Good morning, and welcome to Q3 2023 BXP Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'll now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, to Helen Han, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, and welcome to BXP's third quarter 2023 earnings conference call. The press release and supplemental package were distributed last night and furnished on Form 8-K. In the supplemental package, BXP has reconciled all non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure in accordance with Reg G. If you did not receive a copy, these documents are available in the Investors section of our website at investors.bxp.com. A webcast of this call will be available for 12 months. At this time, we would like to inform you that certain statements made during this conference call, which are not historical, may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Although BXP believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements were detailed in yesterday's press release and from time to time in BXP's filings with the SEC. BXP does not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements. I'd like to welcome Owen Thomas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Doug Linde, President, and Mike LaBelle, Chief Financial Officer. During the Q&A portion of our call, Ray Ritchey, Senior Executive Vice President, and our regional management teams will be available to address any questions. We ask that those of you participating in the Q&A portion of the call to please limit yourself to only one question. If you have an additional query or follow-up, please feel free to rejoin the queue. I would now like to turn the call over to Owen Thomas for his formal remarks. Thank you, Helen, and good morning, everyone. Today, I'll cover BXP's operating outperformance in the third quarter, key economic and market trends impacting our company, and BXP's capital allocation activities for the quarter. BXP continued to perform in the third quarter despite escalating negative market sentiment for the commercial real estate sector. Our FFO per share was once again above both market consensus and the midpoint of our own forecast. We completed over 1 million sq ft of leasing in the third quarter, with a weighted average lease term of over eight years and increased portfolio occupancy despite a weaker operating environment for most of our clients. We completed multiple company and asset-specific financings, both elevating our liquidity position and demonstrating BXP's sustained access to the capital markets. Moving to the economy. Notwithstanding the Federal Reserve having increased the discount rate 5.25 percentage points, and the ten-year U.S. Treasury having risen nearly 3%, all since the since March of 2022, the U.S. economy's headline statistics remain remarkably strong, with GDP growth at 4.9% in the third quarter, 336,000 jobs created in September, and the unemployment rate steady at 3.8%. This rosy economic picture is misleading, as it does not accurately reflect the market tone and operating environment for many of our clients. Assuming forecasts for negative earnings growth in the third quarter are accurate, S&P 500 annual earnings growth has been negative for the last four quarters. Much of the recent strength in GDP has been consumption-related, and job creation has been in the leisure and hospitality, healthcare, education, and government sectors, not in the office leasing sectors such as information and financial services. Our clients are corporations that actively manage their headcount and operating expenses in times of weak or negative earnings growth, and as a result, they are more cautious in making new space commitments. Though remote work is obviously not helping space demand, we believe economic conditions are the primary driver of our slower leasing activity in 2023, and leasing will rebound when earnings growth returns. We continue to be encouraged with the return-to-office trajectory we are experiencing in our buildings, as well as the rhetoric and actions of many of our clients with respect to their in-person work policies. We believe broadly reported turnstile data from Kastle Systems, indicating buildings are generally 50% occupied versus pre-pandemic levels over the course of a whole week, is a measure of aggregate human activity important to cities, but is not an accurate measure of premier workplace space utilization. We collect turnstile data for approximately half of our 54 million sq ft portfolio, and as of mid-October, for Tuesday through Thursday, our New York City buildings experienced 95% of the turnstile activity achieved before the pandemic. Those figures for Boston and San Francisco were 74% and 45%, respectively, and the space utilization data in all our markets continues to improve. Workers in premier workplaces are returning to their offices in greater numbers... and it is difficult for users to reduce space if all employees are expected in the office on specific days of the week. Lastly, and importantly, all office buildings are not the same. We share in our IR materials every quarter, CBRE's report on the performance of the premier workplace segment of the overall office market. In the five CBDs where BXP operates, premier workplaces represent approximately 18% of the total space and 10% of the total buildings. At the end of the third quarter, direct vacancy for premier workplaces was 12.4% versus 17% for the balance of the market. Also, for the third quarter, net absorption for the premier segment was a positive 500,000 sq ft versus a negative 600,000 sq ft for the balance of the market. For the last 11 quarters, net absorption for the premier segment was a positive 8.1 million sq ft versus a negative 30.8 million sq ft for the balance of the market, and asking rents are 44% higher for the premier workplace segment. Including two buildings undergoing renovation, 94% of BXP's CBD space is in buildings rated by CBRE as premier workplaces, which has been important in driving the increasing office attendance statistics in our buildings and is a critical differentiator for BXP in the leasing marketplace. Now, moving to private real estate capital markets, U.S. transaction volume for office assets in the third quarter was muted, dropping 48% from the second quarter to $4.4 billion, the lowest quarterly level of office transaction activity since the first quarter of 2010. Investors in the sector face material uncertainties in both office demand due to factors previously mentioned, as well as the cost and availability of debt financing. The ten-year U.S. Treasury has been and is rising and approaching 5%, and consensus market sentiment currently believes rates will be higher for longer, given pernicious inflation. Most U.S. lenders are trying to reduce their exposure to commercial real estate loans and have limited available lending capacity for repayments. No sales in BXP's core markets were completed in the third quarter of significant assets that would be considered premier workplaces. In Boston, there were three completed office transactions, all under $100 million of reasonably well-leased assets that sold for $290-$690/sq ft and 6.7%-7.5% cap rates. In Santa Monica, the Pen Factory, a fully leased 220,000 sq ft redeveloped creative office complex, sold for $178 million, representing pricing of over $800 a sq ft and an 8.4% cap rate. The existing leases in the asset have term but are significantly above market and seller financing was provided. In New York City, a user is under agreement to purchase the 400,000 sq ft vacant Neiman Marcus store at 20 Hudson Yards for $550 million, or $1,375 a sq ft. In the Financial district of San Francisco, there are four sales, either completed or pending, for buildings that are or nearly vacant. Each sale is for under $65 million, and pricing ranges from $120-$320/ sq ft. These deals reflect many of the characteristics prevalent in today's non-Premier office sales market. Entrepreneurial, in many cases, family office buyers attracted by the low per square foot values relative to historical levels, small transaction sizes requiring less capital and likely not involving debt financing, and renovation plans designed to take advantage of future leasing market recovery. Moving to BXP's capital market activity for the third quarter, we completed a restructuring of our investment in Metropolitan Square, a recently renovated 657,000 sq ft office building located in Washington, D.C. BXP owned a 20% interest in and provided leasing and management services for the asset, which was encumbered by a senior loan of $305 million and a mezzanine loan of $115 million. The existing mezzanine lender now owns a 100% interest in the property, with BXP continuing to provide management and leasing services. Further, a new undrawn $100 million mezzanine loan has been structured to fund future leasing, operating, and other expenses