Good morning and welcome to the Healthpeak Properties second quarter 2025 conference call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press the star, then the number one on your touchstone phone. To withdraw your question, again, please press the star, then the number one. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Andrew Johns, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Today's conference call will contain certain forward-looking statements. Although we believe the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, these statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, particularly materially, from our expectations. Discussion of risk and risk factors is included in our press release and detailed in our filings with the SEC. We do not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements. Certain non-GAAP financial measures will be discussed on this call, and in the exhibits of the 8-K we furnished to the SEC yesterday, we have reconciled all non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in accordance with Reg G requirements. The exhibit is also available on our website at healthpeak.com. I'm now turning the call over to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Scott Brinker. All right. Thanks, Andrew. And welcome to Healthpeak's second quarter 2025 earnings call. Our CFO, Kelvin Moses, is here with me for prepared remarks, and our senior team is available for Q&A. I want to start by thanking our entire team for another quarter of excellence in execution, one of our We Care core values. In addition to their normal responsibilities and strong financial results, our team completed an enterprise-wide technology upgrade after more than a year of planning and testing. The new platform will improve the integration and availability of data, increase productivity, and provide a foundation for rapid deployment of additional AI capabilities. All right. Let me touch on the political and regulatory environment. The reconciliation bill signed in early July should be a first step in reducing the uncertainty that has impacted our sector. As is often the case, the reality was far better than the attention-grabbing headlines earlier this year. We were pleased to see the changes made to drug pricing for rare diseases and favorable tax treatment for research and manufacturing. Both changes helped promote biopharma investment here in the U.S. In our outpatient business, the impact of the Medicaid cuts should be pretty immaterial given our locations and our attendance payer mix. More important is a recent proposed rule from CMS to the so-called inpatient-only list. Current policy requires surgical procedures to be performed in a hospital unless explicitly approved by CMS for an outpatient setting. In other words, the default option is the hospital. The proposed rule would reverse that, and the default option would be to allow the outpatient setting. This would be very positive for our business Our decision to internalize property management continues to be a strategic and financial success. Next month, we'll internalize 2 million sq ft in Boston and 1 million sq ft in Texas. One of my strategic goals has been to bring us closer to our real estate, and I love the fact that our own employees are now interacting with our tenants on a daily basis. We've been able to remove layers of oversight and bureaucracy, generate profit, and augment relationships with our tenants. Last week, we received our most recent tenant satisfaction scores, which showed year-over-year improvement and are well above industry averages. Our focus on customer service helps drive high retention rates and release-in spreads. I'd like to give some color on second quarter results in each of our business segments, starting with outpatient medical. Same-store growth, retention, and release-in spreads were all near record levels. The aging population and consumer preference for convenient, lower-cost settings is driving demand for our buildings. Meanwhile, new supply is at the lowest levels we've seen in two decades. That dynamic is favorable for Healthpeak, with the largest footprint in the sector and industry-leading tenant relationships. By design, we have significant concentration in markets like Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Denver. We'll continue to grow in these core markets, deepening our competitive advantage in geographies with the highest potential for internal and external growth. To that point, we recently closed on two large outpatient development projects in Atlanta, representing $150 million of projected spend. Atlanta is one of our biggest and most important outpatient markets, supported by our relationship with Northside Hospital, a fast-growing and highly successful regional health system. The new developments are anchored by Northside Outpatient Services and Physicians and are 78% pre-leased before commencement of construction, with a strong leasing pipeline behind that. We expect to achieve a mid-sevens return on cost, generating significant shareholder value relative to acquisition cap rates on such high-quality assets. In our lab R&D business, we're beginning to see at least a few leading indicators turn positive. Spec new supply is quickly going to zero and should remain there for quite some time. A recent broker report showed more than 4 million sq ft of inventory being removed from the supply pipeline as certain landlords who lack scale and expertise pursue an alternative use. On the regulatory front, new leadership at the FDA are making changes to promote innovation and modernization. That amount of change creates a bumpy transition, but the landing point should be positive for the biopharma sector. In particular, the cost and time to bring a drug to market in the U.S. could come down, improving the return on cost for R&D taking place in our lab buildings. We've also seen a couple of $10 billion M&A deals recently, which allows capital to be recycled back into the