Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2020 earnings conference call. Your host for today's conference call is Mr. Jason Reilley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Reilley, you may begin your conference. Thank you, Allie, and welcome to AvalonBay Communities' fourth quarter 2020 earnings conference call. Before we begin, please note that forward-looking statements may be made during this discussion. There are a variety of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially. There's a discussion of these risks and uncertainties in yesterday afternoon's press release, as well as in the company's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. As usual, this press release does include an attachment with definitions and reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures and other terms, which may be used in today's discussion. The attachment is also available on our website at avalonbay.com/earnings. We encourage you to refer to this information during the review of our operating results and financial performance. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tim Naughton, Chairman and CEO of AvalonBay Communities, for his remarks. Tim? Thanks, Jason, and welcome to our Q4 call. With me today are Kevin O'Shea, Sean Breslin, Matt Birenbaum, and for the first time, Ben Schall. Sean, Kevin, and I will provide commentary on the slides that we posted last night, and all of us will be available for Q&A afterwards. Before turning to our prepared remarks, I'd like to take a minute to introduce Ben, who many of you have met either during his previous job or since the announcement in early December. Most recently, Ben served as the CEO and President of Seritage Growth Properties, where he led the company from its inception and oversaw the transformation of the company from a portfolio of Sears stores into a mix of shopping, dining, entertainment, and mixed-use destinations. Prior to Seritage, Ben was CEO of Rouse Properties, an owner of regional shopping malls. Before that, he was SVP with Vornado Realty Trust. Ben brings a deep background in developing, operating, and activating real estate, in addition to broad experience in many of the markets in which we do business. This is only Ben's second week on the job, so he'll likely have a limited role on the call today. I thought I'd give him the floor for a couple of minutes just to share a few comments. Ben? Thank you, Tim. It's terrific to be here, and I'm truly honored by the opportunity to join this team and organization. AvalonBay is one of a rarefied group of companies, in my mind, led by Tim and the senior team that have been able to successfully shape, build, and grow an enterprise of this quality and scale and do so with a core culture with a focus on integrity, caring, and continuous improvement that remain a real differentiator for the organization. For me, in terms of why AvalonBay, it very much started with what I believe to be the strong overlap between those values embedded here and my personal values and those that I look to bring to teams and organizations. I'm also passionate about creating real places that connect with people and communities, and there's not a purpose more powerful than AvalonBay's core purpose of creating a better way to live. To be a leader as an organization in providing better quality housing environments that are safe, healthy, engaging, and at the appropriate price point fulfills such a meaningful need in so many communities. To do that in scale across the country, it's a very special place for me to have the opportunity to be a part of. My official first day was not quite two weeks ago on 25th Monday, January, and my early transition is in full swing. On a personal front, I'm now a Virginia Redmond having moved with my family into an Avalon community nearby. Not only is it a wonderful home and community, I also get to be fully immersed in the AvalonBay experience, living and breathing our offerings each and every day, and witnessing how much the Avalon ownership mentality comes through as a differentiator on the ground. Much of my time over the first 90 days is focused on listening, learning, and building relationships across the organization. My early listening tour also includes our shareholders and the investment community, and I will be coordinating with Kevin, Jason, and team on that front and look forward to connecting with many of you over the coming months. I'm very excited to be part of the AvalonBay organization as we collectively help shape the future of the company and stay on the forefront of creating better ways to live. Before turning it back over to Tim, I want to give a heartfelt thanks to the wider AvalonBay team and associates for how you've welcomed me and my family to the AvalonBay family. Thanks, Tim. Great. Well, thanks, Ben, and great to have you, and welcome again. Our prepared comments today will focus on providing a summary of Q4 results and some perspective on 2021 and how it impacts our plans for this year. Before getting started on the slides, maybe just offer a few introductory comments on the quarter and the year. The fourth quarter was a tough end to what was already a very challenging year for the company and the business. The normal effects of an economic downturn on the apartment sector were magnified by work from home mandates, civil unrest in our city centers, and the growing strength of the for sale market. The contraction of apartment demand in urban submarkets over the last year has been profound and unprecedented to anything we've experienced, except perhaps for the tech wreck of the Bay Area in the early 2000s. Over the last few weeks and months, we have begun to see some early signs of stabilization, with a steady improvement in occupancy, followed by effective rents beginning to level off in all of our markets. Yet, visibility for the business beyond the next 90 days or so remains challenged due to a combination of unique risk factors, including ongoing transmission of the virus and its variants, the rollout and efficacy of the vaccine, the continuation of work from home mandates, the regulatory extension of eviction moratorium in most of our markets, and lastly, the size impact and distribution of any potential additional federal stimulus that may be passed in the coming days. As a result, for earnings and operating metrics, we've decided to provide quarterly guidance in lieu of full year guidance. We are providing annual guidance, however, on a number of other items like lease-up income, capital formation, development starts, and overhead. We'll continue to update and share information with you as we move through the year. If the environment changes such that we believe we can reliably expand our guidance, we'll do so. Now let's turn to the slides, starting on slide four. As I mentioned, Q4 was a tough end to a challenging year. Core FFO growth was down by almost 17% in the quarter on a year-over-year basis, and 7% for the full year. Same store revenue was down just over 7.5% year-over-year, and 1.6% sequentially from Q3. For the full year, same store revenue declined 3.2%. We completed almost $400 million of development in Q4 at a projected initial yield of 5%. For the full year, we completed almost $800 million at a yield of 5.2%. While yields are down by almost 100 basis points due mostly to lower rents, they remain 75- 100 basis points above prevailing cap rates. The two Northern California developments completed this year particularly weighed on results as rents have declined by double digits in that region over the last year. Excluding those two communities, the average stabilized yield for completed communities was 5.8%. In Q4, we started three communities in suburban Northeast markets, which have been less impacted by the economic downturn. These were the first wholly owned communities started in 2020. We raised $465 million of capital in Q4, mostly through dispositions. For the year, we sold over $600 million at a weighted average cap rate of 4.4% and an unlevered IRR of 10.8% over an average 14-year hold period, which compares favorably versus the last two to three years. In addition, we raised just over $1.3 billion of debt this year, mostly to refinance maturing or near maturing debt of just over $1 billion. Lastly, we purchased or repurchased almost $200 million of stock for the year at an average share price of $150. Turning now to slide five. We thought we'd provide a little more color on the components of same store revenue declines that we've experienced on a year-over-year and a sequential basis. On slide five, you'll see on a year-over-year basis this past quarter, we saw about half the decline in same store revenue being driven by lower effective rents and about a half by increased vacancy and bad debt. As we mentioned last quarter, future declines in same store revenue this year will be driven by pressure on lease rates as the lower rents we've been leasing at over the last couple of quarters begin to roll through the portfolio and concessions, which have also been elevated over the last couple of quarters and are amortized over the lease term. Turning to slide six at sequential same store revenue. Sequential same store revenue was down 1.6% in Q4 from Q3, driven mostly by lower lease rates, which were down more than 2% sequentially, and concessions as the cumulative impact of amortized concessions continue to grow from Q3- Q4. Lower lease rates and higher amortized concessions were offset by a significant pickup in occupancy in Q4, which Sean will touch on in his comments. With that, I'll turn it over to Sean to discuss portfolio performance in more detail. Sean? All right. Thank you, Tim. Moving to slide seven, you can see the impact of the pandemic on physical occupancy and the absolute effective rent we have achieved over the past year, broken out between urban and suburban submarkets. Chart one reflects our suburban submarkets, which makes up about two-thirds of our portfolio. We experienced some deterioration in both occupancy and rate during the spring and summer of 2020, but have recovered most of the occupancy over the past four months. As of January, effective rental rates were up about 1% sequentially from December and are roughly 4% below where we started 2020. The primary driver of the weakness in our suburban portfolio has been the performance of assets located in job-centered hubs, where employers have adopted extended work-from-home policies and transit-oriented developments, where the use of mass transit has declined materially during the pandemic. Some examples include Assembly Row in Boston, Tysons Corner in Northern Virginia, Mountain View and Cupertino in Northern California, and Redmond in Washington State. Chart two reflects our urban portfolio, which suffered from elevated lease breaks, turnover, and an overall reduction in demand in the late spring and summer months, which was prompted by employers extending work-from-home policies and major urban universities announcing the adoption of distance learning models for the fall term. Occupancy dipped to a low point of roughly 90% in September, but has since recovered by more than 300 basis points. We're still about 300 basis points below what we consider a more normal occupancy rate in urban submarkets, but likely won't experience that level until people return to work and major