.1       4.1       132.3 %
 
Divestitures
    6.7       10.0       (3.3 )     (33.0 )%
Retail
    6.3       8.6       (2.3 )     (26.7 )%
Discontinued operations
    (10.4 )     (10.4 )     0.0        
     
     
     
     
 
   
Total
  $ 145.9     $ 127.8     $