ecosystem. Those M&A exits, along with political and regulatory stability, should help jump-start public and private capital raising, which is the key to an improvement in new leasing. Moving to our CCRC business, which experienced record leasing volumes last quarter. Our strategic decision to increase affordability with our unique entry-fee structure broadened our demand pool and differentiated our product. The CCRC portfolio is residential housing for independent seniors with significant amenities and a continuum of care available on-site. Our net entry fee is just 60% of the local median home value, representing a strong value proposition for our residents. The portfolio is now generating approximately $200 million of annual NOI, including cash entry fees, which incredibly is 50% higher than in 2019 before the pandemic. Our decision to bring in LCS as the operator has been an important part of that spike in performance. With current occupancy at 86%, we have more upside to capture. Okay. Let me turn it to Kelvin for financial results and the balance sheet. Thank you, Scott. I'll begin with a brief update on how we're positioning the operating platform to lead in this next phase of execution for Healthpeak. Today, we are a very different company than we were three years ago, with more than 60% of our team now directly engaged with our tenants and focused on delivering a differentiated customer experience across our properties. Our entire company is committed to enhancing our client service model, laying a strong foundation for sustained long-term value creation through operational excellence. With the internalization of property management largely complete, we've shifted focus to scaling our real estate operations capabilities. We are implementing a strategic plan that enhances operating procedures, refines lease documents, strengthens training and support programs, and elevates brand service standards to deliver a best-in-class experience for our clients and tenants. This commitment to operational excellence will further set Healthpeak apart from competitors and positions the platform to capture investment and leasing opportunities not available to the broader market. We're also well underway in advancing a near-term action plan to deploy artificial intelligence tools designed to optimize daily operations and enhance visibility into asset performance. These tools will empower our team with real-time insights and will allow us to implement solutions that ensure consistent performance, deliver practical efficiencies, and streamline processes. We look forward to sharing relevant updates on progress on future calls. Now, moving into our second quarter results, we had another overall strong quarter of financial and operating results. We reported FFOs adjusted of $0.46 per share, AFFO of $0.44 per share, and total portfolio same-store growth of 3.5%. In our CCRC business, we reported same-store growth of 8.6%, driven by rate growth of 5% and higher entrance fee sales. We continue to be pleased with the execution by our operating partners, the strength of our team, and the performance of our high-quality portfolio of assets. Moving to outpatient medical. Our results this quarter reflect the focus that our leadership team has placed on positioning our portfolio for success, cultivating the strongest tenant relationships in the sector, and capitalizing on the continued strength and fundamentals we're seeing across the business. This quarter, we achieved 85% tenant retention, delivered a positive rent mark-to-market of 6%, and reported same-store cash NOI growth of 3.9%. During the quarter, we executed over 1 million sq ft of leases, including approximately 200,000 sq ft of new leasing. That represents 2 million sq ft of execution through the first half of 2025 and a strong pipeline to follow. Additionally, we executed another 419,000 sq ft of leases in July, and we have 682,000 sq ft under LOI. Finally, lab. We continue to focus on capturing outside share of the available demand in the market and converting our pipeline into executed leases. For the second quarter, we reported same-store growth of 1.5%, a positive rent mark-to-market of 6%, and tenant retention of 87%. We executed 503,000 sq ft of leases in the quarter, which included approximately 85% renewal leasing, and brings our total lease executions for the first half of 2025 to approximately 780,000 sq ft. Additionally, we executed another 55,000 sq ft of leases in July, and we were under LOI for another 250,000 sq ft. Total occupancy declined by 150 basis points this quarter, primarily due to natural lease expirations and tenant departures following unsuccessful capital raises earlier in the year. Onto the balance sheet. In June, we retained $450 million of senior notes with proceeds from our commercial paper program. We ended the second quarter with net debt to adjusted EBITDA of 5.2x and nearly $2.3 billion of liquidity. As we look ahead to the remainder of the year, we will opportunistically monitor the bond market to refinance our commercial paper balances and further strengthen the balance sheet. Balance sheet discipline will continue to be a core long-term strategy, and we expect to preserve optionality to invest where we have identified opportunities that will enhance our portfolio quality and generate attractive returns. Before we move into Q&A, we wanted to briefly touch on guidance. Based on our strong overall performance in the first half, we are reaffirming our FFOs adjusted and same-store cash NOI expectations. Our CCRC portfolio continues to benefit from strong market fundamentals, and with year-to-date same-store growth of 12%, we're now on track to exceed the high end of our segment guidance. Outpatient medical, our largest business segment, continues to achieve strong tenant retention and re-leasing spreads, which were up to 6% in the second quarter. That performance is supported by a robust leasing pipeline that positions this portfolio to the high end of our initial segment guidance. We remain confident in the execution from our team and the balance of our diversified portfolio, which we expect to deliver results within our overall same-store growth range despite what we are experiencing broadly in the lab sector. Over the coming months, I look forward to continuing to meet and engage with our equity and fixed-income investors. With that, Operator, we can move into questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then the number one on your touchstone phone. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star, then the number one again. So that everyone may have a chance to participate, we ask that participants limit their questions to one and a related follow-up. If you have additional questions, please re-queue. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from the line of Nick Yulico with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. I guess first question is on the lab segment and the same-store occupancy decline in the quarter. I was hoping you could just break it out a little bit more between the impact from, as you said, expirations where there were not renewals. It felt like the retention ratio might have been lower than your trailing 12-month number. And then versus the bad debt or tenant default issue that seems like it might have happened in the quarter. Thanks. Hey, Nick. This is Kelvin. To give you a little bit of context there, over the quarter, we had about 280 basis points, 290 basis points of same-store occupancy decline. If you think about it from a total occupancy perspective, that breaks down to a component of that, about a third of that impact was a result of space that we reabsorbed due to tenants that had expiring leases. Another third of that was a result of some tenant migration that we did within the portfolio. We expanded some tenants, relocated some tenants, and took certain space back in that process. The kind of remaining component of that would be attributable to tenants that were unsuccessful raising capital in the beginning of the year that ultimately we had to work out of the portfolio. It is probably a third, a third, a third impact with respect to the occupancy. Okay. Thanks. Second question maybe for Scott is, we're just thinking about sort of the focus of the company. I mean, you did launch some new developments in outpatient medical. How are you sort of thinking about using the balance sheet right now? I know you put on pause some of the debt investments or in lab. You were sort of waiting on some better opportunities maybe there from a pricing standpoint. The stock is weak today. You have stock buybacks as an option as well. Just kind of latest thoughts on capital allocation. Thanks. Yeah. Hey, Nick, you cut out a little bit. Hopefully, I caught the gist of your question. But maintaining a strong balance sheet is priority number one on capital allocation. And we have done that. We'll continue to do that. Sometimes that includes opportunistic asset sales. We did a lot of that last year. We could always consider that this year. I think the demand for outpatient medical in particular remains really strong in the private market. So there's always things that we could do there. It's a very high-quality portfolio. That would be in demand. Buybacks, obviously, we've been active. We've done $300 million in the past, call it 15 months. And we do that opportunistically. If we have the balance sheet capacity, it's something that we prioritize at a certain stock price, which you've seen historically and you'll continue to see as an option. The two outpatient developments were extremely attractive, and that's one reason we try to maintain such a strong balance sheet is so that we have the capacity on our balance sheet to capitalize on those opportunities. And there's more of that in our pipeline. So those are interesting. And life science distress at the right time is going to be an enormous opportunity. We've built up a pretty big pipeline. Late in 2024, after a really solid year of leasing, and it looked like fundamentals were moving in the right direction. Obviously, the regulatory environment, the first six months of the year or so, changed our outlook, our near-term outlook. If anything, it just makes that opportunity set bigger and ultimately more attractive. At the right time, that's going to be an enormous opportunity for us. We'll be patient and thoughtful and disciplined in terms of when we turn our attention to the distress that we're seeing. Okay. Thanks. Your next question comes from the line of Farrell Granath with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you so much. My first question is about, you just mentioned the one-third of unsuccessful capital raising. For those tenants, just trying to think about going forward for the second half of the year, how much foresight or maybe leftover impacts from that specific bucket would you expect to maybe weigh on the occupancy? Yeah. Maybe I'll start with a little bit of context from Scott's earlier points. I think for the beginning of the year, we saw a little bit of a slowdown in the capital markets for life science, but there's been a number of positive events that are encouraging that have happened as of late. The M&A activity has been strong. You've seen some great prints there from Merck and Sanofi. You've also seen the secondary market open back up for tenants. We think it's important to highlight those kind of positive signs that we're seeing in the capital recycling. No doubt it's been a bit challenging for tenants to raise capital. We have some tenants in our portfolio, a small number of them, that are relying upon raising capital at any given time. Those tenants could fail as a result of failed science. They could fail as a result of inability to access the capital markets. Disproportionately so, the capital markets were largely unavailable for a period of time. We'll have some headwinds for the balance of the year from an occupancy