Healthpeak Properties Inc
F:HC5
| US |
|
Johnson & Johnson
NYSE:JNJ
|
Pharmaceuticals
|
| US |
|
Estee Lauder Companies Inc
NYSE:EL
|
Consumer products
|
| US |
|
Exxon Mobil Corp
NYSE:XOM
|
Energy
|
| US |
|
Church & Dwight Co Inc
NYSE:CHD
|
Consumer products
|
| US |
|
Pfizer Inc
NYSE:PFE
|
Pharmaceuticals
|
| US |
|
American Express Co
NYSE:AXP
|
Financial Services
|
| US |
|
Nike Inc
NYSE:NKE
|
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods
|
| US |
|
Visa Inc
NYSE:V
|
Technology
|
| CN |
|
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
NYSE:BABA
|
Retail
|
| US |
|
3M Co
NYSE:MMM
|
Industrial Conglomerates
|
| US |
|
JPMorgan Chase & Co
NYSE:JPM
|
Banking
|
| US |
|
Coca-Cola Co
NYSE:KO
|
Beverages
|
| US |
|
Target Corp
NYSE:TGT
|
Retail
|
| US |
|
Walt Disney Co
NYSE:DIS
|
Media
|
| US |
|
Mueller Industries Inc
NYSE:MLI
|
Machinery
|
| US |
|
PayPal Holdings Inc
NASDAQ:PYPL
|
Technology
|
If you don’t study any companies, you have the same success buying stocks as you do in a poker game if you bet without looking at your cards.
Utilize notes to systematically review your investment decisions. By reflecting on past outcomes, you can discern effective strategies and identify those that underperformed. This continuous feedback loop enables you to adapt and refine your approach, optimizing for future success.
Each note serves as a learning point, offering insights into your decision-making processes. Over time, you'll accumulate a personalized database of knowledge, enhancing your ability to make informed decisions quickly and effectively.
With a comprehensive record of your investment history at your fingertips, you can compare current opportunities against past experiences. This not only bolsters your confidence but also ensures that each decision is grounded in a well-documented rationale.
Do you really want to delete this note?
This action cannot be undone.
| 52 Week Range |
14.8
21.4
|
| Price Target |
|
We'll email you a reminder when the closing price reaches EUR.
Choose the stock you wish to monitor with a price alert.
|
|
Johnson & Johnson
NYSE:JNJ
|
US |
|
|
Estee Lauder Companies Inc
NYSE:EL
|
US |
|
|
Exxon Mobil Corp
NYSE:XOM
|
US |
|
|
Church & Dwight Co Inc
NYSE:CHD
|
US |
|
|
Pfizer Inc
NYSE:PFE
|
US |
|
|
American Express Co
NYSE:AXP
|
US |
|
|
Nike Inc
NYSE:NKE
|
US |
|
|
Visa Inc
NYSE:V
|
US |
|
|
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
NYSE:BABA
|
CN |
|
|
3M Co
NYSE:MMM
|
US |
|
|
JPMorgan Chase & Co
NYSE:JPM
|
US |
|
|
Coca-Cola Co
NYSE:KO
|
US |
|
|
Target Corp
NYSE:TGT
|
US |
|
|
Walt Disney Co
NYSE:DIS
|
US |
|
|
Mueller Industries Inc
NYSE:MLI
|
US |
|
|
PayPal Holdings Inc
NASDAQ:PYPL
|
US |
This alert will be permanently deleted.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Good day everyone, and welcome to Healthpeak’s Properties Fourth Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] Please note the event is being recorded.
I'd like to turn the conference call over to Barbat Rogers. Please go ahead.
Thank you and welcome to Healthpeak's fourth quarter financial results conference call. Today's conference call will contain certain forward-looking statements. Although, we believe the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions. Our forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations. The discussion of risks and risk factors is included in our press release and detailed in our filings with the SEC. We do not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements.
Certain non-GAAP financial measures will be discussed on this call. In an exhibit of the 8-K we furnished with the SEC today, we have reconciled our non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in accordance with Reg G requirements. The exhibit is also available on our website at www.healthpeak.com.
I will now turn the call over to our Chief Executive Officer, Tom Herzog.
Thank you, Barbat. Good morning everyone. With me today are Scott Brinker, our President and Chief Investment Officer and Pete Scott, our Chief Financial Officer. Also here and available for the Q&A portion of the call are Tom Klaritch, our Chief Development and Operating Officer; and Troy McHenry, our Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel.
Our fourth quarter and full-year financial results were in line with our expectations. Since our last earnings call we closed several previously announced transactions. We're also quite active in our Life Science segment executing a contract to acquire a strategic $320 million property near our Hayden Research Campus in Boston and signing significant development pre-leasing at Hayden as well as The Shore at Sierra Point in South San Francisco. In our earnings release issued last night we provided full year 2020 guidance. Pete will provide more details in his prepared remarks. As we position the Company for 2020 let me describe how we see our current state of play.
First our portfolio is now well balanced across all three core private pay segments of Senior Housing, Life Science and Medical Office. Senior Housing we continue to purposely and successfully execute our strategy of building a portfolio and platform that we believe will deliver strong results over the long term. We have made progress and achieved an alignment with the strongest operators in some of the most attractive markets in the country. At the same time we exited many non-core markets and selectively sold or redeveloped asset to better position the portfolio.
More specifically in 2019 we announced $1.4 billion of non-core assets sales and reallocated that capital into 1.4 billion of newer higher priced point and higher barrier to entry senior housing acquisitions. Most notably our investments in the Discovery and Oakmont portfolios and our partnership with LCS and our CCRC portfolio.
These transactions not only broaden our base of leading operators but also advanced our goal of reducing concentration with any one operator. Net effect of this redeployment has been reduced our average property age from 23 to 18 years improving our monthly RevPAR by 45% to over 5,700 per unit and reduced our concentration with any one operator to 10% or less.
In Life Science we materially expanded our operating portfolio through $1.2 billion of strategic acquisitions and 307 million of completed developments in our core markets. We have further established a leading position in the Route 128 in West Cambridge sub markets of Boston, growing this core market from 0 to 1.8 million square feet in just two years including our active and near-term development pipeline.
In Medical office, we further expanded our proprietary development program with HCA accumulating a pipeline of almost $200 million in development spend in high-quality, well located and anchored on campus medical office buildings.
We also welcome Justin Hill to lead business development for Healthpeak's Medical Office segment, supporting our vision to expand the MOB flow business. Second, our acquisition development and redevelopment pipelines are well positioned to support future growth and value creation. Through the relationships we have with our partners and operators we have built a healthy acquisition pipeline including options to purchase over $1.5 billion of senior housing developments, on stabilization of Oakmont and Discovery over the next four years.
We entered 2020 with an active development pipeline of $1.3 billion, almost 60% of which is pre-leased and shallow pipeline for future development and redevelopment projects of $1.4 billion. Third, we are conservatively financed and are rated BBB+, Baa1 by the three rating agencies. Our balance sheet is strong and we have ample liquidity.
With the forward equity raised over the last several months where solidly positioned to execute in our 2020 plan while maintaining a year end 2020 net debt to EBITDA ratio within our target range of mid to high fives.
Fourth, I am very pleased with the team we have in place and enormous improvements we have made on our infrastructure including systems, automation, and data. Finally, on the ESG front in 2019 we continued our longstanding tradition of commitment ESG receiving numerous awards across every category.
We also added new talent to our Board with the addition of Sara Lewis, now have an average Board tenure of five years.
In summary, we feel very good about our current position and are optimistic about our business for 2020 and beyond. Before I turn the call over to Pete I would like to provide you some background on the press release we’ve issued yesterday concerning our Same-Store SHOP policies.
Number of investors and analysts had communicated to us that the desire for more comparability and the SHOP Same-Store metrics in the healthcare lease space.
Accordingly, to provide full clarity of Healthpeak same -store policies we created accomplishment and rationale of all the material components and posted this to the investor presentation section of our website. Majority of our policies remain unchanged however, we modified two of our existing policies and added one item of new disclosure effective January 1, 2020.
First going forward, we will include all JVs at share. With the recent addition of the Brookdale senior housing JV we determined useful to investors to provide the prorate share of all JVs in our Same-Store pool.
Second, going forward we will remove future operator transition properties from Same-Store to better align with healthcare industry practice. However, if material we will continue to provide separate disclosure of transition portfolio results.
Lastly, we’ve begun providing the management fee component of operating expenses. To aid in understand the impact of these changes we have provided pro forma 2019 Same-Store results as these revisions were adopted for the full year 2019.