of the property on an as-needed basis. BXP has a 20% interest in the new mezzanine loan, which is subordinate only to the $305 million senior loan and will receive interest at a 12% annual return. BXP will continue to earn leasing and property management fees, as well as an attractive return with potential incentive fees for providing additional capital to stabilize the asset. We also experienced a $36 million gain as a result of the transaction. In the coming quarters, given the negative sentiment toward the office industry, which spills over into the much better performing premier workplace segment, we believe BXP will be presented with unique opportunities to expand its portfolio on an attractive basis. Our balance sheet remains strong, and we have maintained access to capital, primarily through the unsecured debt markets available to few public and private competitors. Our portfolio is outperforming peers due to its attractiveness in the market when competing for clients, the hallmark of a premier workplace portfolio. In anticipation of the current market distress in our sector, we have been positioning BXP to play offense for the past year by raising $4.1 billion in gross funding and currently holding $2.7 billion in liquidity. In search of opportunities, we're maintaining continuous dialogue with lenders that are foreclosing on or restructuring assets, as well as owners seeking to reduce their office exposure. Our focus will remain in our core markets on premier workplace assets, life science, and residential development. During the last major downturn caused by the global financial crisis, BXP was able to acquire the General Motors Building, 200 Clarendon Street, 100 Federal Street, and 510 Madison Avenue, all at attractive prices at the time. On dispositions, we continue to pursue additional capital raising through joint ventures with select pre-lease developments and to consider incremental asset sales. Our development portfolio continues to create FFO growth for BXP. This quarter, we placed fully into service a 104,000 sq ft renovated and fully leased building at 140 Kendrick Street in Needham, Mass. This redevelopment, completed for a client with stringent sustainability objectives, was delivered with net zero carbon performance and generating an 18% first-year yield on incremental capital invested. We also delivered into service 751 Gateway as part of our Gateway Life Science Park, which is a 231,000 sq ft lab building that is fully leased. BXP owns a 49% interest in the asset, which was delivered at a 6.7% first year return on cost. BXP continues to execute a significant development pipeline with 11 office, lab, retail, and residential projects underway. These projects aggregate approximately 2.8 million sq ft and $2.4 billion of BXP investment, with $1.4 billion remaining to be funded and are projected to generate attractive yields in the aggregate upon delivery. So in summary, despite strong negative market sentiment, BXP had another productive quarter with financial performance and leasing above expectations and a stable dividend. BXP is well positioned to weather the current economic slowdown, given our leadership position in the premier workplace market segment, our strong and liquid balance sheet with access to multiple capital sources, our significant development pipeline providing growth, and our potential to gain market share in both assets and clients due to the current market dislocation. Over to Doug. Thanks, Owen. Good morning, everybody. Client demand across our portfolio has remained pretty stable over the last quarter, but final leasing decisions are taking longer, pretty consistent with what Owen's talking about, relative to challenges with regards to the profitability of corporations. Our buildings continue to see the most activity from financial services, professional services, law firms, administrative services, and asset management. Traditional technology demand continues to be absent from our markets, and more times than not, renewing technology clients are reducing their leased premises. This is most prevalent in our West Coast properties. Pretty much the same picture that I pointed last, painted last quarter. Growth from the AI organizations in the city of San Francisco is real. More than 700,000 sq ft of leasing has occurred in the past few weeks, and there have been billions of dollars of recent investment into this growing ecosystem. For now, that leasing is focused on large, well-built opportunities that are available at significant discounted terms relative to the rents being achieved in premier buildings. Reducing availability is a positive for the broader San Francisco market, but it's not going to impact leasing at Embarcadero Center in 2024. The concentration of strongest user demand, often with growth for our assets, is still, broadly speaking, alternative asset managers, private equity, venture, hedge funds, specialized fund managers. These companies are growing their teams and capital under management. This pool of clients typically wants to occupy premier workplaces. To illustrate the point, during the third quarter, we completed a 15,000 sq ft expansion for a hedge fund in Manhattan, a 52,000 sq ft multi-floor lease with a private equity firm growing in our portfolio in Manhattan, a 70,000 sq ft asset manager growing in our portfolio in Manhattan, and an expansion for a 21,000 sq ft private equity firm in D.C. Our strongest activity remains in our Midtown Manhattan portfolio, 200 Clarendon and the Prudential Center in Boston, the urban core of Reston Town Center in Northern Virginia, and our Embarcadero Center assets in San Francisco. We don't have direct availability at Salesforce Tower, but we hear through the market that Salesforce has interest in their 150,000 sq ft sublet opportunity. Law firms are also an active portion of our portfolio and important clients for BXP. We are in active lease negotiations or LOI discussions with seven distinct law firms in Manhattan, D.C., and San Francisco. Owen highlighted the just over 1 million sq ft of signed leases during the third quarter. Last October, we provided the leasing expectations embedded in our 2023 guidance between 500,000-1 million sq ft per quarter, AKA 750,000 sq ft on average, or 3 million for 2023. Through the first half of the year, we were at 1.56 million, so to date, we're at 2.7 million sq ft. We currently have an additional 1.2 million sq ft of transactions in active lease documentation. I would say we have a high confidence that we will be beating our leasing target embedded in our 2023 guidance of 3 million sq ft. This quarter, the executed leases included 52 transactions, 32 renewals, 20 new tenants. There were five contractions and five expansions among our existing clients, with a net reduction in that pool of about 33,000 sq ft. There were no particular patterns relative to industry or size, given who was expanding and contracting. Breaking the volume down by market, we did about 439,000 sq ft in Boston, 240,000 sq ft in New York, 100,000 sq ft in D.C., and 278,000 sq ft in the West Coast markets. The mark-to-market of the leases that commenced this quarter was down 3% as reported in our supplemental. The mark-to-market of the leases executed this quarter was positive 4%. The starting cash rents on leases we signed this quarter on second-generation space were up 16% in Boston, about 1% in New York, and then down 13% in D.C., 9% in San Francisco, 14% in L.A., and 6% in Seattle. We ended the third quarter with an in-service occupancy of 88.8%, compared to 88.3% last quarter. As Owen said, during the third quarter, 140 Kendrick Street and 751 Gateway were added to the portfolio, and Met Square was taken out. If you remove Met Square from the second quarter, the comparative period occupancy went from 88.7% to 88.8%. So again, modest relevant increase. I would also note that we terminated WeWork on 44,000 sq ft in the third quarter. We expect to have additional portfolio vacancy stemming from WeWork defaults as we move through the fourth quarter and into 2024. Just to remind everyone, WeWork leases 493,000 sq ft as of 10/1/2023. The BXP share of 2023 annualized revenue is $33 million. We don't expect WeWork to exit all the assets, nor do we expect them to remain in place in their current footprint. This will be a drag on 2024 occupancy and same-store contribution. The development portfolio now sits at 2.8 million sq ft, and it's 52% leased. We've recently signed a 70,000 sq ft office lease with an asset manager at 360 Park Avenue South, bringing it 18% leased and another floor at 651 Gateway that is now 21% leased. 