universities open for on-campus learning. You could also see that rental rates fell substantially the past three quarters but have flattened out late in the year and ticked up about 2% from December to January. On a year-over-year basis, effective rental rates in our urban portfolio are still down about 18%. Moving to slide eight, you can see the trend of physical occupancy and the absolute effective rent by region for the last year. Occupancy has recovered from the low point in every region except the Pacific Northwest, which continues to hover around 93%. Rents have leveled off in all of our regions over the past couple of months, and we experienced a modest uptick in January in the metro New York, New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and Northern California regions. Also, in Southern California, effective rents have increased sequentially for the past three months. It's certainly too early to call the bottom in rents and we'll experience year-over-year negative rent change for the next few months as we pass the one-year anniversary of the pandemic. We'll continue to highlight sequential trends in both rents and occupancy as key indicators of a bottoming. I'll turn it to Kevin to address our outlook, development, and the balance sheet. Kevin? Thanks, Sean. Turning to slide nine, we highlight our financial outlook for 2021. Although we prefer to provide our traditional full-year outlook, the uncertain resolution of the pandemic and the related regulatory orders, including evictions moratorium across our footprint, has reduced our visibility on a performance later this year. Consequently, for 2021, we are providing operating and earnings outlook for the first quarter only, and we are providing guidance for development, capital activity, and other select items for the full year. Nevertheless, to assist investors in deriving their own perspective on our outlook for the year, we have enhanced our disclosure on expected performance in the first quarter of 2021. Specifically, we identify actual residential revenue performance in January 2021 for our same-store communities, which reflected a year-over-year decrease of 7.8% and a sequential decrease of 40 basis points from December 2020. We also provide ranges for projected residential performance for revenue, operating expenses, and net operating income in the first quarter of 2021 for our same-store communities. In the first quarter, we project a year-over-year decrease in same-store residential revenue of about 8.5%-10%, reflecting the impact of lower residential lease rates, amortized and newly granted concessions, lower occupancy versus the year ago period, and a persistent level of uncollectible lease revenue. We expect an increase in same-store residential operating expenses in the low 4% range during the first quarter and for operating expenses to remain elevated during the first half of the year due primarily to several factors that influence a year-over-year comparison, including, first, the presence today of COVID-related expenses that were not incurred during most of Q1 2020. Second, substantially reduced maintenance and other spend during the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 that will make for a challenging comparison in the current year period. Third, elevated turnover and marketing costs in the current year period. As a result, for the first quarter, we project a decrease in same-store residential NOI of between 13% and 16%. Finally, we project that core FFO per share for the first quarter will range between $1.85 per share and $1.95 per share. At the midpoint, our projection of $1.90 per share in core FFO for the first quarter of 2021 represents a sequential decline of $0.12 from the fourth quarter of 2020. This $0.12 sequential decline is composed of an $0.08 sequential decline in residential same-store NOI, a $0.04 sequential decline related to dispositions completed in the fourth quarter, and a $0.04 sequential decline related to increased overhead and strategic initiatives that is partially offset by a $0.04 sequential increase from other community classifications, which in turn are primarily driven by increasing development lease-up NOI and commercial NOI, the latter of which was reduced in the fourth quarter by the write-off and straight-line rent receivables. As for the full-year guidance on other items, we project starting about $750 million in new development projects in 2021. We expect to complete $1.1 billion of development projects this year. We expect NOI from new development communities undergoing lease up to be between $40 million and $50 million in 2021. For full year capital activity, we anticipate sourcing about $630 million in external capital from asset sales, condominium sales from Park Loggia, and capital markets activity. This compares with expected capital uses for development, redevelopment, and debt maturities and amortization of $835 million in 2021. Turning to slide 10. As I just noted, we do expect to increase our development activity in 2021. The roughly $750 million in new starts that we plan for 2021 is comparable to our starts activity late in the last cycle and represents an increase from the $290 million in development started last year, when we curtailed new investment activity in response to the pandemic. Over the past four years, about 85% of our development starts have been located in suburban markets, where, as Sean mentioned, fundamentals have been much more favorable. For 2021, our development starts are also concentrated in our suburban markets. In addition, this year's two urban starts are located in residential city neighborhoods and not in the more hard-hit, high-density central business districts. These new development starts should contribute to earnings and NAV growth in the next few years and will be delivering into a market environment that we anticipate will be highly favorable for new lease ups in 2023. Turning to slide 11. Almost 95% of current development underway is already match funded with long-term debt and equity capital. As a result, we have locked in the cost of investment capital on these developments, which in turn helps to ensure that these projects will provide earnings and NAV growth when they are completed and stabilized. As shown in the next two slides, we continue to enjoy tremendous financial strength and flexibility with excellent liquidity, modest near-term debt maturities, and a well-positioned balance sheet. Shown on slide 12, our liquidity at quarter end was roughly $2 billion from our credit facility and cash on hand. This compares to just under $600 million in remaining expenditures on development underway over the next several years, resulting in approximately $1.4 billion in excess liquidity relative to our remaining development commitments. Turning to our debt maturities on slide 13, we show our debt maturities over the next 10 years and our key credit metrics. For debt maturities, we have only $600 million in debt maturities and amortization over the next two years, of which less than $40 million matures in 2021. As a result, our quarter end liquidity of $2 billion exceeds both our remaining uncertain and our debt maturities over the next two years by approximately $800 million. As for our key credit metrics, at quarter end, net debt to core EBITDA of 5.4 times was in line with our target range of five times to six times. While our unencumbered NOI was at or near an all-time high of 94%, reflecting our large unencumbered pool of assets that we could tap if necessary for additional secured debt capital. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as we look beyond the end of this pandemic, our strong balance sheet provides us with terrific financial flexibility to pursue investment opportunities as they emerge in the recovery ahead. With that, I'll turn it back to Tim. Thanks, Kevin. Turning to slide 15, I thought I might provide some longer-term perspective on this downturn in our business. This slide shows an index for same-store base rental revenue since 1999 or over the 22 years, plus or minus, since the Avalon and Bay merger. A couple of things worth mentioning here. First, as you can see, the long-term trend is positive and reflects a healthy business. Over the last three cycles, annual compounded same-store revenue growth has been roughly 3%. Rents have grown a little faster than that during the expansionary phase of the cycle, and generally contract for one to two years during a downturn, as they're doing now, and then re-accelerate during the recovery phase at the start of the next cycle. Housing has been a consistent performer over many cycles, as demand and supply generally grow in tandem over the cycle, with net completions roughly matching the pace of household formation most years, except during recessions when the number of households temporarily contracts. During the downturns, it can be difficult to project operating performance as no two downturns and recoveries look exactly alike. Just to demonstrate that, the downturn in the early 2000s was reasonably deep for the apartment sector. In fact, it took almost five years for rents to recover back to their prior peak across our footprint. In San Jose, rents didn't fully recover for 15 years. The downturn in the late 2000s was comparatively steeper as the economy and labor market were significantly impacted by the financial crisis. While it was steeper, it was also shallower for the apartment sector as rental demand benefited from the correction in the for-sale housing sector. The current downturn brought on by the pandemic has been the steepest yet for the economy and for the apartment sector. While we are perhaps seeing early signs of stabilization, it is difficult to predict the timing and strength of the recovery given the myriad of uncertainties directly impacting our business, whether they be economic, regulatory, or health related. Importantly, though, we are confident that the apartment housing markets will recover, that we will return to sustained growth in rents and revenues over the next cycle, just as we've seen over the last several cycles. Multifamily will continue to be a good business for the long term. Turning now to the last slide and in summary, operating performance continued to decline in Q4. During the quarter and the early part of Q1, we began to see early signs of stabilization in some important operating trends. We saw healthy gains in occupancy sequentially, with urban submarkets recovering about half the occupancy they lost earlier in the year. Rent growth began to level off after declining for most of the last three quarters, and some regions even began to see modest sequential improvement. Transaction market has recovered and strengthened significantly in recent months, with suburban assets generally now selling at or above pre-COVID values. As Kevin mentioned, our balance sheet and liquidity remain in great shape and well-positioned to support new growth opportunities. In fact, given recent operating trends and improved capital and transaction market conditions, we decided to activate the development pipeline, starting three new developments this past quarter after having been cautious for most of 2020. Our starts in 2021 will be focused on submarkets that have been less impacted by the downturn, where the economics still offer a reasonable risk-adjusted return. With that, Allie, we're happy to open up the call for some Q&A. Of course. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please make sure mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. If you find your question has been answered already, you may remove yourself from the queue by pressing star two. As a reminder, it is star one if you would like to ask a question, and we'll go ahead and take our first question from Nick Joseph from Citi. Please go ahead. Hey, it's Michael Bilerman here with Nick. Tim, I wanted to ask you sort of on development underwriting, and also maybe bring Ben into the conversation, because it's a little bit about mixed use, about when you're now underwriting these projects, how are you thinking about those ancillary services and locations that are going to be part of a community, whether they be retail or even office. Historically, Avalon has partnered with others to do those. I think about the deal you bought in Virginia where Regency took the retail. I think about Assembly, where Federal obviously brought you in to do the resi. How do you think it's going to evolve? Can those pieces stay capitalized separately, or will it require someone to come in and take a loss on retail or a loss on office to support the multifamily rents? Effectively, you have to get higher returns on multifamily to make the math work. Yeah. Michael, I think we've talked a bit about this in the past, and obviously it's probably more interest in it just given the events of the last few quarters is, as we've talked about mixed-use, we pursued in a number of ways. Oftentimes partnering, as you suggest, whether it's with Federal or Regency or EDENS on a number of projects where it's more of a condo structure, where we may be building out the core and shell and ultimately turning back that retail to them. That's been sort of the MO in cases where it's been a pretty significant piece of the retail, and we felt like we were able to reasonably sort of separate the execution and ultimately the management of the two pieces. We're also doing a fair bit of mixed-use that I sort of think of as sort of horizontal, more kind of PUD, if you will, where we may be assembling a site. Sudbury is a good example of this, where there may be a separate adjacent use. In fact, there we've got Whole Foods was part of the community, but it was owned fee simple, not a condo structure, but fee simple by a different retail developer. That also had a for sale housing component, also had an age-restricted component as well. Particularly the suburban locations, we'll look to do that. I'd say kind of some of the infill locations will probably continue to partner with some of the top retailers in the country. The third category, which I think is where your question was headed, is when the uses are so integrally sort of linked, where it's probably in the interest of the asset that it be controlled by a single entity, whether that entity is a partnership or whether we control it, whether we control the entity 100%. I think probably our preferred solution in that case is where we're, again, partnering with somebody who's expert in the area of retail and can underwrite and help operate that. Our partner is in the venture with us, and so we'd be looking at the economics of the entire venture together and trying to optimize them in terms of the trade-offs that you inevitably make between the ground plane, which is usually the retail, and the residential above that. I think if you sort of fast-forward over the next five, 10 years, I think you'll see more of the third category emerging, and companies like us will be partnering with presumably the Regencies, the Federals, and EDENS of the world to make that happen. Just in terms of the rent recovery, and I know you pointed out that extraordinarily the timing and the strength of recovery, particularly in the urban submarkets, is difficult to project. You made a comment about the early 2000s and how San Jose didn't recover from a rent perspective to prior peak for 15 years. I guess when you think about New York and San Francisco, which you still have a fair amount of exposure to, I guess, what are you trying to underwrite? I would assume having a view would dictate your capital allocation decisions about either rotating capital out of these markets or trying to go deeper overall. If you have a 15-year timeframe that can make it a lot more difficult. Where is your mindset today about when you think the rent recovery and how the fundamentals in New York and San Francisco will turn? Yeah. Thanks, Michael. I didn't use the San Jose example to suggest that's what we think is going to happen in New York City and downtown San Francisco. Obviously, the San Jose case was extreme because there had been a big spike during the tech run-up in the late '90s and 2000. A lot of that period of gain was just before sort of the tech crash. I think part of the point is that some of these things can be long cycles, right? We still believe in New York and San Francisco. We believe in our coastal markets as an investment thesis going forward. We think they're going to continue to be centers of innovation, homes of great research universities. They're going to continue to over-index in our view, in terms of the knowledge economy, where you have higher incomes and productivity. That density of knowledge that's contained in those markets is critically valuable, particularly to startups, and companies that are getting off the ground. Now, as companies continue to grow and mature, they're going to distribute their workforces as we've seen over the last year, to some satellite markets and other markets, and with additional either work from home or hybrid positions as maybe perhaps all over the map. I think it's too early to underwrite sort of what the relationship between demand and supply is going to look like over the next five years. We don't see those markets in long-term decline, to be clear. When you think about sort of the power corridors in this country, it's still Washington to Boston on the East Coast and L.A. to San Francisco on the West Coast. Those are long cycles too. Those don't reverse themselves over five or 10 years. Inevitably we're going to continue to allocate capital to some of our other markets that I think are going to be somewhat beneficiaries by maybe some spillover effect from New York or San Francisco, whether it's D.C., Seattle, or Boston, as well as recent expansion markets, Denver and Southeast Florida. There's probably other expansion markets in our future as well that have some of the same characteristics, research universities, attractive to knowledge workers, as particularly some of these larger, mature companies disperse their workforces across a wider geography. It sounds like you won't sell in New York and San Francisco to fund that. That will be other sort of sales to do it or just raising other capital to expand? I don't think we're at a point where we think it probably makes sense to pursue sales, just given the performance of those markets right now. I think all of us, we're going to feel a lot better once we see how much they bounce back. I'm not saying they're going to bounce 100% back from where they were a year or even two years ago. Until there's a little bit more visibility there, I think the bid ask is just going to be too wide on assets in those markets. Sean mentioned in urban markets we've seen rents down 18%, they're down more than that in Northern California and New York, the city. I think it's early, but I think it's safe to say that's not where probably the net growth is going to be for the portfolio. Just like if you're Google or Facebook, probably a lot of your net growth isn't going to be in Mountain View or Menlo Park. It doesn't mean you're going to abandon those regions. They're going to continue to be core to our portfolio, but it's probably not where the growth is going to come from as it relates from a capital allocation standpoint. Great. Thanks, Tim. We'll go ahead and take our next question from Rich Hill from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, good afternoon, guys. Ben, it's nice to hear from you on an AVB earnings call. Look forward to working with you. Hey, guys. I wanted to spend a little bit more time thinking about the bridge from 1Q versus 4Q. I recognize that the sales in 4Q probably had a $0.04-$0.05 hit. I appreciate the additional disclosure on capitalized interest, which is another $0.01-$0.02. It still seems like the guide at midpoint is a little bit lower than what maybe we were expecting. As you think about that, given the green shoots, is it something to do with the mix of apartments coming online? How should we think about that difference, which, given the green shoots, I would have expected maybe the guide to be, call it $0.05-$0.07 higher. Maybe I'm just trying to understand how you get there and if you could break that down a little bit more for us. Rich, this is Kevin, and maybe I'll sort of take a stab at that. I tried to walk people through that in my opening remarks, so I don't know that I have a whole lot of details. Let me begin by maybe repeating that, and then if you have further questions around that, we can try to dive a little bit deeper. Just as a reference point, we anticipate core FFO per share at the midpoint declining from $2.02 in Q4 to $1.90 in Q1. In terms of this $0.12 sequential decline, relative to our budget, what we have is an $0.08 sequential decline in residential same-store NOI, a $0.04 sequential decline related to dispositions that were completed in the fourth quarter. Just need to bear in mind, we did sell about $450 million of assets in the fourth quarter that were present for much of the fourth quarter and are no longer present in the first quarter. That's a $0.04 sequential decline from that line item. $0.04 sequential decline as well from increased overhead and strategic initiatives. Those total, call it $0.16 or so, and they are partially offset by a sequential increase in other community classifications, primarily which include increasing lease-up NOI from development and then commercial NOI, which is expected to recover sequentially because that was burdened in Q4 by the write-off in straight-line rent receivables. That was kind of the backdrop for it. Again, it's hard for me to reconcile against your expectations, which seem to have been about $0.05 higher. That's the backdrop. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions you may have about those line items. No, that's very helpful. I follow all of that. What I was trying to understand a little bit more was the $0.08 headwind to same-store NOI. It seems like the quarter's going to be maybe a little bit more challenging than 4Q, despite some of the green shoots that have emerged. Maybe I'm just asking a naive question. I wanted to maybe understand why same-store NOI is a headwind versus 4Q despite what looks like to be improving occupancy and improving effective blended rents. Rich, this is Sean. Why don't I try to provide some high-level commentary on that I think may help. If you're looking for additional detail, we can certainly take it offline. One thing to keep in mind here is that while we're talking about sort of green shoots in terms of leveling off of rents and such, we do have sort of the cumulative effect of both lease rent reductions as well as the amortization of concessions that will bleed through the P&L as we move through 2021. In other words, the expectation would be, as you look forward over the next couple of months, the impact from the amortization of concessions and the cumulative effect of those lease rates will be higher than it has been in Q4. That's something that I'm not sure people always think about, but one sort of broad way to look at it as an example is we granted about $47 million in cash concessions in 2020. We only amortized about $16 million of those, there's still another $31 million of concessions that will amortize through 2021. That will continue, as Tim mentioned in his talking points, to impact the growth rates as we move forward over the next several months. That may provide some additional commentary on the headwind. Yeah, that's very helpful, guys. I think the simple explanation, I'm sorry if I complicated it, is there's just an earn-in benefit that still has to burn off over time, which makes it a little bit more of a tougher comp. That's very helpful. Hey, one more just clarification question, then I'll get back in the queue. That $0.04 of strategic initiative that you mentioned, is that one time, or is that reoccurring as we think about modeling? It's recurring. It's part of our full-year guidance for our overhead costs, which includes a significant component of which is investment in building out our digital capabilities and other strategic initiatives. It's the capability that we have been adding and continue to add to our business and is therefore recurring throughout the course of the year. It's something that you can kind of think about as continuing on. Rich, just to add onto that one as well. May talk about it in more detail in the coming quarter or two, but it ties into some of the information that we provided back in sort of late 2019 in terms of our investment in digital capabilities, AI, machine learning, things of that sort, that if anything has only accelerated as we've moved through the pandemic. If you think about what's been happening with virtual tours and self-guided tours and smart access and things of that sort, I think if you talk to not only us, but our peers and others, there's even probably more conviction in making those investments and the ROI associated with them, that we would expect to continue to invest in those capabilities over the next couple of years for sure, and then see those payoffs come through. Hey, Rich. Got it. Just to add to that, as we're making those investments in innovation, there is a bit of a geography issue, right? It may be hitting the overhead line, the benefit oftentimes flowing through to the assets. When we are able to save some payroll, things like that, it may not be obvious because the payroll is such a big number. The property OpEx is a big number maybe compared to what the strategic initiative number is. Got it. Guys, thank you very much. I know this was sort of wonky modeling questions. I really appreciate you spending the time to detail it out a little bit more. Thanks, guys. We'll now move to our next question from Rich Hightower with Evercore. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, guys. Again, welcome to Ben on these calls. My first question, I kind of want to home in again on San Francisco and New York and the big sequential occupancy gains in the fourth quarter. Obviously, a lot of that must have been driven by pricing in the market as opposed to anything related to return to office or sort of a normal seasonal leasing pattern that we might consider. As we think about the pace and the drivers of demand going forward as we go through 2021, what do you think the key drivers are that we should be expecting, and how does that overlay with what is normally peak leasing starting in the spring, and how do we fold in return to office in that? How do you guys think about the moving parts, given that this is just going to be a strange year in all respects? Hey, Rich. Why don't I take a first shot at that, and others can comment as needed. I think the factors that you'd like to monitor are first, what you mentioned in terms of employers basically reopening their offices and calling people back to work in these major urban environments. That's obviously a key driver here. As Tim mentioned earlier, we're probably not expecting 100% to return, but certainly a very high percentage are very likely to return. The second component is what I mentioned in my prepared remarks, is sort of the reopening of these major urban universities that really do draw in not only domestic, but international students that do occupy apartments in some of these major urban centers. It's not just the students, but it's the ancillary staff, faculty, et cetera. When you think of New York and San Francisco and markets like that's a pretty significant phenomenon. Ultimately what's going to follow that is more business activity where there was corporate demand and things of that sort for consulting assignments and such that it could make up 1%-2% of a market. The combination of those factors is what will really sort of drive the demand. What we'll likely see is people lease apartments a little before they need to be either on campus or back at work or going to some consulting assignment, et cetera. The timing of which that is something that I think we probably all debate. I think our view at this point, just based on what's happening with the pandemic and vaccinations, et cetera, is that it's probably sometime maybe in the summer when you might see that happen, depending on how the vaccination of the population occurs over the next few months here. We could see employers calling people back in the summer or maybe the fall when people are returning to school and such. I think those are the key questions, the timing of which is yet to be determined. For it to have a material impact on 2021 results however, given the lease expirations that we have from quarter to quarter, you really would need to see that happen probably in the late spring to early summer to have any kind of meaningful impact on 2021 as compared to it occurring in the fall, where we only have maybe 20%-30% of our lease expirations remaining. You would see the lift in 2022. Okay. That is helpful color, Sean. I guess my second question here. You're obviously ramping up development starts this year. What's the chance that you guys even go bigger than the 650-850 guidance if you think we're really on the cusp of the next multi-year recovery in multifamily? Well, it's a good question. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, it's somewhat a function of what we've seen in the markets, both the real estate markets as well as the capital markets. At this point, we're basically funding that development with planned dispositions, just given where our leverage is right now and trying to sort of protect our credit metrics where they stand. I think as we've said in the past, with gain ratios of around 50%, it's hard to sell too much. If we wanted to double down, we'd end up having to do distribution then. It's not as capital efficient. I think what would have to happen is the equity markets, we had a good start today, I guess, but the equity markets would need to recover more to a level which we think sort of more reflective of intrinsic value in NAV where we might have access to those markets as well to really expand the balance sheet in order to accommodate more development. Having said that, not all deals we think are sort of ready to go. As I mentioned in my remarks, for the most part, we're focused on markets that haven't been as impacted from a run rate standpoint so that the yields are still at least on a current basis, still offer what we think sort of an appropriate risk-adjusted return. That's not true of the entire development pipeline. You know how these deals work. You just don't go out and pick up some land options and start the next quarter. These things take, even deals that are entitled, can take a year or two years to sort of fully gestate before they're ready to start. The number probably just can't flex up too much, even if market conditions were great. I suspect it's going to be in this range unless market conditions move dramatically one way or the other. Got it. Thank you. We'll take our next question from John Pawlowski from Green Street. Please go ahead. Thanks. Matt, could you give us a sense for the two Northern California distributions? How do you think values ultimately fell out to what you could have gotten on the sales pre-COVID and cap rate color for those two deals? Sure, John. We sold the two deals in Northern Cal in the fourth quarter. eaves San Rafael was our only asset in Marin County. That's a pretty unique asset in a very supply-constrained part of the world with very little existing stock, almost no new construction. I would say that one, I don't think that the value there was really impacted much at all. We think the cap rate was a high threes, maybe around a 3.9. I'm not sure, maybe it was down slightly from where it would've been a year ago. That's just such a special asset that it's a bit of a one-off story. The other asset that we sold at the end of the year was eaves Diamond Heights. That's an older rent-controlled asset in the city of San Francisco. We were a little bit motivated there to close by year-end because the city through a ballot initiative, increased their transfer tax to the highest in the country at 6%. There was definitely some dollar savings by closing before year-end. That deal was about a 3.7 cap. It's 470,000 a unit. I would say a year ago, that asset probably would've sold for 8%-10% more, although it's hard to know. Maybe not as impacted, in terms of the NOI, as some of the other assets, just because it was a rent-controlled asset, and so some of the rents were below market. Also, maybe less lift for the buyer way out, because there'll be more constraints on ability to raise rents. Probably a little lower beta, maybe than some other assets in San Francisco. Okay, great. Thanks. Second question for Sean. Sticking with Northern California, just curious your thoughts, particularly in San Francisco, San Jose, when a lot of your private competitors' occupancy is well below your own level, and it feels like the entire market's one to three months free. The short question is, are you going to be able to sustain the occupancy and sustain stable rents as your private competitors play catch up? Or do you feel like the floor is underneath, or is it going to be a choppy few quarters here? Yeah, John, that's a good question. I think if you look at basically how the quarter unfolded, and not just in Northern California, but across some of the more impacted markets, whether it's ones you referenced or New York City or resident in Washington state as an example is, we've certainly seen rents decline as we've built occupancy. Now they've sort of leveled off, and the question kind of rolling forward is, do they just sort of bounce along the bottom here as we basically try to kind of hold occupancy where it is? We feel like for the most part, across the portfolio, we're pretty close to where we think market occupancies are. Rents should get better. The question is how much, as the rest of the market sort of does what it does, as you pointed out. I think some of the other peers are going to be higher in occupancy, some are lower, trying