We have concluded that all of our other Same-Store SHOP policies represent best practices and provide detailed and transparent disclosure of our treatment and accordingly no other changes will be made at this time. Also important to keep in mind that Same-Store is purely a performance metric and does not affect GAAP earnings, FFO or AFFO.
Finally, in 2020 we will begin using the more common Same-Store terminology rather than same property performance to conform to others in the sector and most other REITs.
With that I will turn it over to Pete. Pete?
Thanks Tom. I will start today with a review of our results, provide an update on our recent capital market activity and end with a discussion of our 2020 guidance and related assumptions.
Starting with our financial results. We ended the year on strong note. For the fourth quarter we reported FFO as adjusted of $0.44 per share and blended Same-Store cash NOI growth of 3.6%. For the full year 2019 we reported FFO adjusted of $1.76 per share and blended Same-Store cash NOI growth of 3.7%.
Turning to our recent balance sheet and capital markets activity. We had an active fourth quarter starting with our debt activities. In November we issued $750 million of 3% bonds maturing in 2030. We use the proceeds to redeem the remaining $350 million of our December 2022 bonds and repaid our revolver in commercial paper balances.
Successful offering and redemption extended our weighted average tenure to approximately seven years and further improved our debt maturity profile. We ended the quarter with a net debt to adjusted EBITDA of 5.6 times and $2.4 billion of capacity under our line of credit.
Moving on to our equity activities. From November through early January we raised total gross proceeds of approximately $800 million through $547 million follow on offering and $250 million under our ATM program.
All of the equity was structured under forward contracts which we expect to settle in 2020. As of today, we have $32 million shares of common stock remaining under forward sales agreements for just over $1 billion. Utilizing forward contracts allowed us to better match fund the equity required for our identified acquisition opportunities and for our development and redevelopment activity.
Before moving to guidance, let me spend a moment on our dividend. For the full year 2019 our dividend was fully covered with a FAD payout ratio of 97%. 2020 we expect our FAD payout ratio to improve into the low 90% range. Accordingly our Board decided to maintain our annual dividend at a $1.48 per share in 2020 with plans to revisit it again in 2021.
Turning now to our 2020 guidance. We expect full year 2020 FFO as adjusted to range between $1.77 per share to $1.83 per share and blended Same-Store cash NOI growth of 2% to 3%. The components of our blended Same-Store growth rate are as follows. Life Science at 4% to 5%. Medical Office at 1.75% to 2.75%, senior housing at negative 1% to positive 1% and other at 1.75% to 2.5%.
We expect earnings and Same-Store growth to be lower in the first half of 2020 compared to the second half as we face more difficult comparables early in the year. Included within our guidance are the following high-level sources and uses. Starting with our sources of capital, $1 billion of equity from the drawdown of our forwards. $500 million of non-core dispositions including the North Fulton Hospital purchase option and just over $300 million of debt capacity.
From the usage perspective we anticipate the following; $800 million of acquisitions consisting of the post Oakmont purchase options and other pipeline opportunities. $850 million of capital spend which is fully funded and is primarily driven by our development and redevelopment activities and $225 million to repay debt related to the Brookdale transaction.
Let me spend a minute now on our FFO as adjusted earnings roll forward. The midpoint of our 2020 FFO guidance assumes four pennies of positive growth compared to 2019. Starting with the positives, we see six pennies of positive impact primarily from our blended Same-Store NOI growth assumption of 2.5%. We see four pennies of positive impact from developments coming online. Vast majority of this benefit is from the final phases of the cove and the first phase of the shore. We see two pennies of positive impact from transactions including one and a half pennies on the Brookdale transaction and a half penny from 2020 acquisitions.
Moving now to some of the offsets. We have negative four pennies from the rollover impact of our 2019 capital recycling which was heavily backend waited. Our 2019 dispositions included some of our final legacy portfolio cleanup transactions such as the Prime Care DFL and the UK asset. These dispositions came with high cap rates but also materially derisked our portfolio. We have negative two pennies as a result of a deferred revenue recognition impact related to certain leases. Counting rules do not allow recognition of rental revenue in FFO until tenant improvement projects are substantially completed even if cash rent is received from the tenant.
For 2020 this amounts to just over $10 million. More than half of this is associated with the Celgene lease at the shore where their TI build-out was delayed due to the merger with Bristol-Myers.
Importantly though we do get to include this cash rent in FAD. We have one penny of drag from higher year-over-year development and redevelopment spent. All this is an immediate term drag we continue to see opportunities for significant long term value creation with our development and redevelopment projects. We have accelerated phase three of the shore. We have broken ground on the Boardwalk in San Diego and we have added more HCA developments.
Finally, we see negative one penny from various other items. In net with all the puts and takes we are guiding for four pennies of increase in 2020 compared to 2019. Perhaps there is a bit of conservatism in our guidance as well.
We see page 48 of our supplemental for a complete list of guidance assumptions. I want to briefly touch on the Guidance Addendum we added to our website. We felt it was important to expand on some important topics. First we included a quick overview of the post acquisition and how it synergistically fits within our portfolio and expands our Boston footprint.
Second, we included an update on the status of our development pipeline. As a result of our pre-leasing success we expect positive earnings contribution from our active development pipeline for the next several years.
Third, we included a quick update on our Brookdale transaction which closed just last week. We reaffirmed the modest FFO accretion and as we mentioned the transaction is neutral to FAD.
Finally, fourth we included additional detail on our 2020 guidance with a projected sources and uses, a breakdown of the components of our blended Same-Store NOI growth as well as an FFO roll forward.
Few housekeeping items before I turn the call over to Scott. Starting with CCRCs. The first quarter we expect to book a gain on consolidation in the $100 million to $150 million range and an approximate $100 million management fee termination expense.
Both items will be excluded from FFO as adjusted. We are nearing completion of the fair value analysis of all components of the CCRCs including the fair value of non-refundable entrance fees or more commonly referred to as [NREF]. The fair value of [NREF] is expected to be approximately $400 million to $450 million and amortized over an expected actually determined remaining length of stay of approximately six to seven years. These items are covered in more detail in the guidance addendum.
Moving on to some financial reporting items that will take effect in the first quarter. First we are aligning the definitions of FAD, cash NOI and adjusted EBITDA to reflect the non-refundable entrance fees on a GAAP amortization basis in accordance with accounting consolidation rules
2020 cash and REF collections are expected to approximate GAAP and NREF amortization. Second refundable entrance fees of approximately $300 million will now be included in accrued liabilities and excluded from net debt. Lastly, we are changing the name of FAD to AFFO to be consistent with industry norms. These changes along with a few others are outlined on page 49 of the supplemental.
With that I would like to turn the call over to Scott.
Thank You Pete. I'll start with our segment level operating results for full year 2019. In Life Science which represented 32% of our Same-Store pool we reported cash NOI growth of 6.2% above the high end of our original guidance range. Outperformance was driven by leasing activity and mark-to-market both of which exceeded expectations. For the full year we executed 2 million square feet of leasing including more than 700,000 square feet in the fourth quarter. Turning to medical office which represented 44% of our Same-Store pool. We reported cash NOI growth of 3% which was above the high end of our original guidance range. Outperformance was primarily driven by mark-to-market, strong retention and higher than expected ad rents at Medical City Dallas. We leased more than 2.7 million square feet in 2019 exceeding our expectation.
Moving to Senior Housing, triple-net represented 13% and SHOP 5% of our total Same-Store pool. Full year Senior Housing cash NOI increased 1.5% with triple-net growing 2.4% and SHOP declining 1%. In December we closed on the previously announced joint venture of our 19 property Brookdale managed SHOP portfolio. These properties were removed from the SHOP Same-Store numbers in accordance with our policy in effect in 2019 in which unconsolidated JVs were excluded from Same-Store. Had we not removed these assets all our full-year SHOP Same-Store results would have been negative 4.5% slightly above our original guidance.
Additionally, to add our new Same-Store definition than in place in 2019 our SHOP results would have been negative 2.7% due to transition properties being excluded and joint ventures being included at share. Senior housing portfolio outside the Same-Store pool includes recent acquisitions with Discovery in Oakmont, triple-net conversions with Sunrise and Oakmont, the CCRC portfolio and our redevelopment and held for sale properties. The scale of this portfolio is significant and the asset quality will be accretive to our Same-Store pool when they're added based upon our policies. In terms of performance in general Oakmont and the CCRCs have been strong while results have lagged expectations at Discovery in Sunrise where numerous initiatives are underway to improve performance.