100% leased assets totaling 335,000 sq ft were removed and put into service, which accounts for the change in our total leased in the supplemental. At the end of the quarter, we had signed leases that have yet to commence on our in-service vacancy, totaling approximately 750,000 sq ft, with about 425,000 sq ft anticipated to commence in the fourth quarter of 2023. For the remainder of 2023, we have about 925,000 sq ft of expirations. Much of this is uncovered, so we expect a drop of a few basis points of occupancy at year-end. In 2024, we have a very manageable 5.7% of our total portfolio expiration or 2.7 million sq ft. We believe our occupancy will be stable in 2024, defined as up or down 1% quarter to quarter, where we end the year as relative to where we're going to end the year in 2023. We will provide a leasing volume outlook for 2024 along with guidance next quarter. From a broad market perspective, the office supply picture didn't really improve much in the third quarter, with almost every market continuing to experience net negative absorption, Manhattan being the one place where there was some positive. The city-specific office brokerage reports are starting to characterize their markets in ways that acknowledge the bifurcation between the have and the have-nots, and the distinctive trends for premier assets, though they are not publishing their data broadly. The availability in the premier buildings that Owen described is depicting a more constructive picture and BXP relevant view of office supply. What's clear is that new speculative construction, which presumably would be premier, is nonexistent in the marketplace today. Any new construction starts are going to require economic rents, rent, and concessions that are vastly different from the current transactions. The major inputs to a new building are construction hard costs, capital costs, and leasing velocity. Construction costs saw dramatic increases over the past five years, with annual increases in the high single digits. We've seen the rate of increases slowing down, but we have not seen any reduction of costs. Construction financing could be found at SOFR + 200, when SOFR was 25-50 basis points. Today, construction financing for office space is simply not available from traditional lenders. SOFR is at 5.25%, and non-traditional lenders might, and I use the word might, lend at double-digit current interest rates, with additional points up front and lower loan-to-cost caps. Speculative leasing assumptions also assume longer lease up. You put all this into a development pro forma, and you need rents that are materially higher than what is supported by current market rents in every one of our cities. This quarter, we completed a 313,000 sq ft, 10-year renewal in the Back Bay of Boston, four years prior to expiration, at a rent level that both parties found attractive. Our client is using all their space, believes it's a critical component of their overall business strategy, and when they looked out into the market, did not believe that any new construction was likely to be built on a speculative basis. This meant they would need to pay replacement cost rents and sign a lease now, using all the inputs I just outlined, to be in new construction in the Back Bay in four years. There are no 300,000 sq ft blocks of high-rise space available in premier buildings in the Back Bay today. New life science activity in the portfolio continues to be light. During the quarter, we completed our third lease at 651 Gateway for another floor. The property will open in 2024, and to date, each lease requires our partnership to complete turnkey spaces. In Waltham, where we have our other life science new development availabilities, we are seeing some tour activity, but there is no urgency for these requirements. There are a few large requirements that are touring, but as I have discussed previously, the bulk of the immediate demand is from small, private companies that are looking for fully built space. BXP's regional teams continue to lease space and outperform the market because our portfolio is fundamentally comprised of premier workplaces. The majority of the demand, new and existing clients in the market want to be in these types of properties, and we're investing capital in our building infrastructures, amenities, and client spaces, which allow our teams to meet client needs. We are all seeing the stress that many buildings are feeling due to their current capital structure and the reality of the supply and demand fundamentals reflected in the leasing market activity. The transition or recapitalization or re-equitization of these buildings is going to take an extended period of time. Many of these assets are not in a position to commit capital to existing or new tenants, which greatly impacts the leasing brokers' interest in considering them for their clients and offers us for the opportunity to further increase our market share. I'll stop here and turn things over to Mike. Great. Thank you, Doug. Good morning, everybody. I'm gonna start my comments with some discussion on the debt markets and our activity. Then I will go over the third quarter performance and the changes to our 2023 earnings guidance. We had another busy financing quarter this quarter. We extended or refinanced mortgage facilities totaling $570 million. The two largest of these related to our Hub on Causeway premier workplace and retail mixed-use project that's in Boston. First, we exercised the first of two one-year extension options we have on the $337 million mortgage loan on the office tower. And second, we completed a three-year refinancing of the $155 million mortgage loan secured by the low-rise creative office and retail component. We also expanded our corporate line of credit by $315 million to $1.8 billion. We honestly were surprised by the market's reaction when we issued a press release on this earlier this quarter, as it increases our liquidity at a pretty modest cost. We had three new banks approach us, seeking to expand their relationship with us and uptier the quality of their own client base. With so much uncertainty and illiquidity in the bank markets, our view is expanding our roster of banking relationships is a smart move. Last week, we closed on a new five-year, $600 million mortgage loan from a syndicate of banks on a portfolio of three premier workplaces in Cambridge. The credit spread at SOFR + 225 basis points is attractive in today's market, and we expect to use the proceeds to repay our upcoming $700 million bond maturity in February next year. Given the significant recent move in interest rates, we are happy with the timing of our last couple of bond deals, both of which have been below market coupons today. We have no more financing needs in 2023, and we've taken care of a large piece of our 2024 maturities, which is the $700 million bond I just mentioned. Our other 2024 maturities include our $1.2 billion term loan and $400 million at our share of floating rate mortgages. The term loan is also a floating rate, though we have swapped SOFR to be fixed at 4.64% through May 2024. We expect to exercise 1-year extension options that are available on both the term loan and the majority of the maturing mortgages. As you think about our interest expense moving into 2024, you need to account for higher borrowing costs. We are refinancing $1.2 billion of bonds that expired in August 2023 and February 2024, that had a weighted average interest rate of 3.5%, with new financing at an average rate of 7%. Additionally, we've been running with an average cash balance of approximately $1 billion in 2023. In 2024, we expect to fund our development pipeline with available cash and run with an average balance closer to $400 million. At our current earnings rate, this projects to a decrease of approximately $30 million of interest income in 2024. Now, I want to turn to our third quarter earnings results. For the quarter, we reported funds from operations of $1.86 per share. That was $0.02 per share above the midpoint of our guidance range. The outperformance all came from better than projected portfolio net operating income. Revenues were higher than our assumptions from a mix of better rental revenues, client service income, parking, and hotel performance. Our operating expenses were in line with our assumptions. While not impacting our FFO, we did record non-cash impairment charges totaling $273 million this quarter, related to four of our unconsolidated joint ventures. The GAAP rules for unconsolidated joint ventures dictate that if we believe a loss in asset value below our basis is not temporary, the asset is marked to fair value. The definition of temporary is somewhat subjective, but as the length of the current market dislocation extends, it's harder to justify a temporary loss in value. The charges relate to Platform 16, which we discussed last quarter, as well as 360 Park Avenue South, 200 Fifth Avenue, and Safeco Plaza. Given the cyclical nature of the real estate business, the value of assets like these will recover in the future when interest rates normalize and corporate economic conditions improve, and we expect to hold