to catch up. I think just given what we've seen, the belief is that we probably just for the next couple of quarters are going to kind of be bouncing around a little bit. I wouldn't say that we're expecting a sharp uptick. I wouldn't say that. Should we expect some marginal improvement? I think that's reasonable to assume, given where the rents were to get the occupancy that we needed. Now we're trying to sort of stabilize a little bit, so we should be able to compete without as much inventory available, and therefore, the rents won't need to be as soft, I guess, is the way I'd describe that. Every pocket's a little bit different, though, is the way I think you need to look at it in terms of what's happening. Is there new supply? Is there not new supply? Things like that do impact these sub-markets in potentially a meaningful way, depending on what's going on there. Okay, great. Thanks for the thought. We'll take our next question from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you. Comparing this downturn versus the prior recession, on page 14, is very helpful. I guess one of the big similarities between now and the early 2000s is the homeownership rate and the strength of the housing market. I'm wondering if you think this is a factor that's most important in terms of the pace of recovery this time around, or have landlords, including yourselves, aggressively cut rents so that the recovery time could be quicker? Yeah, John, it's Tim. It's a good question. We are definitely seeing the for-sale market strength. I think part of that, like the early 2000s, is demography. As you're starting to see the kind of the 30- 34-year-olds or the leading edge of the millennials come forward and start to purchase. I do think, though, what's happening is you are seeing just an acceleration of folks that may have bought a year from now or two years from now, three years from now, accelerating that purchase decision just because of what quality of life in the urban markets has been like over the last year. We'll have to see. It's been our view, I think we've talked about this over the last two or three years, that housing demand between rental and for sale is going to be more balanced over the next decade than we've seen over the last two decades. The last decade was kind of the renter decade. The decade before that was kind of the homeowner decade, and there were some artificial factors driving it, particularly in the 2000s, as you know, with what was going on in terms of just the whole mortgage crisis. I just think just given kind of the mortgage finance system we have in place now, I think it's going to be driven more by fundamental factors than speculative factors. For a long time, homeownership rates were just sat at like 64%-65%, and they were kind of that level on a margin level. If you look at what's happening in terms of the growth, and we've talked about this too, in terms of this growth in single person or single-parent households. That population is still growing, and multifamily is a better housing choice for that group. I think there's a lot of factors for when you sort of put them all together, it really does suggest sort of balanced housing demand going forward. Today, we're producing close to 1 million or around 1 million single-family units and 300,000 or 400,000 multifamily units. That feels about right, relative to marginal demand. I think it's being accelerated as we're speaking right now, just because of the pandemic. As you look at it over a two, three, four-year period, it sort of strikes us as about sort of the right mix of supply to address marginal demand. That's very helpful. Thank you. Maybe the second question for Kevin. The impact to your earnings from concessions doubled this quarter versus last quarter. Can you remind us how the concessions have trended throughout the year last year? The average concessions you granted by each quarter? Well, maybe Sean, if you want to speak to the average concession value? Yeah. I think what I can probably describe, too, is if you look at the leases that we've signed, kind of what the pace has been in terms of concessions. In Q3, the average concession per lease signed was $1,100. When you look at Q4, the average was $1,350, but it did tick down as we moved through the quarter. As an example, October was $1,450 a lease, November was $1,400, December was $1,190, and then we're down to just under $1,000 a lease in January. The trend has been our friend in terms of the impact of concessions. In terms of the accounting of it, just one comment to reiterate what I mentioned earlier, and Kevin can address it more thoroughly as well, is we granted about $47 million in cash concessions in 2020, but we did only amortize $16 million of them in 2020. There's still $31 million in deferred concessions on the books that will be amortized through 2021. In addition to that, whatever cash concessions we grant in 2021 will also commence amortization. Hopefully that gives you some sense of sort of the headwind as we move into 2021 from the concessions that were granted but deferred in 2020. I don't know if that answers your specific question, or if you have a follow-up. I can add a couple things, John. It's Kevin again. Just to give you a sense, to frame it, if you kind of look at our earnings release to start the discussion here, and as Sean has mentioned on page 31 of our earnings release. For the full year of 2020, we granted $46.6 million worth of concessions. That's just the granted number. If you kind of go back, in Q4, we granted about $19.5 million. Q3 granted about $15.3 million. The difference pretty much is really what we did in Q2. That's going to be, call it another $12 million or so granted in Q2. Again, what we amortized, of course, is different. Is it fair to assume that third quarter, that year-over-year comps are easier? You'll be withholding the concessions on renewals? Well, it is a function of what concessions we grant in 2021. All else being equal, if you just sort of stop today, if you thought the concessions were going to go to zero effective 1st February, as an example. What's on the books today, the peak in concession burn-off or amortization would be sort of in the April, May timeframe. We're still granting concessions maybe at a lower rate, but we're still granting concessions now. It's very likely that the peak burn-off of the amortization will drift into the summer sometime, depending on the volume of concessions that we grant and the amount of each concession over the next few months. That's helpful. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Austin Wurschmidt from KeyBanc Capital Markets Please go ahead. Great. Thanks, guys. Just wanted to touch on sort of the occupancy rebound again and economic occupancy now approaching kind of that mid-95% range. I think you were 96% plus pre-pandemic. Anyhow, how does it change your view towards continuing to build occupancy, given, I guess, your view that it could be until the summertime until you start to see a surge in demand as people firm up the back-to-office dates and then into the fall for the student population? How does that kind of balance that continuing to grind down, I guess, on the concessions versus trying to build occupancy to give yourself maybe some cushion as you get into the spring leasing season and the expirations start to increase? Austin, this is Sean. Good question. Kind of from a strategy standpoint over the next two or three months. As I mentioned in response to a couple questions ago, we think as we look across the suburban markets and the urban markets, that we're in the range of what we would consider market occupancy. Based on multiple data points that are available out there, people use Axiometrics or CoStar or various other sources like that. We've got the ability to sort of triangulate into where we think market occupancy is. We're comfortable sort of operating around market occupancy to slightly above, maybe 100-200 basis points. Anything beyond that, you're probably just giving up too much rate to hold that higher occupancy. While occupancy may drift up a little bit over the next couple of months here, I wouldn't expect it to spike materially, similar to what we've seen in the last four months. For us, it'll be more about maintaining marginal improvements in physical occupancy and really trying to make sure we find where we can hold those rents, and see sequential improvement in effective rents at that occupancy. That will be net gain going forward for us. To the extent that there's a significant pivot one way or another in terms of the macro environment, that would certainly influence that strategy, but that is the strategy as we see it today. Got it. Thank you. You referenced the 18% decline in rents, I think it was in reference to urban markets. As we think about that recovery, last quarter you did mention you've kind of gone further down in the renter pool, from a credit perspective. Can you give us any type of metric to give us a sense of how that change in renter profile, how significant it's been, or maybe an affordability ratio comparison versus the years leading up to the pandemic? Yeah, no, also a good question. One thing to be clear about is, if anything, our credit standards have become more stringent during the pandemic, given the various regulatory orders that are out there, particularly the eviction moratoria. Where we have reached down further in the renter pool is more from an income perspective. Obviously rents are down, so people can qualify for apartments that maybe they couldn't qualify for last year, when you go to New York City or San Francisco and the rents are down 25%. In terms of maybe where you might be going with this is their ability to pay in the future as we see a rebound and are trying to push through rent increases. While income levels are down, rents are down more than that. Actual rent-to-income ratios have come in a little bit over the last few quarters, which just tells us that there is more ability to absorb rent increases on the other side of the pandemic when we see a rebound. One thing to remember excuse me, as it relates to concessions is, while we have to amortize concessions for GAAP purposes, we don't amortize the concessions for the individual residents. They may receive a month free, as an example, up front, but the next month they are still writing a check for the full amount of the lease rent. Any renewals that we provide to them at some point in time when their lease expires will typically be based off the lease rent as opposed to the uncertain People are in a position where they can afford what they're writing a check for as opposed to the effective rent. Right. What's the decrease in the gross or face rent, if you will, versus that 18%? Yeah. If you look at it on a rent change basis as opposed to the blended values that we were talking about, basically we had effective rents that were down 11% too. If you look at lease rents, they were down about 7%. Yeah, no, I saw that for the quarter. I was more curious, I guess, over the course of how that 18% number would compare. Is our income still down less than that face rent number when you remove the concession as you referenced it? That's correct, yes. Yes, incomes are down less than the reduction in rental rates. Okay. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Alua Askarbek from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. I know we're going a little too long, so I'll be quick. I wanted to ask a little bit more on the demand side that you've been seeing, just to get a clear idea. Are you still seeing a lot of those bargain hunters coming in within markets looking for good deals in your urban markets? Are you starting to see a little bit more demand coming in outside of those markets? Yeah, no, it's a good question in terms of the bargain hunters. I guess in the current environment, sort of everybody's looking for a deal. As I mentioned in response to the last question, people are well qualified with good incomes that are coming in. I would say that we're not looking for people that really can't afford what we're doing, they're really trying to drive for a deep discount to make it sensible for them. In terms of the question about net new demand coming in from sort of other geographies, that's a good question. I don't have that right off the top of my head. I would say for the most part what we're seeing is that given the entire market in many cases has improved in occupancy, that there is net new demand coming into these markets as opposed to just a recirculating of the existing demand that's already in place that would allow that to happen. I don't have specific detail for you in terms of how much of the demand in New York City, as an example, but for market occupancy to come up, there has to be net new demand. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Just a quick question on Boston or New England overall. It looks like the effective rents really dropped off in 4Q. Is there anything behind that other than maybe the supply that you guys have been talking about? No, it's the same phenomena. The urban markets in Boston are still very challenged. It's quite choppy, not quite as bad as New York City or San Francisco, but the urban markets are driving most of it. There are some sort of infill pockets. I mentioned your Assembly Row asset, Newton Chestnut Hill, pockets like that are sort of the inner ring suburbs are also a little bit weaker. Some of the more distant suburban towns with good school districts and things like that are performing better. Yes. Got it. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Nick Yulico from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thanks. I just wanted to go back to the slide in the presentation where you gave the occupancy and blended rents for the suburbs and urban environments. I guess I'm just wondering, for those two different buckets, suburbs versus urban, if you could give us a feel for kind of a composition of the blended rent, meaning, what percentage of that was renewals versus new leases for the different regions? Yeah. Nick, that's a good question. It's a lot of data points because it is a blend of renewals and new move-ins, which changes by month. That's probably something Jason could talk to you about offline, as opposed to trying to walk through that, because it, again, changes month by month. Makes you think about it. If you want to, you can just go look at our turnover rates that we provided in the earnings release to get a feel for it, though. It shows it year to date and for the last couple of quarters. That'll give you a good sense of the mix. Right. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was wondering, if it was kind of similar to the turnover rate, because I guess my question here is, if your turnover is at your lowest point of the year in the fourth quarter and first quarter, and we're looking at a blended rent number that is, in some cases, stabilizing or slightly ticking up, versus higher turnover periods. I guess I'm just wondering what we should really be reading into this, because doesn't it just mean that you're signing less new leases, which is where the worst pricing is? The fact that it's starting to stabilize, but you're doing more renewals versus new leases, and you're going into a period in the spring where you have a lot of new leases. I guess I'm just trying to wrestle with what we should really be reading into this line of improvement for January and the fourth quarter versus other parts last year. Yeah, no, that's a good question. I think to the comment that I made to John earlier, probably a little too early to tell in terms of calling it a bottom. We are pleased with the fact that during what is typically a seasonally lower period, where we had turnover up 15% year-over-year, that we have been able to slowly pull back on concessions and see slightly better blended rents on a sort of net effective basis for now four months, basically, three or four months. That gives us a sense that we're kind of pricing in the right neighborhood, and that was building occupancy. We don't need to build as much occupancy as we were attempting to do in the last three or four months. Therefore, we believe we should be able to do better in terms of absolute effective rents moving forward. To your point, though, what happens in each market as we get to the spring leasing season is yet to be seen. I think we're kind of bouncing around the bottom now, and the question is, will we continue to see those sequential improvements now that we're at that occupancy platform that we want to be at? That is a function of just pure supply and demand in these markets and what happens. I think it's probably a little too early to call in terms of the specific question that you have, whether I should read in this that this is at the bottom and it's going to bounce back. I'm not sure we're prepared to say that just yet. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. Thanks, guys. We'll take our next question from Rich Anderson from SMBC. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. When I think about percentages and talk about percentages, it can get sort of misleading. If I don't have any jobs lost in your markets in 2020, but you need kind of 2X growth to get back to where you were in absolute numbers, just because you're growing off a smaller base. The same logic applies to the 18% decline in your urban effective rates. You got to do 30+ off the lower base to get back to where you were in absolute per-unit rent. My point is, when you look at your slide on page 14, it's taken 3-6 years for you to just get back to where you were, in whether it was the tech bubble or the housing crash. Does this environment, which is somewhat more black and white, it's sort of virus, vaccine. As bad as it was, it's not very complicated. Do you think that the recovery back to where you once were in whether you use jobs or rents, whatever the metric is, will be tighter than that 3% bottom end of the range that you've experienced in history? Rich, Tim here. That's obviously one of the big debate here as to whether this is going to be V-shaped or swoosh shaped in terms of recovery, and that's ultimately. It's jobs, it's what's going to help propel total household formation, and the deconsolidation of households that may have consolidated over the last year. While the unemployment rates are looking pretty good, obviously the labor participation rates are pretty low. It's going to take some really decent economic growth, I think, to really I think suburban rents could be back a lot quicker than the three to five years we've seen in the past. I think the question here is really about urban and some of the really tech-intensive suburban sub-markets, like a Mountain View or a Menlo Park, as we were talking about before. That's going to take some economic growth, I think. Yeah. I think we may see sort of a quick V shape maybe for the suburban markets. The urban markets, maybe we may not be back into those rents for another three or four years. Yeah. It leads me to my kind of second question, which is, you're not giving full year guidance because you don't have a lot of visibility beyond 90 days. You're ramping development up. I just wondered if your confidence in a period two years from now, when you might be delivering these assets, is higher than it is six months from now. I imagine it is. That's what I'm trying to pinpoint. Is the development you're turning on sort of specific to those markets and those areas that maybe weren't as impacted by the COVID pandemic? Yeah. It's the latter point that you're making. As I said before, I think suburban rents could be back to where they were in a year. They're only down 4%. It doesn't take a lot of growth to get that 4% back in those markets. We're focused. We're kind of activating that lever in markets where we think there's, as I said in my prepared comments, where we think the risk-adjusted return makes sense to us right now. All right. I guess that's it. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. We'll go ahead and take our next question from Anthony Paolone from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. On the expense side, is there anything for 2021 as we look out that could bring just expense growth back down to sort of an inflation number? Or does the turnover and some of these other dynamics just step function this up for higher growth this year? Yeah. Good question. I think it's more the latter. I mean, a lot of the stuff that we're seeing is sort of related to the pandemic and is prompted, whether it's the higher turnover costs, PPE and extra cleaning costs, associates that are on leave and therefore driving temporary labor, contract labor, overtime, things like that, need to kind of play their way through. Obviously we have a tough comp, just given the first half of last year, and particularly the second quarter. Spend came to a screeching halt in a number of different areas. The turnover came down, maintenance projects were delayed, et cetera. I think that it's just going to put pressure on what the numbers look like, particularly as Kevin mentioned, the first half of this year, given that tough comp. It'll be a little bit easier when we get to the second half because some of those expenses and the elevated turnover and all that will be more comparable. Particularly the first half will be pressured. Okay. Just a second question for Kevin. The $160 million-$170 million of total overhead for 2021, do you have the comparable number for 2020, just to understand the increase? I think it's a couple line items and a variety of adjustments to get there. Tony, you're referring to kind of the core expense overhead number? I think you gave brackets around, I guess it combines like G&A and property management, a few things like that. Core expense overhead for core FFO of $160 million-$170 million. The reference point for the prior year was about $150 million- $151 million, so it's about a $14 million year-over-year increase. Where most of that is, as we alluded to before, related to investment in various strategic and related initiatives. I mean, strategic initiatives alone are about $7 million of that number. Probably about five on the growth basis, there's ancillary investments as well. There's some additional compensation costs, including some executive transition costs. Okay. Got it. Thanks for that. We'll go ahead and take our next question from Alexander Goldfarb from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Sure. Good afternoon. Ben, welcome aboard. I'm assuming that you declined the free rent incentive so you can do your part to help earnings. Two questions here. The first, just going to