Turning to transactions. Since our last earnings call we've closed on over $1.8 billion of acquisitions and dispositions. Starting with Life Science we continue to grow in Boston, in San Diego, run their contract to acquire the post a $320 million Class A Life Science campus located near our Hayden Research Campus in Boston. The price represents a 5.1% cash cap rate.
The 426,000 square foot campus is 100% leased for biotech and innovation tenants with an 11-year weighted average lease term and roughly 3% escalators. Additionally, the campus likely has potential for increased density over time. The post enhances our cluster strategy offering leasing flexibility for our tenants which is so critical in Life Science real estate.
With that end in December we closed on the previously announced $333 million acquisition of 35 Cambridge Park Drive, a newly built class A Life Science property in West Cambridge. The building is next door to the property and land of parcel that we acquired in early 2019 creating 440,000 square feet of contiguous space upon completion of the development.
In San Diego, we expanded our development pipeline with the addition of The Boardwalk. This $164 million project is located on Science Center Drive and Torrey Pines. This is an A-plus site and will be Healthpeak's flagship in San Diego. The campus includes three adjacent Healthpeak holdings comprised of two land sites totaling 105,000 square feet of ground up development that will flank both sides of an 85,000 square foot property that will be redeveloped. On stabilization, the campus is projected to generate an estimated yield on cost of 7%.
We've made significant progress leasing our active development pipeline. At the Shore we executed a 10-year lease for 182,000 square feet with Janssen BioPharma part of the Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies representing approximately 60% of phase 2. Janssen has expansion rights that can be executed over the course of 2020.
We continue to see strength and positive momentum in South San Francisco where we enjoy number one market share. And in Boston we're now 57% pre-leased at our 75 Hayden development project. The two recently signed leases total 122,000 square feet and we're seeing strong interest and activity on the remaining space at the property.
Moving on to Senior Housing, 2019 was an extremely active year. Since our last earnings call we closed several important transactions including the acquisition of Brookdale's interest in the CCRC portfolio and the transition of operations to LCS. The sale of 18 triple-net leased properties back to Brookdale, the sale of a 46.5% interest in the 19 property Brookdale SHOP portfolio to a sovereign wealth fund and our exit from the UK.
Additionally, we reached agreement on our remaining six property master lease with Capital Senior Living who will release $1.9 million of security deposits to Healthpeak upon signing definitive documents, in exchange for converting the six properties into a radius structure effective February 1.
The annual rent on the properties is currently $4.4 million with trailing 12-month EBITDAR of $3.7 million dollars. All of our Capital Senior Living properties are well along in the disposition process and upon completion of the sales will have no further investments with capital senior living.
We also delivered our proprietary asset management platform which we call Peak Vision. We look forward to showing it off in person. Having rebuilt our senior housing team we've now built the technology platform as well. Relationships continue to drive our deal flow. In December we signed an agreement with Oakmont which provides Healthpeak the option to acquire up to 24 of Oakmont's development properties upon stabilization based upon a pricing formula with a year one cash cap rate equal to 5.5%. The properties are concentrated in California with an estimated value of $1.3 billion.
The acquisitions are expected to be offered in tranches between 2020 and 2023 and would be paid for in part with down rate units. At each closing Healthpeak would enter into a highly incentivized management contract with Oakmont creating a strong alignment of interest.
Finally, in our Medical Office segment we added an on-campus MOB in Nashville to our development program with HCA. The 172,000 square-foot Class-A building has an estimated spend of $49 million and is located on one of HCA's flagship campuses. Project is 45% pre-leased with active discussions on the remaining space. We also delivered the 90,000 square foot on campus MOB at Grand Strand Medical Center. This project was our first development in the HCA program. Project was 71% leased upon delivery with strong momentum to lease up the remainder of the space.
Taking a step back 2019 was just an incredible year for the Company and it goes way beyond strong operating results, high-quality acquisitions and leasing activity. More important we solidified and grew key external relationships and further established a team of skilled and collaborative colleagues that extends well beyond the individuals you hear from on these earnings calls. Those human assets are even more valuable than our high-quality portfolio.
Now I'll turn the call back to the operator for Q&A.
We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Nick Yulico, Scotiabank Bank. Please go ahead.
Hi everyone. Pete you mentioned that the guidance is perhaps conservative. Can you elaborate on which items would drive the range higher and what you were talking about there?
Yes. Hey Nick. Good question. Our blended guidance does assume some modest deceleration when you look at Same-Store growth I think about MOBs we finished 2019 at 3%. The component midpoint is around 2.4% which was the same as last year. As you remember we had some strong ad rents at Medical City Dallas which is difficult to forecast. So that certainly factors in. Within Life Sciences we finished last year at 6.2% we had a very, very strong year. The component midpoint is in the mid fours which actually was the same we had last year as well. Market fundamentals remain strong and certainly we'd like to outperform again this year but as you know there's some lumpy leases and the mark to markets where we ultimately end up the rents seem to be moving upwards a lot faster than downward. So look we think there's some potential upside there and then in senior housing I think triple-net is generally in line. It's more of a straightforward business to forecast and then SHOP on an apples-to-apples basis I would say is modestly improving but still a challenging environment. So that's how I think about the various segments heading into 2020.
Okay. It's helpful and then second question is on the post acquisition you made. Also there do you see the rest of the Boston portfolio. I mean the difference between the cash and GAAP yield on the post acquisition seems pretty big and even more so than a straight line rent benefit would suggest. So I guess I'm wondering if there's a big mark to market rent benefit on that acquisition and maybe you can also just give us a feel for the rest of the Boston portfolio that's in place where you think those are in place rents are versus market today.
Hey Nick it's Pete. So I'll start with the Post first. One thing about the post, one we're very excited about it and if you look we put some nice pictures of that asset in the Guidance Addendum. So, weighted average lease term is long on that asset over 10-years. So, that obviously is a contributor to some of the differences between GAAP versus Cash.
There is a little bit of a mark-to-market on those leases as well although the straight line impact is by far the biggest driver of that. As we think about Boston generally, where we are relative to market, I would say some of the newer assets we bought, I'll use an example 35 Cambridge Park Drive, the weighted average rent there is in a very low-70s asking rents in that market.
And we included this in the Addendum for Class A new space as approaching the mid-80s. And some of those rents were signed or leases were signed give or take a year or year and a half ago. So, you've seen some significant movement in rental rates which is also driving down the initial cash cap rates as well which is something to keep in mind.
But we're certainly benefitting from that on the yields on the development we're doing especially at 75 Hayden where we are significantly exceeding our underwriting. There we thought we'd be in the mid-50s from a rent perspective.
It's a different market than West Cambridge but we're actually approaching mid-60s at this point in time on a blended basis for the leases we signed as well as the conversations we're having right now with tenants. So, things are moving in a good direction for us and we're certainly taking advantage of it.
Okay. Just one -- that's helpful. Just one other follow-up on that is on the 75 Hayden and as we think about 101 starting as a development. It sounds like those yields could be even higher than the range that you guys provide in at development stage or the Life Science page that's in the Guidance Addendum.
Yes.
You actually get over 8%, maybe is that right?
Yes, I think on 75 Hayden, we still have some more leasing to complete there but based on the rents I just quoted, yes, we could be above the high end of that range. We're a little conservative on how we show those ranges until we have leases signed.
But certainly we're trending in a good direction there. I’d say on 101, we're still working through the entitlements there and we will work on finalizing our costs. It's a little bit more expensive developing in West Cambridge than it is in Lexington and we've got to build some sub- surface parking there.
But certainly the rents are helping us from a yield perspective. So, more to come on that, hard to comment today without our final budgets being done on that.
All right, thanks Pete.
Yes.
Next question is from Jordan Sadler, KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Good morning. I wanted to see if you could you talked about some of the conservatives and baked into same sort of pool. I guess I'm curious if you could maybe walk through the non Same-Store pool specifically the cadence of the total SHOP portfolio performance throughout 2020 and how that will contribute to FFO.
As we know the Same-Store portfolio is less than 25% of the total SHOP portfolio NOI.
Yes Jordan, I'll try to handle that. Because most of the Life Science and MOB portfolio outside of development is already captured Same-Store pool. It's really the senior housing portfolio because we really started over. I mean, we blew apart virtually every asset that we own either selling it, converting it to SHOP, restructuring leases, changing operators, acquisitions, redevelopment.