these assets through their recovery. Our past experience reflects this recovery. After the GFC, we took a similar impairment charge, and ultimately, we sold the assets a few years later at a significant gain, not only to the impaired value, but to the original book values of the buildings as well. Now I want to turn to our guidance for the rest of 2023. We have narrowed our 2023 guidance range to $7.25-$7.27 per share, with the midpoint relatively unchanged from last quarter at $7.26 per share. There are two key changes to our guidance from last quarter. First, we're projecting $0.03 per share of higher termination income in the fourth quarter from lease terminations with WeWork at Madison Centre and Dock 72, as they've stopped paying rent in both locations. We have security deposits that cover a portion of the lost rent, which we'll recognize as termination income. The revenue loss is approximately $6.5 million per year until those spaces are re-leased to other clients. They comprise approximately 200,000 sq ft. That equates to about 40 basis points of our occupancy. Second, we anticipate our net interest expense will be higher by approximately $0.03 per share due to lower projected capitalized interest and closing the new $600 million mortgage financing earlier than we had previously expected. We expect to invest the funds in cash equivalents until we repay our bond expiration at the beginning of February, and the negative arbitrage on the funds is about $3 million in 2023. The remainder of our assumptions for the portfolio performance has not changed. As Doug described, we continue to execute leases in line with our expectations, and net of the lease terminations, our outlook for occupancy remains stable. As we look ahead into 2024, we have several developments that delivered during 2023 or will deliver in 2024, that will add incremental FFO next year. These include 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 651 and 751 Gateway, 140 Kendrick Street, 180 CityPoint, and View Boston. However, as I described earlier, we expect our overall earnings trajectory will be negatively impacted by the persistent high-interest rate environment that will result in higher net interest expense in 2024. We will provide detailed earnings guidance for 2024 on next quarter's call in January. That completes our formal remarks. Operator, can you please open the lines up for questions? Thank you, sir. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. We ask that you keep your questions to no more than one, but please feel free to go back into the queue, and if time permits, we'll be more than happy to take your follow-up questions at that time. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. And I show our first question comes from the line of Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks. Good morning. Can you guys just talk about the acquisition or investment environment a little bit more? It still seems like we haven't seen the wave of opportunities that some well-capitalized potential investors, including yourselves, have been hoping for. I guess, are there any signs that opportunities are emerging, and if not, you know, do you have any sense what needs to happen to shake things loose and when that might happen? Then lastly, in general, you know, how much further does pricing need to adjust to make those investment opportunities more attractive from a risk-reward standpoint? Yeah. It's... Oh, and I'll take a crack at that. I think that, as I mentioned in my remarks, I think buyers are concerned about two things. One, how do they underwrite lease up and lease growth, given some of the economic uncertainties that our clients face, as I discussed. And then second, what's their cost of capital, particularly their financing, and can they get financing? So a lot of the deals that are happening right now, as I described, are small, you know, private investors, probably not using much, if any, debt financing, things like that. So I think for... So first of all, I think there's a tremendous amount of restructuring activity that's going on in the market generally. It may not all be reported, but it's definitely happening because there are over-leveraged loans that are coming due all the time. Borrowers are in discussions with their lenders on what to do. So there are lots of those things going on right now. Then I think second, for buyers to get more active, there has to be more visibility on the two uncertainties that I mentioned. I do think, you know, some of the interest rate behavior this morning might actually be somewhat helpful to that, because I do think, a stabilization of interest rates would be very helpful, for buyers to get more comfortable to do transactions. In terms of, you know, how much the price has to drop, I think for the space that we're interested in, which are obviously the higher quality buildings, hard to say, because there's not a lot of transactions that you can look at and say, "What is the pricing today?" But I just don't think—I think our general view at the moment is, all of the negative perspective out there on office is, in our view, at least, irrationally spilling over into premier workplaces, which will create opportunities for BXP. Thank you. I show our next question comes from the line of Nick Yulico from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thanks. I was hoping we could maybe get a feel for, in terms of the impairments, that were done for the JVs, if there's any sense on, you know, how much the unlevered asset values may have changed in that impairment analysis? Sure, Nick, this is Mike. You know, the information in our supplement, I don't want to go through those details right now, but there is information in our supplemental that provides kind of what the change in the net equity values are on those assets, so that you can, you can determine that. You know, overall, from our perspective, this is an accounting adjustment that we felt we needed to make, based upon the accounting rules for unconsolidated joint ventures. I don't think it necessarily reflects a meaningful change in the prospects of these assets other than Platform 16, which we talked about last quarter, where we're stopping construction. You know, the other ones, you know, we looked at every one of our joint ventures, just like we do every quarter, and given the kind of higher for longer and the rates, our view is that, you know, these rates are going to be this high, and it's not necessarily going to be temporary. Temporary to us is like, is it more than a year or not, basically. And so we looked at everything, and there were three other ones that just kind of got tripped. So we reflected those, and those three other ones were smaller. Platform 16 was clearly the biggest one by far, because if you start looking at the kind of discounting the cash flows for a land development deal until you're actually going to build it, the discount rate that you would use on a development rate, which is pretty high, has a significant impact on the value. Thank you. And I show our next question comes from the line of John Kim from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you. Doug, in your prepared remarks, you, you talked about occupancy basically remaining stable next year, despite another year of a very favorable backdrop, 2.7 million sq ft expiring. Your pipeline is 1.2 million sq ft. That happens to be your quarterly average. So I was wondering what new move-outs are there that you see next year and anything else, any other tenants besides WeWork that will be a headwind to breaking out of that 88%-89% occupancy range? Yeah, so there, there's a difference between no move-outs and tenants being a headwind. So because tenants that are moving out are not moving out because they're, quote unquote, "potentially in financial difficulty," right? So the only tenant of significance that we have in our portfolio, which is obviously having financial challenges, is WeWork. There are some smaller tenants, you know, 25,000 or 30,000 sq ft, that we have every year in our portfolio, who don't seem to have a business plan that's going to be, you know, long-term in nature, and ultimately, they give up their space. But those are de minimis. The portfolio of expirations next year actually are not—there aren't any enormous ones. There are a couple on the West Coast and a couple in the greater Manhattan and, you know, or our New York City region, about 250,000 sq ft in Princeton and just over 200,000 sq ft at the building that we have on Folsom in San Francisco. And then we're going to lose about 75,000 sq ft of space from an expiration with Trulia/Zillow at 535. And those are really the only large ones other than our joint venture property at 250, sorry, Times Square Tower, where O'Melveny & Myers is moving out of about 250,000 sq ft, but we've covered already, you know, 75,000-100,000 sq ft of