guidance, Tim and Kevin. You've laid out definitely that you think things are bottoming. You're not sure how things will go, but in general, you've laid out sort of a base case. With that in mind, why couldn't you provide a full year number, even if it's a wide range? Because it seems like you're sort of tracking in the sort of 750, 760, something like there, midpoint. Just sort of curious, what prevents you from providing, even if it's just a wide range, something. Because as I say, from your first quarter observations, it sounds like you feel comfortable with where things are shaking out, and you have a. General sense that if that continues, then you sort of would know where you were for the full year. Yeah, Alex, it's a fair question. I mentioned in my kind of earlier remarks, it's more than just one or two things that are kind of a play here. We didn't even get into the issue of eviction moratoria, where we've got call it 3% of our units sort of tied up and people that aren't paying. We have potentially a federal stimulus that it might benefit from and actually help us to actually potentially even reverse some bad debt that we've taken on before. Sean, in terms of the work from home mandates, when they expire, it makes a big difference in terms of when we might get initially a good occupancy boost. With that comes other income and other things as well. When you put them all together and you start playing with these variables, you get a range that's so wide that we just think it's not that reliable. Frankly, I think in the past, we actually haven't given quarterly guidance. We've given annual guidance because that's how we manage our business in a typical year. We don't manage it quarter to quarter. Reality is we're managing it week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter right now, and we feel like we've got enough visibility out about 90 days to provide reliable guidance. Beyond that, we just don't think it's that reliable, and to be putting it out there and to always be trying to reconcile and sync up, it just, to us, didn't think it was really adding anything to the conversation. Others may choose to provide outlook with a wide range. I get it. I think if you have a Sun Belt portfolio, I think it makes total sense that you'd be providing guidance right now. That's not the situation we're in. Kevin, I don't know if you have anything to add. Just to add to that, I think that covers it, Tim. Alexander, for us, it came down to can we satisfy the test of providing a reasonably reliable midpoint and a reasonably narrow and useful range? As we know, anything's possible in Excel. When we kind of played with these variables and looked at the back half of the year, there were things that could be very positive or very negative, and they're beyond our ability to reasonably predict with accuracy. Given that, we just didn't feel like we could meet the test of providing a reasonably reliable midpoint forecast, which ultimately would be what people would focus on, even if we gave a wide range. Yet we couldn't provide a reasonably narrow range around that. We just felt like, why try to give something that at odds with how we're managing the business, and the Q1 guide seemed more appropriate. Yeah. Alexander, maybe just last thing to add. That's one of the reasons we showed slide 14 as well and kind of put a circle around the downturns and the recoveries. That's when it's hard to project the business. When you're in an expansion, it's fairly linear, and we feel like we can give some pretty reliable guidance in terms of how the portfolio ought to perform over the next 12 months. Okay, the second question is, as you guys think about ramping up the development program and using more capital, how does that balance with the expansion markets and to the extent that you're looking at other markets like Nashville or Austin or some of the other sort of popular markets these days? How do you reconcile your balance of capital between investing in development in your current markets versus using that capital to either in your expansion markets or to enter other new markets? Well, Alex, it's a good question. I think the reality is if we didn't give guidance around acquisitions and dispositions. Acquisitions, let's say. To the extent we acquire, we would just sell more in existing assets. It'd really be done more through portfolio management. Basically, recycling capital out of certain markets. You know where we've been recycling, largely the Northeast into markets like Denver and Southeast Florida and potentially some other expansion markets to come. At this point in the cycle where capital is priced, that's probably how we would fund it. If equity values recover in any meaningful way where we think it makes sense to expand the balance sheet in a creative and a prudent way, that'd be sort of the second alternative. Okay, just finally, the New York development site, which one was that was written off? Hey, Alexander, it's Matt. That was the investment that we had in the East 96th Street, RFP. Okay. That was the Cuomo de Blasio one. Got it. Okay. No problem. Thanks. Hey, Alexander, just to be clear, when we write it off, it means it's less probable than not, or did I say that right? More probable not that we will not be developing it. It's double negative. Thank you. Don't worry, Tim. It's been a long call. We got it. It doesn't mean we're not still working it and pursuing it, but it's more probable. Yeah, we have to do this from an accounting point of view. It tipped the other way into being less probable. We got it. Thanks, Tim. Yeah, it's a long call. We'll go ahead and take our next question from Brent Dilts from UBS. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks, guys. Just one from me at this point. Could you talk about how the financial struggles of some of the largest U.S. transit agencies who are talking about permanent cuts to service might impact your transit-oriented properties? Yeah, Brent, it's Sean. I can take a stab at that one, and Matt or others can jump in. It's probably a little too early to tell right now, I would say. Certainly, ridership has fallen dramatically through the pandemic in all the major transit systems. As a result, in my prepared remarks, mentioned that one of the locations within our suburban footprint that has been most impacted is sort of transit-oriented developments, just because people don't need it as much. Whether that results in permanent cuts versus just the temporary reductions in capacity that we've seen has yet to play out. I suspect that there probably wouldn't be decisions made around permanent cuts until we get beyond the pandemic and people see where ridership sort of normalizes at. I think it's probably too early to call on that at this point. Certainly, if there are transit-oriented developments that are out there that the residents are heavily reliant upon transit system and capacity is cut dramatically, there would be a negative impact on those assets. It is probably just too early to tell what that might be. The other side, perhaps marginally, it makes the transit agencies a little more aggressive with trying to dispose of some of their land and/or go into some joint developments. Actually, one of the deals we just started this past quarter was Avalon Somerville, which is at a NJT stop in Central New Jersey. We are looking at other sites where transit agencies are probably going to feel more pressure to monetize their land positions. Okay, great. Thanks, guys. We'll take our next question from Rob Stevenson from Janney. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, guys. What percentage of your 2021 development starts are locked in cost-wise at this point? What are you seeing with respect to construction costs, especially lumber, given what's gone on there, and how decent is the labor supply these days? Sure. Hey, Rob, it's Matt. I can speak to that one as well. If we haven't started a job yet, we have not locked in the cost on anything really, except for probably the land and a little bit of the entitlement costs. The starts that we're looking at potentially for next year, I think we own the land on maybe two or three of them, and then there's a couple others where they're under hard contracts. Everything else is subject to the market. The land and the soft cost usually is around a third, 25%, 30%, 35% of the total capital cost. The hard cost usually around 65%, depending on the product type. If you'd asked at the beginning of the pandemic, I'd say we had a pretty high degree of conviction that hard costs should come down, particularly in some of these markets that had seen a big run-up over the last couple of years. I'd say we've less conviction around that today, just seeing how the for sale market has recovered. Lumber right now is very expensive. Fortunately, we're not in a position of really having to buy much lumber as we sit here today because we didn't start anything for three quarters last year. If lumber pricing doesn't adjust back to where we would expect it to, some of those starts may be in question. My guess is, like a lot of commodities, there is a little bit of a self-correcting element to that. We're not the only ones that will probably find ourselves in that position. There are a number of mills that are shut down right now because of COVID concerns. We do think supply should start to increase again here by springtime. At this point, I'd say our sense is more the costs have leveled off, and that except for maybe in a few markets where they were really overheated, I'd say the expectation at this point has probably moved towards more of a flattening than a real nominal decline in hard costs. Okay. Given that, where are the yields on the new start, the 2021 starts, relative to the 5.8% on the current pipeline? Right there. Just about the same. Okay. When you look at our current development pipeline, and you look at the mix of the current development pipeline, it is mostly suburban. Even the deals that are in lease up, there's a couple of them that are behind pro forma, but there's a couple that are actually ahead of pro forma as well. That kind of makes sense when you compare that to kind of near term starts. Okay. Last one from me. Where are you in terms of the mix of condo sales at Park Loggia? Is what's left skewed towards higher or lower price points, or is what's left fairly consistent with what you've already sold? Congratulations, Rob. I was wondering if we were going to get through the call without a question about Park Loggia. We closed 73 units. We have another 15 where we've accepted offers or are under contract, so that would bring us to 88 total. The mix, we have sold maybe a few more. I think we sold three of the four penthouses. The mix is going to start to skew a little bit more towards low priced units just because of that. We still have a reasonable mix up and down the building. That's where we're seeing, frankly, some pretty good traction now is in the more modest price points in the podium of the building. Traffic's actually picked up quite a bit. We've seen 15- 20 inquiries a week in January. We've been averaging about four new deals a month the last three months, whereas on the last call, it was more like three per month. The inventory that remains is a little bit more affordable on average. Is stuff being sold thus far been primary residence, or are these largely secondary residents? Are you expecting any impact if New York City and State passes additional soak the rich type of tax measures? I don't know. Again, this is not Billionaire's Row. By Manhattan standards, this is a pretty compelling value proposition, which is, I think, why we're continuing to see our sales pace maintain pretty strongly. There's a lot of people buying condos for their kids. In many cases, maybe their kids who are going to a university in New York, and that market obviously has seen a lot of distance learning since the pandemic hit, but this may well pick up. I don't have the exact breakdown of primary versus secondary residences, but I would say that there is a lot of pied-à-terres and a lot of family-type transactions. Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. We'll take our next question from Haendel St. Juste from Mizuho. Please go ahead. Hey, thank you. Good afternoon. First question's on the bad debt. Remained elevated in 4Q, very similar to the third quarter. I guess, first of all, are you expecting a similar level? Is that what's embedded within your 1Q guidance here? Second, I guess, when do you think you can see some improvement there? Since you brought it up earlier, how is the extension of the eviction moratoriums until March 31st playing a role into your thinking? Thanks. Well, Haendel, this is Kevin. Maybe I'll answer the first couple here. In terms of the first quarter, we are expecting a persistent level of bad debt expense to roll into the first quarter, so not meaningfully different from what you saw in the fourth quarter. I don't know, Sean, if you want to add any more about kind of Yeah. Just on the eviction moratoria, there is sort of a myriad of various moratoria orders out there related to both evictions, whether we can charge late fees, whether we can allow rent increases, things like that. It's not just at the federal level that we have to try to comply with, but at the state and even local level in some cases. One example you may have noticed that California extended what used to be called CDC moratorium into a new bill called SB91 that extends the eviction moratoria through June. There's other things in Washington State and various other places. While the CDC order is a little bit of a federal override, there is quite a bit of a jigsaw puzzle out there, I guess I would say, in terms of what you can do at the state and local level. Our expectations at this point is that we'll probably see most of that hold through mid-year, very likely, depending on how things unfold with the vaccination of the population and the economy continuing to recover. That's sort of the house view at this point, but there's no question that it could be extended beyond that, or in some cases, if things are going well, people let it expire sooner. That will influence our ability to evict people. We are continuing other efforts as it relates to collections that will continue. At this point, what we basically feel like is going to happen is the bad debt that we saw the last three quarters of 2020 will likely continue at that pace. See a little bit of a nice surprise in January where it wasn't quite as bad, but the expectation is it'll look more like the last three quarters of 2020 going forward. Yeah. Just to add to that, Haendel, to begin to revert from that 250- 300 basis points of revenue trends that you've seen in the last few quarters to something more typical, which is more like 50- 60 basis points of revenue, obviously, we're going to need a resolution of the pandemic and a restoration of kind of landlord remedies with respect to those who are non-payers. That could be a little while here. It's certainly not something we expect to change materially in the first half of the year. Got it. Very helpful. Second is more of a follow-up to some earlier questions on development. You noted, it's been noted that all three of your new development starts are Northeast suburban. I'm curious, when you're thinking about new starts, when can we see a few more starts on the West Coast or non-Northeast markets and in more urban locations? I recognize you have a couple West Coast projects underway in the pipeline, but you haven't started a new West Coast project since, I think it's the second half of 2019. Thanks. Yeah, sure. This is Matt. We do have a start likely in Southeast Florida this year. We have a start in Denver that we're planning, and we have a pretty large start in suburban Seattle that we're planning later this year. California's tough. California is where we're probably finding the most challenged economics right now for new starts. We do have starts in the expansion markets and Seattle. Would those spreads on your expected development yields versus cap rates be fairly similar, that, call it 50, 75 basis points spread you were referring to earlier? Yeah, no, I think the spread's more than that. We said the current book is about a 5, 8. Those assets today would sell for sub 4.5, probably low 4s. I think the spread is well over 100 basis points, and it's probably just as wide given how low cap rates are in Seattle, Denver, and Florida. Got it. Thank you. We'll go ahead and take our last question from Dennis McGill from Zelman & Associates. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just wanted to touch on supply, and your views on how that might play out in 2021, especially in any urban environments. It seems from our work there's still quite a bit to deliver, and maybe some of that slides out, but would seemingly limit some of the pricing power once you rebuild occupancy. Just wanted to see how you guys are thinking about those competing balances. Dennis, this is Sean. Good question. Happy to comment on that, others can as well. As it relates to our footprint, we are expecting deliveries in 2021 to come down about 6% or 7% compared to 2020 and represent about 1.8% of stock. All the regions are expected to be down except for the N.Y., N.J. region first, where the decline in deliveries in sort of the New York area are going to be offset by what we're seeing in northern N.J., particularly Jersey City. It increases by about 3,500- 4,000 units. Even though the balance of kind of New York City is down maybe 2,200. In terms of the trade area, there's an increase there. We expect it to be relatively flat in Northern California. In terms of the urban specific, yeah, we do see a little bit of benefit certainly coming in, as I mentioned, New York City, urban Boston, a very modest increase in the District, so not terribly different. San Francisco's basically flat, so no material change there. The other urban market I guess you could be interested in would be L.A., where deliveries are going to be down about 1,500 units. In general, the supply picture in the urban environments, with the exception of San Francisco and D.C., will be better in 2021 than it was in 2020, which all things being equal, should certainly help support a recovery at some point in time. Hey, Dennis, Tim here. I agree with everything Sean just said. I think one of the interesting things to think about with the urban supply is not just what's happening over 2021 and 2022 on stuff that's already been started in 2019 and 2020, but the likelihood that we're going to see starts in 2021 and 2022 and how that may translate into 2023 and 2024 performance. I think it's going to be tough for people to get deals financed just against the narrative of this whole kind of work from home, work from anywhere, dispersing your workforce to satellite offices as well as kind of downtown. I think by the middle of the decade, we could be in a position where we're seeing very little supply delivered, where demand may be down a bit, but where the fundamentals actually look better, quite a bit better in urban submarkets and even the suburban markets. It's almost a reverse of what we saw this last decade, where at the beginning of the decade, 2010, everyone thought urban was going to outperform. It did from a demand standpoint, but supply more than made up for it, such that performance actually, asset performance, at least in our portfolio, in our markets, was stronger in the suburbs. That story could completely reverse, I think, in the next 3-4 years. That's helpful perspective. Thank you. On the share repurchase in the quarter, can you maybe just talk about how you triangulated to getting comfortable on the buyback and then how you might be thinking about that now with where the stock is? If it hangs out here or higher, is it a likely use of capital in 2021? Yeah, Dennis, this is Kevin. There are a number of variables to take into account, clearly. First of all, what is our alternative use? Development is our alternative use. As you can see, kind of based on our outlook for the year, we do anticipate starting development, and that reflects an implicit view that, at least relative to where our shares have been trading lately, development represents a more attractive use for our capital than buying back our shares, although our shares do look quite compelling, and it is a tougher call than in most normal circumstances, given how we're trading below NAV. As you can tell from when we were buying back shares, we were buying back shares at around $150 a share, which we felt was pretty darn compelling when we ran that math. We're at a different point today. That price matters to us as well when we're looking at the alternatives. The other factors we need to take into account is not only our source of proceeds, but also what the impact on our leverage is. We did then, and we do now still have the financial capacity and the proceeds from dispositions to engage in a measured buyback if it were to make sense to do so. Every time we do so, we have to think about the impact on our leverage metrics. What we knew then and what is still true today is our EBITDA has been sequentially declining over the quarters, and our net debt to EBITDA was at 5.4 times in the last quarter. Our target is 5- 6 times. When we began the pandemic, our ratio was about 4.6 times. The movement up in that ratio has really been driven not by taking on more debt, but rather by a decline in EBITDA. As we pace through the balance of this year and see the lower lease rates and concessions work into our rent roll and our EBITDA, we need to be mindful of managing that ratio so that it stays, if possible, within our targeted range. Engaging in a heavy buyback could potentially work against that a little bit. All that said, we stand still ready to engage in a buyback if it made sense on a measured basis, mindful of our credit metrics. At the moment, when you triangulate around what's the best use of our capital, development still figures today to be our best use of capital. Got it. That makes sense. I know it's been a long call, so thanks for the time and the transparency. With that does conclude our question and answer session for today. I would now like to turn the call back over to Tim Naughton for his brief closing remarks. Tim? Thank you, Ally, and thanks, everybody, for being on. I know we've been on for a while. Thanks for all of you that hung in there for an hour and 45 minutes. Look forward to seeing all of you or many of you virtually rounds here over the next two to three months. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. With that does conclude today's call. Thank you for your participation.