Hardly an asset remain untouched from three years ago. So, about 80% of that senior housing pool is not in Same-Store. That includes the CCRCs which are performing extremely well and that closed the transition from Brookdale to LCS on February 1. Performance right up to the closing date under Brookdale's operations were really strong.
And we haven’t seen any noticeable fall off in performance so far. So, that's fantastic, that would potentially be upside to our earnings guidance because you saw we baked in up to 10 million of degradation. So, that would be fantastic, that's a big number, it's a $110 million of total NOI. So, that's significant.
Sunrise, is a meaningful piece as well that's not in Same-Store today. We've done a lot of surgery on that portfolio as well. Frankly, a lot of the Prime Care assets were old cash generation Sunrise assets and more secondary markets and we sold a lot of those. And even what remains, there are number of assets 10 to 15 that are being sold, so that we'd be left with a portfolio of about 25 higher quality Sunrise assets that are kind of in their core markets.
They are really good at the A plus sites in the primary markets and we’ve tried to hold on to those because we think we'll do a great job. And that's a material amount of NOI in the range of $70 million including the two CCRCs that they offer it for. So, those will start becoming part of Same-Store on a quarterly basis in 2020 but they won't be part of the full-year pool until 2021.
And then there's the Oakmont portfolio, both the triple-net conversion assets as well as the acquisitions but that's going to be $30 million plus of NOI. It's pretty material on in California for the most part brand new. At least the acquisitions that we've done. I wouldn’t call that a lease up portfolio although it's very new real-estate.
They lease them up so quickly that they're essentially stabilize within a couple of months of opening. Nonetheless they should have strong growth over the next several years and hopefully will into the future. Those again will be added to the quarterly Same-Store pool throughout the course of 2020 and then they come in the full-year pool in 2021.
And then the last material addition would be the Discovery acquisition as we noted in the prepared comments. That was a lease up portfolio that did not fill up in 2019 the way we expected it to. They've shown some recent momentum, they’ve made a number of changes to personnel and local initiatives that we think will start to payoff over the course of 2020.
So, those assets will become part of the quarterly Same-Store pool in 2020 as we move through the year. And then in 2021, they would become part of the full-year pool. So, a long way of saying that by the end of 2020 and certainly into 2021, the results of the senior housing portfolio will start to appear in a meaningful way within that Same-Store pool.
So, and we've had the same challenge shortened our best assets and frankly the majority of the pool in senior housing is not in Same-Store. So, it's been challenging for us as well but it's just a function of all the surgery we had to do to hopefully build we think is going to be a great portfolio overtime.
And as we look forward over the next 24 months, the vast majority of our senior housing portfolio will start to become part of Same-Store.
It's -- that's I appreciate that you walked through that. I guess the part that I'm trying to understand and maybe this' from modeling perspective and trying to take I could absolutely take it on fly but I think the broader audience would probably appreciate just how the total NOI from the total SHOP portfolio flows throughout the year.
Right, I mean is this going to be rising gradually or with less of a seasonal impact because of the pieces that have some momentum or a little bit lease up, is that generally how it's going to perform -- with gradually improving throughout the year?
I think that's fair but the major components are the CCRCs which are mostly stabilized. Sunrise, which is a stabilized portfolio, Oakmont which is essentially a stabilized portfolio and then Discovery you should have some lease up benefit over the course of the next 24 months.
Okay. And then separately, can you offer the Same-Store guide particularly for Life Science SHOP using the old methodology, just curious how much contribution you'll see if any from the inclusion to CCRC portfolio as well?
Let me, Jordan, its Peter here to talk about the Life Science Same-Store. I do want to provide a little bit of background on this and Tom touched on it in the Q&A portion of our last call. I described before the cluster within a cluster strategy within our markets and that we are able to really support our tenants as they have success and need to grow.
I want to give you an example because I think this will be helpful. So, Global Blood Therapeutics is a tenant in, The Cove Phase 1, at least 67,000 square feet and we collect about $4 million of rent. Next month they are moving into The Cove Phase 4 and will lease a 164,000 square feet and we'll get over $10 million of rent.
But they're vacating a building that's in Same-Store and moving into a building that is not in Same-Store even though we're receiving over $6 million of rents which is a very good thing. and we subsequently back filled all of that space, it just had some downtime between one GVT vacates and the new tenant actually takes possession.
We had a similar example with MyoKardia at phase 1 of The Shore. So, we updated our policy to remove the vacated building from the pool because it wasn’t going to provide what we believe is the right organic growth number for how that segment is actually doing. I think we all know it's performing quite well, we are very strong lease escalators, we all set very strong mark-to-markets.
So, we have pulled those two assets out, it's really those two, there's one other smaller one as well in San Diego. So, it is a good question, we are at 4.5% for the midpoint. If we were not to have pulled those assets out, we would have been a few 100 basis points below, so in the 2% range.
But frankly, as we look at it, we hope we keep signing more leases with existing tenants in collecting a lot more rent and we're trying to provide what we believe is the best organic growth number within our Same-Store pool. So, that is the Life Science's portion of that question.
On the CCRCs, remember with the CCRCs they're not in Same-Store. They will not go into Same-Store.
That's right.
So, next year and also not only was it an acquisition of the interest we didn’t know and we're also transitioning to LCS. So, that will go into the full-year pool and I believe it will 2022 for the full-year and it will start to go into the quarterly pool in 2021.
What about with the other, just forgetting about the CCRCs, just the if you layer on the old methodology to the Same-Store SHOP portfolio, what would that number would have been negative 2.5%?
Yes. One clarifying point on the CCRCs. We are going to create standalone segment, so you'll have full disclosure on that segments started in 2020 even though it's not part of Same-Store. So, you get full transparency there. And then, on the question about the Same-Store. I want to make sure I'm answering the right question if you could just restate it?
I'm just curious what Same-Store SHOP NOI guidance would be for 2020 if you hadn’t changed methodologies, currently projecting negative 2.5%.
Yes, okay. So, the major difference in that case would be the unconsolidated joint ventures would not be in the pool. So, that includes Brookdale and a few assets with an operator called MPK and our guidance for 2020 would have actually been better than the 2.5% or negative 2.5% that we reported yesterday primarily because of the Brookdale joint venture portfolio.
We talked about that portfolio having these challenge is being based primarily in Houston indented with a lot of new supply. So, our guidance would have been better with our role policy.
Got it. Thank you.
Thanks.
Next question is from John Kim, BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Maybe I'll ask Jordan's question in a different way. So, your total SHOP margins this quarter were down seasonally but up 60 basis points year-over-year. Should we take that margin improvement as a good run rate going forward as we look in 2020?
John, can you repeat that, it faded and we couldn’t hear your question.
Sure, sorry about that. Your SHOP margins were down seasonally this quarter but up 60 basis points year-over-year. Should we take that margin improvement as a good run rate going forward when we look at margins on your total SHOP portfolio?
Yes. That I want to make sure you're looking at the right numbers. The margin for the overall SHOP portfolio is probably modestly better because of the held for sale assets which are the lower quality properties. The margin on the Same-Store portfolio would not have increased.
All that being said, we do think there is substantial room for improvement. On the balance of the senior housing portfolio that we intend to hold long-term and margin today is in the mid-20s, we think there is clearly opportunity to improve that and at least 5 basis points and as much as 10 basis points over time.
Okay. And then, on your lease restructuring with the Capital Senior, how much more do you need to do on your remaining triple-net portfolio specifically with the Harbor or maybe some of your other smaller operators. And is this any of this contemplated in the guidance currently?
Yes. If you look at the heat map on the supplemental, we've cleaned it up pretty dramatically, there were about 50 data points on that chart. Two years ago, we're down to about four five data points and the only two that are well below 1.0 rank cover are de minimis in size. They have pretty good corporate guarantees standing behind them until that we switch yearly dates, at which point we would sell those assets.
They're not core with the portfolio, and it's also just such a small dollar amount.
And that's Page 13 if you're wanting to look at it, it's changed dramatically over the last couple of years as we completed.
And then you talked about HRA, John. We did a big restructuring with them last year where we went from 14 assets in multiple leases with multiple different maturity dates down to a core portfolio of eight assets and are based in Florida where they're located.
We consolidated all of the leases into one master lease. Did a 10-year term, substantially improved the credit and guarantee behind that lease. We also agreed to give them $10 million of capital to renovate the building, so they're just now getting started with those projects. Still over time we expect that rent cover to improve but until the renovations are done, I think you'll see it stay below the 1.0 times rent cover.