that expiration. It's not any sort of large particular roll out that's driving our stability sort of comment. It's three different kinds of leasing we do. We do leasing where we have available space that we lease, and that leasing typically involves a build-out. And in our marketplaces today, those build-out periods tend to be extended, meaning we're looking at not knowing whether or not the tenant will be in occupancy in six months or nine months or 12 months, and we can't typically book revenue on those particular assets and therefore increase our occupancy until those occur. And that's why we started providing this leased but not yet in service statistic, which is going to grow over time, and you'll see a lot of that, I believe, in 2024. So it's not going to impact our occupancy, but the leases are signed. The second kind of leasing we do are tenants that are renewing, and they're renewing, you know, in a relatively short period of time, meaning the next 12 months, and those immediately hit. The third type of leasing that we're doing is for leases that may be expiring in years post the 2024 expirations. So, as an example, I described the 300,000 sq ft deal that we did this quarter, which was for 2028. So our leasing volumes, I believe, will continue to be at a relatively strong level for the economic period that we're in, but it's going to be. It's stubborn to sort of get that occupancy up in the short term. I've said this in our-- in the one-on-one calls and in our presentations that we've made at NAREIT and other invest-- you know, analyst meetings, which is that our West Coast portfolio is really where the opportunity is to drive enhanced occupancy. So the space that we have available at Embarcadero Center and what I just described at Folsom Street and at 535 Mission Street, as well as some of the availability that we now have because of lease terminations in Seattle and Madison Centre, down and at Colorado Center in West L.A. Those are really the sort of bigger blocks of space that we have in terms of overall volumes that will drive a outsized opportunity for growth, as opposed to where we are now, which is we're sort of, you know, treading water at this sort of 88%-89% level, and we're going to make some marginal improvements, and then in one quarter, we may have a little bit of degradation because we have a particular tenant moving out, but we're making it up. So that's sort of the state of our views as we look at 2024. Thank you. And I show our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb from- Yes, she does. She does. ...Piper Sandler, Mr. Goldfarb, your line is open. Great. Thank you. Morning down there. So question on development. In the release, you guys talked about an extension until February 2024 for your 25% stake in the 3 Hudson Boulevard, in the land loan that's under 3 Hudson, and at the same time articulated your optionality on the MTA site. Just looking at the two projects, you know, the MTA site would seem to be, like, the winner, just given the focus on Grand Central, Park Avenue, whereas 3 Hudson just seems like a more challenged deal, given the economics of trying to lease up, you know, that building at the necessary rent, given the size of that building. So as you guys think about the upcoming land loan on 3 Hudson, is that something that you would consider just sort of exiting instead of pursuing? You know, in mentioning the MTA optionality, you know, should we take that as considering that maybe you guys would not proceed forward with the MTA site? Yeah. So, Alex, this is Doug, and I'm gonna let Hilary give you the most detail on this. I would just make the following comment, which is, we don't think one's a winner versus the other. I think it's clear that the timing opportunities associated with one are probably shorter than the other in terms of when we might actually get something going. But I'll let Hilary describe the demand for space in new buildings and also the challenges associated with, you know, getting those deals going. Hilary? Thanks, Doug. Hi, Alex. As Doug noted, the two buildings are very, very different opportunities. 3 Hudson Boulevard is a 1.8 million sq ft building, whereas 343 Madison is currently still in the design process, but let's just call it 850,000-900,000 sq ft building. Some of the demand that is currently in the market actually could not be satisfied by 343 Madison. There are a few tenants in the market that are 1 million sq ft, that are actively looking for space, and they would need a larger building than what can be constructed at 343 Madison. To Doug's point, in order to build such a building, those clients would have to be willing to pay a rent that generated an acceptable return on cost to us at 343 Madison. Those decisions in this capital market environment take time for clients or prospective clients like those to make. The prospective client base at 343 Madison, by definition, is somewhat smaller. There's plenty of demand among clientele in that square footage range as well. And again, the question really comes down to who's willing to commit to the project at the rents needed to launch the development. But I view them as distinctly different opportunities and opportunities that serve different segments of the market. So hopefully that answers your question. But I agree with Doug, I wouldn't characterize one as better than the other. They're just very, very different, opportunities. Thank you. I show our next question comes from the line of Michael Griffin from Citi. Please go ahead. Great, thanks. Owen, I think in your prepared remarks, you mentioned some assets you're considering for sale. I'm just curious if you can quantify what kind of IRRs buyers are looking at, and kind of where pricing would need to be in order for you to effectuate on any of these potential sales? Well, I think it varies, Michael, widely, depending on the quality and location of the asset, the leasing status of the asset, the WALT of the asset. You know, I think borrowing costs today, you know, with the 10-year, I guess it's dropped a little bit today, but, you know, pushing 7%, you know, at a... I think for the highest quality assets, you're definitely above that, and for an asset that has a lot of leasing and other risk associated with it, I think you're looking at double-digit return. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith from UBS. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks a lot for taking my question. Owen, you mentioned in the prepared remarks about how BXP's tenants are more cautious in the space commitment, and many of the traditional macro indicators may not accurately reflect what's going on in your business. So recognizing that different cycles have different drivers, what metrics do you think might more accurately reflect the business now, and are the ones that you're monitoring so we can follow along at home? Thanks. Well, I think this is part of something that's been confusing in the marketplace, because generally, when you have a recession, companies' earnings are down, and they lease less space, and that's how cycles have traditionally operated for office companies, because leasing slows down when you have a recession. Here, it's confusing because it's very different. All the economic indicators look favorable: GDP growth, employment statistics. But if you dig into those statistics, you know, it's a lot of it's consumption-related, and a lot of the job creation isn't in office-using jobs. And then, if you look at earnings, which is what our clients are looking at, is their own earnings trajectory, it's negative. It's been negative for the last year, assuming the third quarter is negative. So that is the driver of client behavior. If you're, you know, the CEO of a company, and your lease is coming up, or you're thinking about your space requirement, you know, your decisions about that are gonna be very contingent upon what you think the future prospects of your business are. And many businesses are negatively impacted by rising rates and some of the uncertainty in the economic environment. So, you know, that's the backdrop. And so I think coming back to your question, I think certainly lower rates will help. And I think as earnings generally rise, I would expect that our leasing activity will rise with it. Mike, this is Doug. I would just say that the best measure of corporate activity as it relates to the business that we are in is job growth. Job growth, typically, you know, is a little bit murkier. You can look at the employment numbers, but you really have to get into the specific industry categories, right? So government and hospitality are not gonna be favorable to office, but financial services or technology or life sciences are going to be. As you start to see the job listings start to perk up a bit, and you start to see hiring announcements by many of the larger technology companies and