perspective, but to quantify that at this point would be challenging. Hey, Farrell, let me give one additional perspective on this topic because. The overall ABR from the company, including the CCRCs, I mean, you're talking about $1.6 billion-$1.7 billion. The vast majority of that is credit tenants. When you really look at the portion of the portfolio that would be more at risk that you have to monitor, it's small-cap biotech in certain of our private tenants. It's 10% of the portfolio. Look at the top 20 in our supplemental. The vast majority of those are credit tenants, whether they're health systems or global biopharmaceutical companies. It's a very well-diversified portfolio. The smaller biotech companies are clearly part of our business. There's a huge list of success stories there that start out at 10,000 sq ft, 20,000 sq ft, Series A type companies that now have 200,000 sq ft-400,000 sq ft in the portfolio. They're cyclical. They're very dependent on capital raising and obviously scientific outcomes. It's been a tough capital market for the last six months, and that's had an impact. We get the benefit of that when the capital markets are strong. I think you saw that in 2024, the first six months of this year were the opposite. Obviously, that's flowing through, but keep in mind the diversified portfolio, and we just maintain our earnings guidance. I think you just want to keep in mind the broader perspective. This is a point in time that same portfolio base of small and private biotech tenants could become very valuable to us once the capital markets turn in our favor. That obviously will inevitably happen. The last 30 days have been a lot more positive. We just reported second-quarter results, which is April 1st to June 30th. The month of July has been a lot more favorable, whether it's the reconciliation bill. The XBI has traded more favorably. The commentary out of the FDA has been more favorable. A couple of very, very large M&A deals that allow capital to be recycled into the sector. Those are all really positive leading indicators. That doesn't translate into second-quarter results, obviously. We feel a lot better about some of the building blocks that we're seeing in the business today than we did three months ago. Definitely. Thank you so much for that extra color. I guess the other part of your portfolio, the MOBs. Similar with how you maybe broke out what kind of was going on with the life science occupancy decline. Can you just speak a little bit more on the MOBs and maybe some of the tenants that chose to not, or at least the type of tenant that chose to not renew? Hey, Farrell. This is Mark Theine. Our occupancy across the outpatient medical portfolio, 91%-92% is a very strong occupancy. We typically have 80% retention. And the types of tenants that do not renew, sometimes it is tenants that, I mean, we physically cannot accommodate their growth because of the occupancy of the building. There is just some retirements here or there across the building, but there is not any one particular type of non-renewal across the portfolio. Our hospital retention is fantastic. We are really focused on our leasing results, keeping strong retention, lease renewal spreads, and continuously great occupancy as we fill up the portfolio. Great. Thank you so much. The next question comes from the line of Austin Wurschmidt with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks. Just going back to lab a little bit. Scott Brinker, I guess. Trying to sum it all up, I mean, how much of these issues that you saw this quarter, the credit issues at hand, do you view as backward-looking and kind of will continue to work its way through the credit stream, if you will, versus there could continue to be challenges for that 10% of the portfolio that you flagged if capital market volatility picks up again and leasing new space just isn't really a top priority versus preserving capital? Yeah. The interesting thing about the tenants that did not make it is that they were not new companies. The average age of the companies that had early terminations was 15 years. That was the median age as well. This was not a bunch of startups that were funded and should not have been in 2020 during the COVID boom. These were companies that had very significant backing from brand-name venture capital or kind of the billionaire tech backing. Very well-known names that have raised capital five, six, seven times in their lifespan during that 15 years. In many cases, the technology itself was purchased out of the bankruptcy, meaning that it was not a failure of technology, truly rescaling the business, starting over from a lower cost basis. When companies fail, it is either the science fails, and that does happen no matter what the capital markets are, or they cannot raise the money. Across the board, what we saw year to date is that the companies just could not raise the money. You can point directly to the capital raising environment. Obviously, that could change quickly. There are still companies that we are monitoring. It is not going to go to zero overnight. If the last 30 days that we have seen the sentiment turning more positive, if that continues, that would be obviously hugely important to reducing the amount of bad debt in the portfolio, but more importantly, to turn the direction on new leasing. That will happen. It is a matter of time, but the last 30 days have been a lot more favorable and optimistic. That makes sense. I guess it's just trying to kind of ring-fence the companies that have maybe yet to see a credit issue pop up. Like you said, you're still monitoring how significant of that 10% is that figure and kind of the timeline that they have, three to six months until they need to be able to raise capital. Separately, I'm just focusing on that new leasing within lab, the 503,000 sq ft. I think you said 85% was renewal activity, which implies about 75,000 sq ft of new leasing. For the bucket of renewals, which I think is about 425,000 