But we feel like we've done the work that's necessary. The Brookdale portfolio has an eight year term, that's in the master lease with the full credit of Brookdale. And then the only other material lease is with Aegis which is a 10-year lease with strong rent cover and very good asset. So, hopefully we've done our work on the triple-net portfolio.
So, a year from now the heat map will improve significantly from where it is today?
Well, the only thing that is really going to happen now are the two small dots on the leases that mature over the next three to four years. Those will eventually go away but you won't see us add anything to the heat map because we're really not doing new triple-net leases.
All right, okay. Thank you.
Thanks.
Next question comes from Vikram Malhotra, Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Just on the CCRCs, can you -- maybe I missed this. Can you, you mentioned you've baked in some degradation. Can you give us a sense of how you view sort of the growth in that portfolio in 2020, and just again related to the CCRCs, can you clarify the initial when you presented the NOI from the CCRCs, I think was about $51 million, is the amortization of fee all the nonrefundable fees, is that included or partly included in that number?
Yes, it was $55 million in the presentation, Vikram. And that number represents both the total NOI including the cash NREF as well as the total NOI including the amortization of the NREF. They're essentially the same number. So, that's really an important point to understand. It sounds like there's been some misunderstanding about that point.
And I think it's a critical point that economically -- the NOI that we acquired is $55 million whether you measure it on a cash basis or an amortization basis.
Would that include the $400 million to $500 million that the fair value that would be amortized over the six years or so, that number includes that $55 million is included of everything.
Yes Vikram, this is Tom. Yes, it includes the amortization of the nonrefundable entrance fee for the 51% that we just acquired in that number.
Got it.
As well as the NOI for the 51% we just acquired and the number to look in at on that deck.
Great, okay. And then, just the trajectory in 2020?
Yes, that portfolio has performed well for a number of years and we have the disclosure in the presentations that we do each quarter with the long run historical NOI growth in that portfolio, in occupancy it's been a steady upward slope. In 2020 versus 2019, was an extremely good year for the CCRCs, the total NOI was up almost 6%.
Of course it bounces around quarter-to-quarter but for the full-year it was really strong growth. We're not expecting similar growth in 2020, in fact we are projecting through that presentation the potential for some degradation but all signs to-date suggests that we may have some upside to the guidance number.
Okay, great. And just on the SHOP portfolio, can you kind of maybe give us a bit more color on what's embedded in that negative 2.5% NOI. I know it's a small piece of the overall pool but just how are you seeing sort of the moving pieces between occupancy rent growth and expenses?
Yes, happy to do that, Vikram. We're projecting a modest increase in occupancy. The Brookdale portfolio which is now included at share we're projecting negative growth just given the last six months in that portfolio, it's not going to turn around overnight. So, that's weighing down the SHOP Same-Store portfolio, we would otherwise have done some reasonable occupancy growth.
The RevPAR growth is pretty muted, we're projecting about 2% in 2020, just the reality of market conditions today. And then the primary operating expenses of course labor, that cost has been growing at around 5% per year and we're projecting that that will continue in 2020.
Got it, great. Thank you.
Thanks, Vikram.
Next question is from Michael Carroll, RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Yes, thanks. Tom, can you talk a little bit about your MOB strategy today. It appeared at least for the past several quarters that peak has been mainly focused on the development side. I guess with the addition of Justin to the team, can PEAK be more aggressive on the acquisition side too?
I'll start with and Klaritch if you've got something to add. It has been one of our objectives as we go into 2020 to start working on the floor business in MOB similar to what we've had in senior housing and Life Science. The addition of Justin Hill working with Tom Klaritch and Scott Brinker, we think is a big step forward.
And I do think true relationships we will have a number of opportunities that come out of that. So, that is definitely part of -- or that's definitely one of the significant goals we have this going into 2020. Tom, anything you'd add on that?
I think 2019 was actually a little bit slow on the transaction front for MOBs and there was not a lot of high quality portfolios out there. We are hearing in the coming months there should be several decent sized portfolios coming to market and we'll certainly take a look at those and hopefully be able to execute on some.
Okay. And then, are you focused on the larger transactions or would you pursue I guess on the smaller individual type portfolios to or individual assets also?
It is more likely to be a slow business like we're doing in Life Science and senior housing which is very targeted approach. We now have a very senior resource to allocate the time to travel around the country to see sites and meet with partners and sellers and he's Justin is extremely skilled at doing that.
So, there is no doubt that the activity will pick up in the Medical Office segment. The big portfolios, pretty much everybody gets a chance to see those. We look at all of those, it maybe that on occasion we'll find the risk adjusted returns appropriate but I would put that more in the occasional category or opportunistic, that's not going to be the primary way we grow our business in any of the three segments.
Okay, great. And then last one from me, Scott. I think you mentioned in your prepared remarks that there was increased density at The Post that you could do. Can you provide us some more color on that and what should we expect?
It's a 36 acre campus with AC of surface parking lots spaces. So, that's not a near-term priority but it's certainly something that when we do Life Science acquisitions whether it's the Towers at Sierra Point or the Cambridge the Cambridge Park Drive – too many, too many on that one.
Cambridge Park Drive acquisition or the post where when we do acquisitions in Life Science, we always look for the opportunity to build scale on that campus over time. We just found that to be such a critical component of Life Science real-estate to have that local density in scale.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Yes, all right, thanks.
Next question is from Richie Anderson, SMBC. Please go ahead.
Hi good morning, everyone. So, just getting back to the CCRCs, I just want to make sure I have this right. Your run about 80% rental revenue and about 15% amortization, is that about right -- for total, in terms of the total revenue one?
I would characterize that differently, Rich. When you look at the total amount of income generated on the CCRCs, it's about 60% from the NREFs, nonrefundable entrance fees and about 40% from the NOI. The numbers just so you have them is it's about $65 million for the NREFs and about $45 million net with the NOIs coming to about a $110 million.
Okay. So NOI meaning, okay I was just looking at the revenue. I was looking at Slide 47 on your supplemental and trying to sort of just look at the revenue side of the equation.
Yes. I think it's probably easier Rich the way we think about it as how Tom described it.
Okay.
Which is a percentage of NOI. And that cash NOI is essentially the annual rent we receive from our residents and then the NREFs is broken out separately and that's the entrance fee that we receive from residence when they move in. So we have two piece.
So, that's a set up to a bigger question. So, you now own at 100% you're having to bob and weave through a lot of disclosure, noise that you did a good job explaining in your disclosure materials last night. But I'm wondering if and I know you have a you like the CCRCs.
I know you're somewhat the exception to that a lot of people have avoided that space but perhaps there is a turnaround story here. But I'm wondering when you think of all the work you've had to do to explain the disclosures and what not and now owning a 100%.
Have you given yourself like a sort of a card in your back pocket and some optionality should it not work out very well that it's easier to simply to sell a portfolio that you own a 100% than if it's kind of wound up in a joint venture?
I think it's a -- in the unlikely event that doesn't work out well, we certainly have given ourselves that that card. But we feel very confident that it's going to work out. You mentioned the accounting in some of the confusion that came out of it. We had two different calls with analysts last night, very knowledgeable analyst.
As we walked through the economics and how they match up to the cash that's generated and I think the analysts all came to the conclusion as well as some others that we've had opportunity to talk to over the prior months that the accounting does capture the economics and these deals.
But I do think there has been some misinformation out there that frankly I'd like to take a minute now that you gave me the question Rich to set the record straight on it. And I think it's important because this is a in my view a very favorable asset class and a great opportunity but one with high barriers to entry and hard to get into.
So, I'm going to take a minute on that. We mentioned earlier that the CCRCs in this portfolio generated about a $110 million of FFO on the two buckets. And we talked about that the NOI and the nonrefundable fees. And what's important about these two buckets is the NOI produces about a 10% to 15% margin by itself.
The nonrefundable fees adds to that margin and brings it more like to a 25% margin. In other words the nonrefundable fees are a critical component of the income to generate a profitable return on the CCR portfolios. So, when one considers the fair value that has to be assessed, it has to include those nonrefundable fees.
Some facts, the average senior resident enters the communities at around age 80 and he should pretty healthy at that point and they have an eight to 10 year actuarial life of stay. A nonrefundable fees are then amortized over these and eight to ten year life. So, it produces a proper amortization of income based on providing those services and providing those units and that shelter and those services to these seniors.
So when we look at the major points of the transaction I think the first one is when we underwrite that – we underwrote those deals and we underwrite future deals. We look at on a cash, not a GAAP or FFO basis that's how we underwrite it.