some of the financial institutions, which, you know, do, in fact, broadly talk about those things, you will clearly see, you know, a more, I would say, conducive environment for office leasing on a going-forward basis. Thank you. And I show our next question comes from the line of Jason Wayne from Barclays. Please go ahead. Good morning. You said in your prepared remarks, you don't expect WeWork to exit all of their assets. So just wondering where you expect them to stay. And then, you previously said that WeWork security deposits average eight months of rent. Is that a good number to think about when looking at termination income moving forward? So, I'm not gonna get into, a, you know, conjecture on where WeWork-WeWork is gonna decide their-they have their productive units and where they, where they do or, or where they don't. As Mike said, at the moment, they have stopped paying rent on two of our locations, which are at Madison Centre in Seattle and at Dock 72 in Brooklyn. And we have three other locations with them, which are in San Francisco. So that's the universe. And the, you know, the decision as to what they are going to do, I think, is gonna take some time, and they're gonna have to figure it out, and then we're gonna have the decisions to make as to whether or not, we're comfortable with, you know, with whatever they propose to us and/or taking the space back. So I think that it's impossible for me to tell you when they're where they're gonna exit and where they're not gonna exit. Mike, you can talk about the security. Yeah, I think on—I mean, you're correct on the security deposit, because we said that before, that we have about eight months of security. And if a tenant defaults, we send out a lease termination, we execute that lease termination with the client. And if there's a security deposit, we get that, and we book that all on the day that we get it. If the tenant—the client is gonna stay in the space for another 90 days or six months, we might have to amortize that over that period of time. The one thing I would add is that in the fourth quarter termination income guidance, there's two pieces to the termination income. One is the termination income we're gonna be collecting, that I described, but also at Madison Centre in Seattle, their lease is way below market, so there's what is called a fair value adjustment to the rent. And in order to take that off our balance sheet, we book that as income. So about half of that termination income is this fair value. It's kind of a non-cash concept. And the concept is that once we get that space back, either at termination or at natural maturity, we will be able to re-lease that space at a higher market rent. So hopefully, we'll be able to do that. Thank you. I show our next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to circle back, Owen, on the distressed opportunities. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense from you as to kind of where you would need to peg stabilized yields in order to deploy new BXP capital, given you're trading, you know, 10 x cash flow and north of an 8% implied cap rate. And then, just from a market perspective, could any of those opportunities take you to any new markets, like say, a San Diego or Austin, to the in addition to the existing markets? I'll answer the second first, and then come back to your first question, Steve. So we don't think we need to go to any new markets. You know, we have a very significant footprint in our six core cities. And in fact, one of the things that's going on now, which we have been talking about for several years, is that the vacancy rates in certain areas of the Southeast and Southwest are actually higher than many of our core markets, because of all the new development that's going on. So we don't see a need or reason to expand outside of our footprint. Coming back to your question about returns, we're gonna focus on the premier segment of the market, and, so I think it's likely that the types of assets that we'll get involved in are unstabilized. So I'm not sure that the way to look at it is cap rate, but the way to look at it is total return. And, you know, I think that the, the total return requirement, you know, on a, on a particular acquisition that we would look at would be, you know, pushing double-digit returns. Thank you. I show our next question comes from the line of Caitlin Burrows from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Earlier, you guys talked about how you're opting to repay the $700 million of unsecured debt with mortgages collateralized by Cambridge Properties at SOFR + 225. So what did you consider when opting for secured floating rate debt beyond just price? Was it price mixed with kind of BXP mix of debt or anything else? And I guess in that decision, you were considering 10-year bonds, so what pricing do you think you could issue 10-year bonds at today? Thanks. So this is Mike. Look, we evaluated all the different markets when we decide how we're gonna do a refinancing. And the credit spreads in the secured markets for very high-quality assets with long lease terms, we found is better than what the credit spread we can get from the bond market. So our bond spreads right now, for 10 years is about 285. For five years is probably 270 kind of area. So we're saving a lot in credit spread. You know, the other opportunity I think we have is, you know, we're doing a floating rate deal. We haven't fixed it. We do have the opportunity to fix it via swap, and we're gonna evaluate when and if we do that, as we kind of look at what's going on with interest rates over the next, you know, period of months. And if it becomes evident that SOFR is gonna, you know, be dropping significantly by the Fed in 2024 and 2025, we may keep it floating. If we see an opportunity to fix it, you know, because there's some sort of dislocation between the swap markets, we may fix that for a period of time. So I think it provides some flexibility that way. And also, a floating rate mortgage is prepayable. So if the market gets better for long-term debt two years from now, we can prepay this and do a long-term fixed rate deal at that time. It does have some advantages that, you know, we looked at when we decided to do this bank financing. Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Upal Rana from KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you. Doug, you went through some of the supply and sublease space availability in your prepared remarks. And given the elevated levels of supply, and sublease space in your markets, you know, potential tenants have a lot more to look at today. Do you have a sense of how much of the available space is in direct competition with your buildings? And even though some of them may not be premier buildings, your potential tenants may be looking at them. I'm trying to get a sense of why tenants may be deciding to choose between your building versus others in today's environment, and if they're being more price sensitive today versus, or it could be something else. Yeah. So, so this is what I refer to as one of these sort of layup questions that I'm gonna allow our, our regional teams to answer, 'cause I, I think that they, they will be more, they will be passionate about their responses. But in general, what I would tell you is not all space is the same, and there are many, many buildings that have either direct availability or sublet availability that are literally not part of the, the conversation. And so as you think about micro submarkets, getting down to, you know, a, a market like Park Avenue between 43rd Street and 59th Street, or you're talking about an asset in, in the CBD of Washington, D.C., that has views and is in a premier building, you would be surprised at how, how small the universe of opportunities may be. So why don't I. I'm gonna let Rod talk about the issues associated with, you know, the availability in San Francisco and what we're really dealing with, and then I'll let Bryan talk about Boston. Rod? Yeah. Hello, everybody. So there's definitely sublease space. There's a lot of it, as everybody knows, in San Francisco, and some of it is higher-end space. In fact, that's where a lot of the bigger deals over these last two years have actually happened. Some of them have been in our own buildings. 