sq ft or so, how much of that was early renewal activity? Are those full or partial lease renewals for the out years? Thank you. Yeah. This is Scott Brinker. On the renewals, they're probably a little more heavily weighted to in-place renewals that are happening near the end of the expiration. We did do some a little bit further out where we had tenants who were looking to grow. We were able to expand them within campuses in the portfolio, take additional space, and extend their existing lease term. Yeah. Part of it depends how you define early. I mean, I think you see in our supplemental, we get a lot of information on the maturity profile for each business segment by year. And the 2026, 2027, 2028 maturities all came down this quarter in life science because we addressed a number of those early, which is good portfolio management. Obviously, we get better terms on a renewal. It is just, I think, good proactive asset management, portfolio management on those early renewals. Yeah. Those early renewals tend to come with very low capital as well. How significant were the expansions that you saw? I guess, were there any space give-backs? What is kind of the net impact of that? I'm just trying to understand, does that show up in the new leasing, that 75,000 sq ft? Because it is an expansion, or do you bucket that within the 85%? The expansion space would show up in the new leasing. Correct. Understood. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Seth Bergey with Citi. Please go ahead. Thanks. It's Nick Joseph here with Seth. Scott, you mentioned a few leading indicators turning positive for life science. One of those was supply coming offline. Did you deem that space as competitive, or was this more space that maybe was being marketed towards life science that your leasing team wouldn't have considered competitive for tenants that you're going after? Mostly space that was less competitive. We haven't seen any directly competitive space go offline, but we have seen some directly competitive space start to market towards alternative uses. Whether they ultimately go in that direction, we'll see. There is a much larger number than 4 million that could ultimately go a different direction than lab. Thanks. And then just on MOBs, you mentioned the strong interest in the private market. You talked about the stabilized yields that you're expecting. Where are you seeing cap rates kind of across different quality levels within MOBs today? Most of the transactions for the types of assets we own will be in the 6%-7% range. There may be some that break through 6%. The vast majority of what we own are good quality assets. That would be the range of, I think, cap rates, stabilized cap rates for assets in our portfolio. Life science is a lot harder to pin down, as we've said, for a couple of years now. Certainly, long-term leases with credit tenants in a location are still in demand, and there's a buyer for that. There's a buyer for upside opportunities, empty buildings, someone willing to take some risk and pursue a higher return. Everything else in between, there just haven't been nearly as many trades. It's a lot harder to specify a cap rate for something like that. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Juan Sanabria with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. I was just hoping you could talk a little bit about the development pipeline. It looks like you lost a couple of pre-leases of Directors Place, Science Park, and Point Grand. Just looking for a little bit of color there. As part of that, if you could talk about how we should think about capitalized interest going into next year. Yeah. On the Directors Place project, we've been working with a tenant that had been in our portfolio for about 15-plus years that was in the process of raising capital. We were planning alongside of that capital raise to relocate them to Directors, which was a lower-cost space for them, supporting their business. They ultimately were unsuccessful raising capital for reasons that we described earlier. That resulted in the pre-leasing come down for that project. At Point Grand, I mean, the takedown there is we delivered two assets out of redevelopment there that were 100% leased. Any comment on capitalized interest and how that should trend going forward, just given the moving pieces? I think it's fairly substantial this year. Yeah. As the projects come online, it'll trend down. Some of that's going to be offset by the leasing activity that we've had in the portfolio. It'll certainly start to trend down as some of these projects get started and come online. We're in the process of entitling Vantage and Cambridge Point in Alewife. Those are obviously large projects that are in the early stages of entitlement and design. As those commence over time, specifically as we get Hines to start working through the residential component of the Cambridge Point development, that'll help start to reduce the capitalized interest. Just one other quick question on CCRCs. It looked like the occupancy on a same-store basis dipped sequentially. Was there anything to call out there? It was a bit behind some of the broader NIC data. Just curious on the driver of that. Nothing unusual, just typical seasonality. I mean, all the profits from that business come from the independent assisted memory care components. The continuum of care that we offer does include a skilled nursing component. It is a small number of units. It is seasonal. We really do not do Medicaid. It is almost exclusively private pay and Medicare, about half and half. The Medicare business is obviously seasonal and short-term in nature for the patients in terms of how long they stay. Every second quarter, we have a sequential decline. There is nothing unusual there. That business just continues to perform exceptionally well. Our independent census was actually up quarter over quarter. It was up year over year. The leasing momentum there is still really strong, good pricing power, good