So the underwriting is based on cash but the fact is that GAAP also follows the money and GAAP generally gets to the right place on this stuff and especially in this type of an accounting.
The annual income being recorded on this stuff is roughly equivalent to the cash being received which is really important when considering that the accounting then reflects the true economics.
The NREF is important point that I think it's missed the NREFs are absolutely akin the prepaid rents and are accounted for very similarly way, which is consistent across all forms of real estate, as you pick it up and purchase accounting you don't ignore prepaid rents.
If you had rent that was prepaid for three years on a particular property and you want to buy that property you're not going to ignore that in your purchase price, you’ll get a reduced purchase price, recorded a deferred revenue and you'll recognize that income in over that three-year period of course you'll do that.
And that's true for any real estate, well it's true for lease too. And these non-refundable fees are just simply prepaid rents on the NREFs seniors.
So those NREFs Center amortized over an eight to ten year life. Now you got to recognize why the eight to ten years because it's assessed by actuaries every quarter. So it's not us making these numbers up. Actuaries look at the numbers, determine the appropriate life to amortize this and that's the period of time in which we bring this income in.
For the existing residence at the date that we did the acquisition the value then REVs are simply booked this deferred revenue under GAAP and then for the new residents of course as they come in rather than recognize all those NAREITs at one time and say that's a $150,000 number rather than recognize at all one time and GAAP an income and FAD which I think you would object to we then amortize that over that eight to ten year period in which we're going to be providing the service. This makes perfect sense under GAAP where you're expecting some kind of a matching principle.
Of course this stuff is not, there's nothing esoteric or fancy going on here. So the cash to recognize for deferred revenue importantly follows the cash and that cash in this case comes from a deferred purchase price just as if you had bought an asset that had prepaid rents upfront. Of course you're going to pay less for that asset if you're not going to be collecting those rents because your seller collected a whole bunch of those rents on day one and the next day you bought the asset and you're going to get those rental payments.
So that's fairly basic. So when we go through and we think about some of the principles is that GAAP is usually designed to follow the money and the economics and in this particular case it absolutely does. GAAP is designed to report income in the correct period and it usually gets that rate and in this case it absolutely does. GAAP is designed to create a matching, a revenue and expenses all these principles are spot-on in the CCRC accounting.
So some of the misinformation that we heard buzzing around I felt very important to set the record straight and I'm glad to take more questions on this. I guess it does, I mean it's important that every real estate in the country is required not optional required to use this kind of accounting across a whole vast array of different things that are accounted for when you purchase real estate and so there's nothing special here. I just wanted to bunk some of the stuff that I've heard out there.
All right. That's Six Sigma question or answer to a question I wish ever heard one. And then just one quick one. You haven't disclosed the cap rate or the economics behind the sovereign wealth JV. Is there a reason for that or did I just miss it someplace?
Hey Rich, Scott here. When we announced that deal last quarter we’ve talked about a cap rate on sale of about 6%.
Okay. I don't remember that thank you.
Inclusive of the asset management fee and the that's on a trailing 12 that performance has been weaker more recently. So it just depends what time period you're looking at but it's in that range.
Okay. Thanks. I'm sorry. I missed that. That's all I have. Thanks.
Thanks Rich.
Next question is from the [indiscernible] from Citi. Please go ahead.
Hey, it's Michael Bilerman here with Nick. First off, Tom and Pete, I do appreciate -- I think the industry appreciates you spending the time with Ventas and Welltower to work toward some commonality and also being able to put out a presentation, which lays out every item, I think it's really helpful for the Street to have. So just thank you for doing that.
I want to come back to the Life Science same-store change you made and Global -- I know you want to be working with your tenants and partners, with your tenants, if it possible Global Blood could have looked at Alexandria, Kilroy, they could have looked at BioMed a variety of different other landlords in the area for the increased square footage that they needed. And so you would have lost them, if you couldn't satisfy them potentially and maybe there's some other dynamics, but you potentially could have lost the tenant in your existing building that's not going to your development, and therefore, the asset should stay in same-store because it's part of your organic growth of having to back fill when the tenant leaves to something else. And so I don't -- I appreciate the color and the desire to think about something, I actually don't think it's the right methodology change to make because it is a vacancy that you're going to have to deal with, whether they go to your own building or someone else's shouldn't matter?
Hey, Michael, it's Peter here. I appreciate the point, maybe I should clarify it. With Global Blood, we proactively allowed them out of their lease. So we would not have lost them. They would have stayed within their current premises and not moved, but we might have lost them from expanding within our portfolio. But we certainly could have held them to their current lease and not allowed them to get out of it. Earlier, we proactively elected to allow them to get out of their lease because they needed more space. And I should just clarify to that within the policy, we'll not remove a building unless and we'll be fully transparent on this because we show fully sequentially one buildings come out.
We have basically said unless we are getting significantly more revenues from that tenant for their move, then we would not be removing them. So, it's more of a proactive choice on our part, we could have said no made them stay in their building, but given up significant increases in rent because they needed more space. So our choice is to work with our tenants. And I actually would tell you in San Francisco, we have heard over and over again, the fact that we're the dominant landlord that many, many tenants look to lease with us because of their opportunity to grow. And if you look at our tenant base, it's heavily weighted toward bio-techs, we do have some pharma exposure as well, which is pretty big, but those are the tenants where you can actually see significant growth and partnering with them is quite important.
Hey Mike, before you respond, if I could add something for you. I do appreciate to understand the question. It's something we grappled with them as to the best approach we did conclude that it's better information if we're moving a tenant out of let's just say 25,000 square feet that had six years remaining on the lease into 100,000 square feet that might have a 10-year lease at a higher rate to show a same-store decline when in fact it was very profitable with the company, it did feel strange in the same-store. But one thing, it catch these guys by surprise a little bit, but Pete probably won't clobber me too much. One thing we'll do is we will footnote in some way that is not in the fine print, the impact of these transactions and what it would have had on same-store as we go forward because we're not trying to obviously hide it, we would want to put that out there, so you can see it, if that would be a reasonable solution.
So how much term was left on the lease, and I may have written down the numbers wrong, but I think I heard $4 million of rent, 67,000 square feet, $10 million of rent, 164,000 square feet, which seems that is basically $60 in the same rent. And so I guess I was make the numbers around, but I was surprised that rent stayed the same. When you have a new build, and I assume you have all the TIs that you put in the existing space and you have a massive amount of TIs for the new space. So, just help us walk me through the economics here, of what really was the exchange other than more space and how much term is left?
Yes. So I don't know I have the exact term on me, but I would say, they moved into Phase 1 of The Cove that was close to a 10-year lease. So they had north of five years left on their term. From the TI build out perspective, I would say that we built more of a -- and we do this often, Michael, with tenants that we think have a lot of upside opportunity. We build very generic base. So we're not doing a whole redo in TIs of the original TI package that we gave to Global Blood and their initial lease was around $150. And then the renewal, or excuse me, the new lease we signed with a back filled tenant is substantially higher than what Global Blood was paying, but also the TIs were substantially below that $150, given it was more of a generic space that was built out initially.
And the rent was the $60 foot the right thing in both cases or they are just remember you quoted or not right.
I quoted approximate numbers. I believe we were a slight pickup but remember we had some escalators for when they signed their initial lease and then we ultimately sign them for probably around five at a quarter, monthly low 60s for phase four which is actually a pretty strong rent within that market.
Okay. Page 18 of the guidance, where you have the roll forward, Pete, and it's helpful, just to go from one to the other. We talked a little bit earlier in the call about the non-same-store SHOP assets given all the transitions and everything you've done in that portfolio. What would the change be from like where does that show up on this reconciliation? How many pennies is that adding potentially to 2020 as those operations stabilize and improve?
Yes. So, it's certainly adding within the development earn-in. So the two big tenants, I talked about MyoKardia and Global Blood. Those are big contributors and I said in my prepared remarks, Phase IV of The Cove, which is Global Blood.
No, I'm talking about the SHOP portfolio.
Sorry.
Just the fact that the SHOP, your SHOP -- your normal SHOP growth is a small percentage of your entire SHOP portfolio, which is captured in the 2.5% blended. But you clearly are getting upside as you made all those transitions, you had all the down NOI in 2019 that affected you, I would assume that there is a positive benefit as those assets stabilize and ramp, where is that being captured?
Well, the transition assets are in the same-store pool for 2020 because they will have had a full year of comparable results under a common operator, so you're not missing anything there. But to the point I made earlier, almost 80% of the senior housing portfolio is not in same-store, even in 2020. They will start being added to the quarterly pools drop versus 2020, but that's not captured in the guidance numbers. So there actually is a substantial amount of upside or downside in earnings based on the results of that non-same-store portfolio.