680 Folsom, for example, Macy's.com, had roughly 240,000 sq ft available, and they leased all of it during the pandemic, subleases. So the good space that has been out there has attracted some attention. But by and large, there's so much more of it that is not high quality and has either got no term left on it or it's got poor sponsorship with weak sublessors. So those spaces are very difficult, and they're not gonna compete with, we're not gonna compete with them, for sure. A tenant that's interested in those types of spaces is not gonna go to any premier building. Yeah, I would echo the same thing. I just had a brokerage dinner last night and with tenant rep people, and each of them expressed the same issue, which was for their top-end clients, premier clients, they're having trouble with fewer locations to review. And it's not only just the amount of locations that they think are appropriate and that a lack of desire to do a sublease, and most of our sublease space tends to be in lower floors in this market right now. There's also the question of, for the first time, I'm seeing tenant rep people really underwriting the landlord's capability to fund TIs, and that hasn't happened in a long time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Dylan Burzinski from Green Street. Please go ahead. Morning, guys, and thanks for taking the question. I guess just going back to your comments on acquisition opportunities, are there certain markets that you guys are looking at that you are getting more excited about deploying capital in today's environment? The way we think about this is we set top-down a perimeter, which we have, which is our six markets. In terms of specific investments, that is a bottoms-up process and a more opportunistic process. So we're open for business everywhere, and it just depends on the opportunity, and we want to allocate capital to the best opportunities. That all being said, you know, as you've heard from our remarks and you see in our results, it's easier to underwrite leasing activity in our East Coast markets, particularly in New York and Boston, than it is in our West Coast markets. So the assumptions that we would use in underwriting deals would obviously be more challenging on the West Coast, given the market behavior. Yeah, I just want to add one thing, and then maybe I'll let Hilary comment on this for New York, which is there is no question that the overall amount of demand in the market in the, you know, what I would refer to as sort of the Park Avenue District of New York, which is this area between call it 43rd Street and 59th Street, you know, Park, Madison, Lexington, a little bit of Fifth Avenue, is by far the strongest market from a demand perspective we're seeing in the country. There are still really, really challenged opportunities in that market that are going to have to get resolved relative to the capital structures that these buildings are currently operating under. You are not going to be able to, I—in my opinion, replace the mortgages that were put on many of these buildings, including, you know, B's and mezzanine capital and preferred equity, at to the same level, which means there's going to be an equitization requirement, and that's going to potentially create opportunities, which, by the way, as, as I know, both Owen and Mike said, that's why we were able to acquire the General Motors Building in 2008. That's why we were able to acquire 510 Madison Avenue. Hilary, you may want to just sort of talk about what's going on in, you know, in Manhattan. Sure. Thanks, Doug. So as Doug mentioned, there are, you know, a number of high-quality assets in really desirable submarkets, the Park Avenue corridor, really all the way up to where the General Motors Building is, that are underwater on their financing and are having difficulty rationalizing, putting capital into the buildings to support leasing opportunities. And so we're really getting a lot of inbounds from the perspective of, you know, clients know that we have a strong balance sheet, they know that we're not over-levered, they know that we can commit capital to leasing. So that's inuring to our benefit, and we're watching those situations where capital stacks are upside down, which may potentially present an opportunity for us. But again, to the point that Owen and Doug have raised, we would only really be interested in the highest quality assets that are Premier workplaces, consistent with what we already own. I would tell you there's at least a handful of those situations in Midtown that we're tracking. Thank you. And I show our next question comes from the line of Peter Abramowitz from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. One or two of your peers have mentioned just potentially some pressure on operating margins going forward, as return-to-office mandates have more of an effect and more people are in the office. Just wondering if you could talk about that, potentially how we should think about that for your portfolio moving forward? I'm gonna be sort of tongue in cheek. We don't have any peers. We are who we are. And we operate our buildings in a very different way, and we've been operating our buildings with an expectation that our buildings are fully occupied for the last couple of years. So return to work and increase occupancy, in my opinion, is gonna have no impact on our margins. What will have an impact on our margins are what I would refer as the sort of atmospherics out there, which are, you know, how will the labor rates associated with union contracts for janitorial work, work their way out? Will the insurance markets continue to be challenging relative to the number of, you know, weather-related events and how that's impacting the desirability of, of the insurers to provide insurance? What will the municipalities do relative to, you know, their, their tax burden and valuations? Because valuations are clearly coming down, right? And so how will that be reflected in, in their desires to increase their rates? All of those things, I think, are gonna have some degree of pressure on margins. They're not gonna have pressure on margins on an incremental basis. It's gonna be over a period of time, because either our leases are triple net or they're gross with an operating base, and that operating base is set based upon the existing lease. So until you get the rollover, you don't really have that impact on your overall flow. And in general, if you look back historically over the past decade, my guess is the margins for BXP are somewhere in the mid to high sixties, and they haven't really fluctuated very much. I don't think that is an issue. Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Camille Bonnel from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning. So despite your FAD payout ratio picking up this quarter, I know this FAD is on track this year to deliver one of its best years. As we head into year-end, using third quarter as a base, are there any factors we should be considering that could impact it after considering the FFO changes you highlighted? And can you help us understand how your FAD growth has generally kept pace or outpaced FFO, given how office is such a capital-intensive business? Thank you. Thanks, Camille. I'll take that one. So, you're right. I mean, our AFFO has held up really well. In fact, you know, I anticipate that it's gonna be, you know, somewhere between 5%-10% higher than it was last year. And the primary reason for that is two things: One, we had a lot of free rent that burned off last year with some large leasing that we had done. And, you know, that became cash rent this year. So that really helped our AFFO. And then our lease leasing expirations in 2023 were lower. So we actually had to do less leasing to maintain the occupancy that we had. So our lease transaction costs are also a little bit lower. I think in the fourth quarter, we will see some incremental CapEx. If you look at the first three quarters of CapEx, it's not really where we would have a typical run rate for CapEx. So I think, you know, our teams out there are trying to get everything done. So I do think that our CapEx will be a little bit higher in the fourth quarter. But overall, I mean, if the guidance for AFFO would be something like, you know, $5 and $5.20 is what we're looking at, you know, which I think is pretty solid. So the run rate a little bit lower in the fourth quarter than it has been, basically due to kind of catching up on the CapEx items that we've planned but haven't quite been completed yet. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ronald Kamdem from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, just wanted to zoom in on the life sciences segment. If you could talk about, what's activity or the pipeline is looking like, and if you can comment on large tenants versus middle and smaller users, would be helpful. Thanks. Sure. So again, the breadth of our life science activity is our property at 651 Gateway, which we're in partnership with Ares. And there, the only significant demand that we've been seeing is from small tenants, meaning, you know, single floor type tenants that are looking for turnkey build-outs. And then our other life science opportunity is the two buildings that we have in the greater Boston marketplace, 180 CityPoint, which is just completed. And when anybody goes there, they are blown away by sort of what it provides, not just from a life science infrastructure, but actually from a human infrastructure in terms of the amenity base that that building provides to any client and why they would want to be in a building like that, and then our other building at 103 Fourth Avenue. I would say we're seeing consistent tour activity, you know, a couple of tours every week or so. And they are, these are, I would refer to as shoppers, not buyers, right? They all have a potential use for space. Some of them are lease expiration driven, some of them are related to potential opportunities for successful drug, you know, discovery from a commercialization perspective, and therefore, added capital and therefore ability to hire more people. But they are being very, very cautious, and it's an elongated process. And for the most part, those tenants are privately funded organizations. There are a few publics out there. There's one or two sort of large organizations that are, you know, I would say, trawling around in the greater Boston market as well as in San Francisco, that are... I think they are the same names you would have—you probably would have heard 18 months ago, looking for space, and they have yet to make a decision. And they could, at any time, make a decision, or they could continue to postpone. So again, it's a, it's a relatively slow process, and the demand is like the demand was, call it, back in 2014 or 2015, relevant to the demand that we were all experiencing in 2019, you know, 2020 and early 2021, where it was just explosive. Yeah, for Boston, Doug's description is spot on in terms of the underwriting of what we're seeing. I would add, over the last two weeks, we have seen some encouraging amount of tour uptick and in size as well. Not huge, but mid-size, 30-60,000 sq ft, a couple. And then also, we've been encouraged by the quality, as Doug mentioned, of these clients. Thank you. I show our last question comes from the line of Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi, yes, good morning, everyone. Just, if you could make any quick comments just about your outlook on life sciences, is this an area you think you might lean into more as we go into 2024? Are fundamentals still somewhat uncertain, and it's an area where you may not do as much in? Any commentary would be appreciated. Thank you. Okay. So I'll assume that the comments that I just made are not meant to be repeated. So let me take a different tack, which is: we are not planning on starting any new life science activities in any of our marketplaces given current conditions. That being said, we have opportunities to build some fabulous life science buildings on land which has virtually no basis in it. Therefore, we have a, quote, unquote, "cost advantage" at some point, if there is demand. When there is that demand, we will sequentially start to think about how we might be attractive to tenants that are looking for buildings, where the economics would justify the new construction of the life science relative to where the market economics are. But in the short term, meaning 2023, 2024, there's gonna be absolutely no expectation for us to be starting a new life science building. There are a couple of places in our portfolio where we have existing office installations, where there's actually some interested life science demand. Were a tenant to show up and say, "Hey, we want 40,000 sq ft in this particular location, would you consider putting the infrastructure in for the building to allow us to do light or heavy lab research?" We would consider doing that, depending upon the credit of that company. Those organizations, you know, could be anywhere in our portfolio. But absent that, what you see is what you get relevant to our existing life science platform. Thank you. And I show we have a question from the line of Jamie Feldman from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Great, thanks for taking my question. I guess since I'm last, maybe if I don't mind, if you humor me, I can ask two. First is, you mentioned San Francisco b ack to 45% of its turnstile activity. I mean, how do you think that plays out over time? You know, that's a meaningful difference from what you said New York is at 95%... And then secondly, what are partners saying? Like, you know, capital potential capital partners saying in terms of wanting to put money to work in office. Is it more conversion activity? Are there certain markets just, you know, are they starting to think about writing checks here more aggressively? Yeah. So, Jamie, I'll take a crack at it. Definitely the Bay Area and actually, I'd just say the West Coast, Seattle is, it's true, and L.A. as well, the turnstile activity is slower. I think that is primarily driven by the behavior and policies of the technology client base. They have been less forceful and less prescriptive about having workers come back to the office. That all being said, the activity is increasing, and I think it's going to continue to increase, just more slowly. So, what was the... What second part of your question was? Private equity. Private equity. So look, there is, I would say, certainly much more limited interest in the private equity industry today, generally for office. That's why you're not seeing much transaction activity. As I mentioned in my remarks, the, you know, most of it is being driven by, smaller investors, family offices, groups that are seeing the deep discounts that are being offered in the market and are not needing debt financing. That all being said, I do think that, sophisticated private equity investors understand the difference between a premier workplace and a, typical office asset. And I do think for the right asset at the right price, there will be institutional interest in those kinds of assets. Yeah, Jamie, this is Doug. What my sort of add-on would be, the capital that's right, currently aggressively thinking about office, is thinking about trading, right? They're looking at, "Ooh, there's an opportunity for us to get in and then get out at a much higher basis." And these are trading sardines, not eating sardines. We are in the eating sardines business in general, you know, in our portfolio. So we're looking at these things on a long-term basis. Finding a capital partner that is today saying, "Okay, now I wanna jump in, and I wanna invest money for a duration of 10 or 15 or 20 or infinite years," is certainly more problematic in terms of just desirability because of the nervousness associated with the overall fundamentals. However, there are some, right? Owen and James Magaldi, you know, went to, you know, their various parts of the country of the globe this summer and had constructive conversations. We are having constructive conversations with other capital from other parts of the world that are coming into the United States. It's a slow, slow process, and I can't tell you that there's a transaction that will get consummated with BXP, with one of those capital partners in the next couple of months. But there, there are opportunities, and as Owen said earlier in his original comments, we are talking to some JV partners about putting capital into some of our assets right now, that would, I think, be the kind of capital that we would look at as long-term, you know, quality, institutional capital that is not looking to trade for a profit. That is what we're focusing our time and attention on. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Richard Anderson from Wedbush Securities. Please go ahead. Yes, thanks. Using Jamie's logic, maybe I could sneak in three questions in some last, but I- four, if you want. So, Owen, you know, getting back to, you know, being prepared to take advantage of the marketplace. Sounds like mostly individual assets you're focused on, but could there be smaller portfolios, or dare I say, companies, either private or public, or is that just - does that just get too complicated? And I wonder if you could share some sort of dollar value of the pipeline of opportunities that you're looking at today. Yeah. I'm not gonna rule anything out, but I do think the reason that BXP has 94% of its portfolio in premier workplaces is the portfolio has been curated one asset at a time, either through acquisition development and also through our disposition activity. So I think single asset activity is more likely. And I think it's difficult to put a dollar value on what we're looking at. I mean, we're our job is to be in dialogue with owners of assets that we're interested in and lenders to assets that we're interested in, and these dialogues are fluid, and I think it's really hard to put a number on. Thank you. I show no further questions in the queue. At this time, I'd like to turn the call back to Owen Thomas, Chairman and CEO, for closing remarks. Thank you. We have no more, formal remarks. I wanna thank everybody for their time, attention, and interest in BXP. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for attending. You may all disconnect.