expense control. I would not read anything into the occupancy quarter over quarter other than typical seasonality and great performance with a lot more upside to capture in that business. Perfect. Thank you very much. Yeah. The next question comes from the line of Vikram Malhotra with Mizuho. Please go ahead. Morning. Thanks for the question. I guess just bigger picture, you mentioned the 10% of at risk. I'm not sure if that's after the kind of 130 volume seen impacted. I guess the question is, if you assume you see another quarter of a similar amount of credit risk, what do you need to see in the MOB side to keep sort of the overall guide intact for this year? I mean, the guidance range that we just reaffirmed includes the bookends of where we see potential outcomes for this year. Outpatient and CCRC continue to outperform. Hopefully, there's more upside to capture. Life science, obviously, still has some downside risk, but it also has upside opportunity. We've got a fair amount of space that's ready for occupancy that could commence fairly quickly if the capital markets turn around. There are some tenants that we're still watching carefully that could go the wrong direction if they don't raise the capital. The guidance range we reaffirmed does include the two bookends for the potential outcomes we see. Got it. That's helpful. Just on the $500,000+ leasing on the life sciences side, I guess how much is new leasing versus sort of renewal and early or future renewals or early renewals? Do you mind, is there a way you can give us some sense of how the pipeline looks? Yeah. Vikram, I'll take this one. I think in the prepared remarks, you may have missed that 85% of that 500 sq ft-3,000 sq ft of leasing was actually renewal leasing. It is followed up by a very strong leasing pipeline. Scott, you're welcome to give some color on that pipeline. We have 55,000 sq ft of leases that we executed to start the month of July and another 253,000 sq ft under LOI and a pipeline of activity to follow that. We think, given the number of green shoots that we've seen, that continues to be promising. Scott, anything to add? Yeah. No, on the LOI side, I mean. It probably favors new deals over renewals. In contrast to kind of what we did this quarter. Okay. Great. Sorry, just one clarification. I do not know if you can give us some—you mentioned the bookends of the guide. I create kind of the—I have the upside, downside. Just on the lower end, are you able to sort of give us a rough sense of how much more occupancy loss would have to happen to hit that low end in the life science segment? Let me say first on occupancy. We have started giving a total occupancy number because that's the number that we spend the most time on. Same store is kind of an industry requirement and standard. In our life science portfolio, we have a fairly large development and redevelopment portfolio as a percentage. That's really what moves the needle for earnings. We could see some additional deterioration through year-end. If you just look at the disclosure, we've got 500,000 sq ft left in the year for 2025 expirations, and roughly 100,000 of that is either under LOI or in negotiation. There's 400,000 that probably comes out. We do have some signed but not yet occupied leases that we'll get the benefit of through the balance of the year. The tenants that we're monitoring and how many of those make it versus don't will depend on the next six months in the capital market environment. Those are the moving pieces. We probably will see a bit more occupancy deterioration through year-end, Vikram. Great. Thank you. Yeah. The next question comes from the line of James Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for taking my question, filling in for John here. I guess just to start, going back to some of your comments at the outset of the call, you talked about a software upgrade and improving your AI capabilities. Can you talk more about how you think AI can—what the impact of AI could be on your business over the years that come? What will change as a result. Across your business lines? Yeah. I'll start on this one. No surprise that we're all experiencing the evolution of AI real-time, and it's evolving very quickly every day. What we're seeking to do as a company is to ensure that we are building our business alongside of that evolution of AI. We think about it in two ways. One, how do we create practical efficiencies for the team and empower the team through more proximate access to data and enhanced decision-making through data analysis? Where we are today, I'd say relative to many other of our peers, we've invested considerably over the years in our technology. We're certainly not starting from zero to take this next step. We've been deploying very recently some of the commercially available artificial intelligence applications throughout our organization, including ChatGPT and Copilot. We've built a strategic roadmap that'll help us really utilize our kind of structured data and accelerate our platform with access to that data. We're building upon what's commercially available. We think that's going to allow us as a company to get closer to our tenants, be more efficient team by team, but also to enhance our capabilities. There's more to come on that as we make progress, but we're very early on in the kind of execution of that plan. James, maybe I'll— Can you quantify the life science? Oh, sorry. Oh, go ahead, James. I was just saying, is there a way to quantify operating margins or revenue opportunities? It sounds like you're— There certainly could be some revenue opportunities. Yeah. I think it's a little bit too soon to quantify those on this call, but certainly something that we'll follow back up on. We think there's tremendous opportunity to leverage AI throughout our business. Okay. And then you kind of rattled off a laundry list of regulatory updates. Mostly positive. Can you just talk about if there's any way to quantify what you think the opportunity