Right. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at, is what's embedded in your $1.80 guidance for that non-same-store SHOP pool, which is the largest portion of your SHOP assets. What are you assuming from an increase, decrease or not relative embedded in that $1.80 of FFO?
Yes. So Michael and obviously the roll forward is at a very high level. If we did every single adjustment, it wouldn't be able to fit on in [indiscernible]. But big picture, within 2020 transactions, Scott mentioned the CCRCs being the biggest component that is not in same-store that is picked up in that 2020 transactions.
We talk about the $0.015 of accretion from the Brookdale transaction. So, a big chunk of it is picked up there. And then also when you look at the 2019 capital recycling, Scott also mentioned, the Oakmont and Discovery acquisitions. If you look in that table footnote C, you've got 2019 acquisitions, which actually includes Oakmont and Discovery. But that's also offset as we look at this for the capital recycling we did, as well as some of the funding.
So, the positive impact of those is offsetting some of the negative from the capital recycling. And then I also point out, we do have that other buckets down there, which is a bit of a catchall, but does obviously pick up some other things. As I said, this is more high level. But going through those three items CCRCs, Oakmont and Discovery that's the absolute vast majority of non-SPP, Senior Housing assets or SHOP assets.
Okay. Last -- just question on the dividend and Tom, you referenced the Board maintained and we'll think about it next year. Can you at least tell us what the framework or mindset that they made that decision to then reevaluate in 2021, how are they -- what are they looking for, the current trajectory of AFFO would indicate, you are going to be able to cover more in 2020 than you did in 2019, right, arguably, if you're able to hit the guidance that you've laid out your dividend coverage by the end of the year should improve rather than going down. So just maybe help us understand what's the framework, what are they thinking about from a dividend perspective next year?
Absolutely. I can give you some insight on that. That was a robust conversation. We had some very good viewpoints around the room. We recognize that our yield is quite strong, but then coming out of the restructuring that our coverage was quite, it was quite high or quite low in other words, at 97%. And as we look at it, we also knew that we were going to have a FAD improvement during the year and we could have easily raised the dividend some to capture at least some growth and certainly, provide an indication of where we're going because that's where we see ourselves going as we look forward to the next two, three years.
Ultimately, at the current time, the Board decided, let's say put, the yield is good, we've got excellent growth on the horizon. Let's get that coverage in a stronger place first so that we're happy with that along with all the rest of our metrics and we can now we've revisit that it could be mid-year, it could be 2021. But with that, probably 2021, there should be a good opportunity to revisit that then. So because our yield is so high and the coverage could use a little bit of improvement. That's how we came to that conclusion.
So I mean frankly we could have easily added if we chose to, but we felt that we would seek to get the better coverage first and then move on to start increase in the yield after that.
So there wasn't, it was much more about whether to raise then to cut.
Yes. The word cut never came up in the room.
Okay. That's what I wanted to know.
Hey, Michael. One last point before you go. Mike, one last point, we had eight years left on the GVT. So I think it's pretty important to note that for this, there was a lot of term left and they are now doing in a 10-year lease at The Cove Phase IV.
And you've already really set space it sounds like right?
We've already released it, it's just a matter of downtime to get the new tenant in.
Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Thanks Michael.
Next question is from Jonathan Hughes of Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning out there. On the CCRCs and Tom all the details are greatly appreciated. But looking at page 49 of the supplement, talks about the accounting change that's to come in the first quarter. Can you just clarify that you will be booking effectively $45 million of NOI through Cash NOI and EBITDA or will the full $110 million including the $65 million of NREF amortization also be booked in there.
Yes, Jonathan. It will be at $110 million because we'll be under consolidation at that point. So it will be the full amount of the NOI and NREFs. The amortization of NREFs.
Got it, okay. And then maybe one for Scott. I think you mentioned the recently acquired Discovery and Oakmont properties are a little behind relative to underwriting, I think you said there were some personnel changes. So what happened there versus your expectations when you bought them less than a year ago.
Yes. To clarify Oakmont is on schedule, if not ahead of schedule. I had mentioned that Discovery was behind that lease up portfolio, nine assets that we acquired five of them are generally doing well. The other four delve behind. So we were expecting some pretty significant occupancy improvement the opposite often out those four properties Discovery had a number of transactions that they were working on in 2019, which ended up being a bit of a distraction, unfortunately and shortly after our acquisition last April, pretty significant change in personnel at the property at regional level that needed to be sorted out over the course of 2019.
So we think that they've addressed those things but occupancy today in that portfolio sits in the high 70s, which is roughly where we acquired it at when which we're expecting that, that will eventually stabilize well into the 90% range. So they're behind. We still think they are great operator, I'm still confident in the assets, but certainly we're not happy with the first year performance.
Are the RAV4 trends kind of in line with your expectations or it's just the occupancy?
Yes, it's been mostly an occupancy problem.
Okay. All right. I'll jump off. Thanks for the time.
Thanks Jonathan.
Next question is from Steven Valiquette of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Great, thanks, good morning Tom and team, Scott. Total 2020 guidance details are definitely helpful. One of the metrics. Well, first you mentioned in your prepared remarks you had $1.4 billion of announced non-core asset sales over the past year or so and that was well above the original guidance, so for 2020 you're projecting another $500 million of dispositions, just remind us whether this, the 2022 disposition guidance is fairly generalized just as a place marker or is there some pretty good internal visibility in which properties and property types, you plan to sell, just the $500 million maybe a realistic for this year. And should we assume that most of the additional sale activity will be in senior housing or is that not the right assumption. Thanks.
Yes, yes, I can start with that, it's Pete and if Scott wants to add anything, he can. So the $500 million what's included in there is the North Fulton purchase option, which is around $80 million. It also includes the held for sale assets, which we do disclose in our supplemental, that's about another $300 million when you back out the triple-net assets we sold to Brookdale, which is included in that too. And then there is certainly some other non-core assets within senior housing as well as potentially MOBs that are not very significant, but certainly would make up the balance there. We don't intend to sell anything in life sciences. So I would say $500 million is our initial guidance on that, if that number were to go up.
We certainly would be looking to recycle that capital into acquisitions or development spend. So we wouldn't have it go up just to raise cash, we'd want it to go up in order to fund some capital recycling activities. So that's the way we think about it.
Okay, got it. Just quickly on senior housing, you gave us some clarity last quarter talked about softness in markets like Houston and Denver is standouts. Now, the more time has passed. Just curious if there is any notable trend changes in these "standout markets" either for the better or worse or dynamics still pretty similar to what was happening in the mid-2019 as we enter 2020 now.
Yes, I don't think there's anything materially different from comments, we would have made six months ago. In the past couple of years, we've been a bit more cautious than most about the state of the industry and how long it would take for it to turn around. I think that are not to be the correct assessment for sure from where we sit today. Occupancy across the sector is generally flat, which is certainly improvement from where it's been in the past three years or four years, but too often. I think that occupancy is coming at the expense of discounting and incentives and those aren't being picked up by the NIC data that a lot of people like to focus on.
So we don't see rents growing at 3% at least nationally certainly they are in particular markets, but not at an industrywide. But we think it's more likely in the 1% to 2% range with flat occupancy growth that you can assume that revenues growing 1% to 2% a year and if labor is the vast majority of your operating expenses during 5% a year on a 30% margin business, it's pretty simple math to understand why NOI at an industry level has been declining in the 5% to 10% range. So we see that improving slightly throughout the course of 2020. But we don't think we've yet hit that inflection point despite the fact that occupancy is flat. We really need to see both flat occupancy and pricing power or a dramatic increase in occupancy. So, that revenue growth can keep pace with expense growth, and we're just not there yet as an industry, but getting closer for sure.
Yes go ahead sure.
I'm sorry. Finish your question.
No, I was going to ask one more quick one we go ahead. First, or rather have you come on the prior question first.
No, actually I was going to make a comment I recognize the call is going long we had lots of topics. We had a lot of materials for you guys to review and I apologize, there is just so much complexity and so much information to get to that we felt without it, it has been very hard to discern what is taking place in our business. We've got another half a dozen six people. I would ask that ask the questions quickly if we could just please request that you do and we'll try to give a quick answers just to get through the rest of the questions but we'll go as quickly as we can at this point. So, yes. Please continue.
All right. Just a quick one here just to the extent you can comment on this, is there any color on what prompted the planned sale of the, I think it was six additional Capital Senior Living properties and over and above what you announced previously?
Yes, we had a good dialog with Jim and her team, they have important strategic initiatives on their end which included reducing their lease liabilities, Healthpeak was their smallest partner, they certainly have others, they were not core assets for us and we've talked about having through the two or three years ago 30 different senior housing operating partners.
Today, we're down about 20. I'd like to get down to about 10 and we were not looking to grow with CSU. So it made sense both for us and for CSU strategically to exit that relationship.
We think the combination of releasing the security deposits and the likely sale price for those assets will result in a perfectly good outcome for us rather than having yet another underwater triple-net lease. We've been working hard to get rid of those.
Okay. Great, thanks.
Thanks Steven.
Next question from Chad Vanacore of Stifel. Please go ahead.
All right. So I'm going to keep it to one question in the interest of time, just thinking about CapEx, it looks pretty high this quarter. How should we think about run rate for 2020 and was this quarter, was that related to accelerated development or was that catch up for earlier in the year.
Yes, hey, Chad, it's Pete. CapEx has historically been back-end weighted for us of the fourth quarter tends to be the highest quarter, which is why we focus more on a full year CapEx number and not just a fourth quarter number because you could get some misleading payout information there. So we're focusing more on the full-year number. And then from a guidance perspective, we do include CapEx in the supplemental with regards to recurring CapEx there and others. So I just encourage you to look at that additional detail for what we're budgeting for 2020. Okay, thanks, Chad.
Okay. Thanks.
Next question comes from Omotayo Okusanya of Mizuho, please go ahead.
Hi. Yes, good afternoon, sir. I just wanted to follow up on some of Steve Valiquette's questions in regards to the acquisition outlook. Again, most of your peers don't really give guidance, but you kind of given an $800 million guidance, is that something very specific that's out there or is that more of a kind of a generic placeholder number?
Yes. Good question, Tayo, we've raised these equity forwards and in our sources and uses, we fully deploy those and you can see what they're getting deployed into capital spend, acquisitions and Brookdale transaction. On the acquisition front that includes Post, so that's $320 million when you take the balance just under $500 million, we announced our Oakmont purchase option agreement a couple of actually about two months ago, and some of that is identified for those although it's hard to get into specifics on timing right now, but certainly that's within our plan for some of those. And then the balance of that is a little bit on our pipeline. So that's how we came up with the $800 million number.
Right. And then I've got a quick second question, the Amgen lease amendment and extension. Could you just talk a little bit about again why that was done and kind of what's the worst-case scenario if they do decide to terminate early.
Yes. So we actually have a very strong relationship with Amgen and we have for years. The transaction that we announced in December, we believe was a win-win. As part of the agreement, Amgen extended their maturities on three buildings that are most important to them and we were able to spread out the lease maturities, they will vacate one building that they current occupied.
And then the other three buildings they lease are actually subleased. So now we have full clarity we had extension rights on those subleases there and we have an opportunity to talk to the market about those buildings. It's a main and main location right next to the Cove, it's a Britannia Oyster Point campus.
So I guess, worst case they would just vacate all of their leases, but it would get spread out over the next four years would be the worst case, hard to say what they'll end up doing with the buildings they extended the leases on, they have the right to stay in those through 2029. So I would say best case is on those three buildings they stay for the full tenure term essentially that they renewed for.
So hard to gauge now, but we feel quite good about having clarity on that campus and an opportunity now to work with other tenants either sub tenants or the market on leasing up some of those buildings.
Great. Thank you.
Thanks [indiscernible]. Operator?
Next question comes from Daniel Bernstein of Capital One. Please go ahead.
All right. Good morning, it's still good morning. For you. One thing is that maybe later we can talk more a little bit more offline about the amortization of the CCRCs, I don't want to go back over to it again, given the time, but I do want to talk to you guys about it. The one question I had is you have a bunch of debt '23, 2025 that's around 4% yield that we call 2022 debt earlier. Did you bake in any refinancing into your 2020 guidance.
Yes, no, we did not bake in any refinancing into our guidance. If you look over the last six months, we've done a lot of bond deals and actually extinguished much of the debt that we have maturing 2020 to 2022. So we have not baked in any additional debt issuances and redemptions.
Okay. And then I don't want to put you in a corner on long-term senior housing fundamentals. But when we look at your portfolio, it's around 85% occupancy. Historically, it's probably been higher than that. Do you think the industry is going to get back to that and maybe your portfolio back to that upper 80s occupancy within seniors housing over say the next three year, five years, is there that kind of upside embedded within your portfolio or if it can take a little bit longer than that?
Yes, I think the portfolio we've built will get back to that level. I think three years to five years is a comfortable window to get there.
Okay. That's all I have thanks.
Thanks James.
Next question Michael Miller, JP Morgan please go ahead.
Hi. I guess on the same store definition, what's the two things, what's the trigger for the transition assets to go back into the same-store pool. And then secondly, when you look at the 2019 performance on the new definition of minus 2.7% versus the minus 2.5, 2020 guidance should we read into that you're expecting slight improvement or is the property mix changing where it's driving that a little bit of improvement?
I'll take the first one and Pete the second. This is Tom. For the transition, you have to have comparable operators in both periods. So if we for moving from one shop operator to another. We will pull it out of the same-store pool for transition purposes, but I'll remind you, if it's material in that portfolio we will continue to disclose it both ways as we have in the past. So you won't lose anything from what we've given you in the past. Pete, the second part.
[indiscernible].
Yes, I guess, when we look at 2019 SHOP performance of minus 2.7% under the new definition versus 2020 guidance of minus 2.5, is that slight improvement based on operations getting better or is the pool size changing from year-to-year that's driving that improvement?
Yes, it is a bit of a different pool, Michael, because of the transition portfolio which under this definition would not have been in the 2019 same-store results, but they will be in the 2020 same-store pool under both the old and the new policy, I think the best apples-to-apples comparison is that if we had used the 2020 same-store policy, our 2019 results would have been negative roughly 4% versus the guidance of negative 2.5%. So there is slight improvement built into 2020 relative to 2019.
That's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, because of the pools, but that's just close as we can get. And that's primarily the reduction in size of the Brookdale portfolio frankly, it rather than 100% share to 53.5% and that's the portfolio that's been dragging down performance. That's just the reality. We don't think that last forever, but that has been the case the past two years.
Got it. Okay that's helpful thank you.
Thanks.
Next question is from Lukas Hartwich, Green Street Advisors. Please go ahead.
I'll just ask one. So there's a lot of capital chasing life science these days. I'm curious how you think that impacts the supply outlook for that segment.
Yes. Good question, Lukas. We're certainly seeing cap rate compression is no longer this niche asset class, there's a lot of capital chasing space and driving cap rates down. And also when you add to the mix, the fact that you've got a lot of increased demand from tenants looking to lease space, you have a virtuous cycle, which I talked about in the past. So and we're also seeing a lot of pre-leasing happening well in advance.
So I think where we are today it's likely that we'll see additional developments in each one of our markets. We are obviously participating in that in all three markets, but we're certainly mindful of making sure that we would look to match whatever new supply we deliver with our view on where demand is from a tenant perspective within the marketplace.
Operator?
Next question comes from Joshua Dennerlein, Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. With the post-acquisition, you kind of expanded in the 128A submarket for the Boston Lifescience, what kind of drives you to that submarket and if there are any other submarkets, really like in Boston.
Yes, we actually really like the Lexington market, primarily because of its location for these two and also the Alewife T-Stop and we like the West Cambridge market because that is at exactly where the T-Stop is. So we see some real synergies between owning assets in West Cambridge as well as in Lexington, I know, The Post said it's in Waltham, but if you look at the map, it's less than a mile from our Hayden Research Campus. So we like the suburb play. But what's important to us is making sure that our tenants can utilize the transit system to get to and from their workplace because traffic in Boston is not easy to navigate. And as we look at the suburbs we will continue to assess the ability for our tenants to access that transit. Okay. Is that it for questions, operator?
Yes. We will now turn back Tom Herzog for any closing remarks.
Yes, just a couple of comments. I will say that the CCRC class of assets, the portfolio we consider to be a great opportunity for us. We recognize that there is a little bit of education on the account. It's not that difficult when we have an opportunity to go one on one with people, which we've done some of glad to do that with anybody to call in our team can help. I do apologize for the length of the call, there was just so much going on. I'm guessing for the sanity of our team and for you it will be less busy next year. And I do thank you all for joining the call and your interest in Healthpeak. So we'll see soon. Thank you.