could be, whether it's a shift in the business you focus on or just better revenue? I think you sounded most upbeat about the inpatient-only list from CMS. If you could talk about that. And then the changes, drug pricing for rare diseases and the favorable tax treatment for research and manufacturing. Also, we know that we're still waiting on Trump to announce the most favored nation's list for prescription drug pricing. How do you think about the potential pressure from that on your business and life science investing? Yeah. That was a laundry list as well. I'm trying to remember those, James. Those are good questions. They're all very important. On most favored nations, we'll see. That's a complex topic. We have the benefit and the curse here of a healthcare system that's more capitalism-based model. That's not the case necessarily overseas. That has pluses and minuses. The reality is Americans do pay more for their healthcare, including drugs and therapeutics, than overseas countries, even though most of the innovation is happening here. That probably isn't completely fair. If there's a better allocation of the profits moving forward, that should be beneficial to U.S. consumers and perhaps even for the biopharma companies. The details of ultimately where that lands, that's a very complicated dynamic that it's too early to speculate. Some better cost-sharing of the revenue and the profit generation between the U.S. and overseas, I think, would be healthy for the U.S. and for the ecosystem. That feels like there's some upside there, but highly complicated and would take some time. The R&D expenses. I mean, think about the $400 billion a year of capital that is invested into research and development. That's a rough number. There's a pretty big impact between a one-year depreciation schedule and a five-year depreciation schedule for cash flow-based investors. That's huge. The same is true of manufacturing. You've seen hundreds of billions of dollars of announcements from numerous companies announcing plans to build manufacturing here in the U.S. Obviously, those tax incentives are an important part of those plans. That all feels positive in the growth and stability of the biopharma business here in the U.S. All that should be beneficial for us. On the inpatient-only rule. When you change the default option, that does make a difference. That does have an impact. That's exactly what our portfolio was built for. We don't invest in strip centers with primary care physicians or dentist offices. I mean, no offense to those businesses. Those are necessary parts of our health system. We've really made a strategic focus on higher acuity, scaled outpatient centers with imaging and surgery and higher acuity procedures. That's exactly what the inpatient-only list is targeted towards. We've seen orthopedics make a massive push toward an outpatient setting over the past five years, really driven by COVID. Then everybody found out, actually, this is more efficient. It's lower cost. Patients prefer it. The outcomes are better. Now the vast, vast majority of outpatient care accommodates all the orthopedic procedures. There will be additional items added to that list. Cardiology is probably the next major category that moves into an outpatient setting, which is perfect for us. All right. Great. That was super helpful. Sorry, just to follow up on the R&D piece, I know there's a bunch of projects, but regionally, market-wise, where do you think the—where do you think the puck is going if you had to make regional or even MSA bets on where you'll see the most R&D construction? R&D or manufacturing, just to be clear. I get followed on your question. Yeah. Manufacturing, most of that probably goes to lower-cost geographies. Those tend to be highly specialized buildouts. I'm not sure how much that construction really matches up with our business. That is commercial-scale manufacturing. You also have clinical-scale manufacturing, and that could be an important part of our business. That is more likely to reside within or near the R&D headquarters, which is the three core markets. We've already seen a pickup in activity there. That does feel like an opportunity where there is manufacturing, but it is clinical scale. It is much smaller versus the millions of square feet of commercial-scale manufacturing. We have a few of those, but I would not say that our business plan is to start developing highly specialized commercial-scale manufacturing in the middle of Indiana. I mean, no offense to Indiana. I love the Midwest, but that is just not probably where we are taking our business. In life science, the R&D, we love our market position in the three core markets, given the increasing interconnection between technology, including AI, and science and biology. Most of that talent happens to be in the three core markets, the Bay Area in particular, but Boston secondarily and probably San Diego as well. Those become inseparable as the business moves forward, and the amount of talent in the Bay Area in particular to help accelerate the biotech business, I think, will prove to be a huge strategic advantage. Okay. Thank you so much for all your answers. The next question comes from the line of Michael Carroll with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks. Scott, I wanted to touch on your comments that many of your tenants in the life science space that defaulted during the quarter, they had their technology bought. I guess, if this was the case, how did they get out of your lease? I mean, did this happen in a bankruptcy scenario so they could reject the lease, or just did it coincide with the lease expiration? No, they either went through the bankruptcy process or the ABC process. I mean, there's not much explanation other than that. That's just the way our system works. You can essentially start over as a company from a liability standpoint and even asset standpoint. They're just buying specific assets out of the bankruptcy process. No more complicated than that. Okay. I know it's hard to quantify the potential credit headwinds that you guys might have in the second half of this year. Can you help us understand, I guess, what are the give or takes here? I mean, how long have the tenants that you're watching been trying to raise capital? I guess, what's the reasons that they will or won't be able to do it? I mean, is it really driven by an improving macro backdrop and things loosening up, or is it more company-specific that they need to hit certain milestones and have certain data for people wanting to give them money? I would say it probably has more to do with the macro backdrop. These companies are out there currently in the process of seeking to raise the capital. If interest rates move in favor of the market and we continue to see the public equity market respond the way that it has over the last couple of weeks, that could create opportunity for folks to raise capital. I think it's more of a market-driven exercise than it is specific milestones in their business. Just last one for me, I guess. What's the quality of the space that you're getting back from these move-outs? I mean, are you going to have to put money in or put these in the redevelopment to kind of position them to release them to another tenant? I guess, Kelvin, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there like a 275,000 sq ft space that's identified redevelopment? Is that included in the 489,000 of expirations you have left in 2025? I'm not specifically sure which space you're referring to, but maybe to hit on your first question, it's really a mix of spaces. We have space that's ready to be released when we get it back in great condition. And there's others that tend to have been in for 10, 15, 20 years that's going to require some capital investment. So it's really a mix on that front. Almost exclusively core submarkets, mostly on campuses. I think the comment Kelvin makes, that would apply to the interior buildout. The submarket itself, these are high-quality assets. I mean, I think you all know we did not stray out into the tertiary areas or do a bunch of conversions even at the market peak. It is a high-quality portfolio. It will release. Some will require some capital, but it is not 2 million sq ft of availability that we can go lease out. Hey, Michael. Great. I want to go back to your second question on the tenant fundings and the milestones. I mean, one thing that's important to remember too is we have a lot of tenants who have been able to raise capital. And we had two great fundraisers, one fundraiser and a partnership that were announced yesterday within the portfolio. A lot of these tenants are, whether it be milestone-based or partnerships with pharma, are actually raising the capital they need to continue to run their business as well. Okay. Great. Thanks. The next question comes from the line of Wes Golladay with Baird. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, guys. Are you seeing much in the way of AI leasing demand in your submarkets that's taken out competitive supply? Yeah. I can take that. Hey, Wes, Scott Bohn. Obviously, these are our number one focus. Our focus is leasing our buildings to lab tenants that are going to utilize the robust infrastructure. That said, we cast a wide net. If there was an office user, whether it be AI or traditional office, and they have the appropriate credit and we can, the economics are accretive, it's a deal we'll certainly look at. I think as a percentage of the total demand in our core markets, the material amount of demand coming from AI or traditional offices is pretty low. I would say our buildings and the building infrastructure we have also works very well for other R&D uses with less traditional lab or R&D use in R&D. We're actively in discussions with users in those categories as well, where it's more dry lab, robotics type of uses, but less AI within our core markets. It is sucking up some of the vacant space in the Bay Area in particular, though. I mean, our South San Francisco portfolio would have competed with Mission Bay. Historically, a lot of that "lab availability" is being sucked up by AI demand. That should be a net positive for our South San Francisco portfolio in particular. Okay. I want to go back to that comment about the potential enormous opportunity in lab acquisitions. Would there be any market that you're looking to add scale to gain better efficiency? Would you look to target recent developments or older assets? A bias towards newer assets and a bias towards our core submarkets. We have a very concentrated portfolio that's allowed us to gain a competitive advantage versus competition over the years. We'd like to deepen that advantage. The local scale has enormous benefits in the business, as long as you're in the right submarket, obviously, which we think we are. They would likely, if not exclusively, be in markets that we're already in. Just a quick follow-up on that. Would it be more like leaning more on Torrey, East Cambridge, or anything more specific? We're pretty concentrated in the markets that we're in. I mean, I think we're in six submarkets, essentially, even within the three core markets. I mean, those are the submarkets where we're going to spend most of our time. Okay. Thanks. The next question comes from the line of Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, just had two quick ones. Just staying on some of the submarket commentary. I think all the things that you mentioned that are positive for life science leasing demand. Just curious, are there any submarkets that you would expect to recover first? Which submarkets would have just overall the biggest upside? Just trying to understand which recovers first and which potentially has the biggest upside from sort of the commentary you mentioned earlier. Sure. I can talk a little bit about kind of how we view each of the submarkets in general. In the Bay Area, we've seen generally stable demand. I think there, obviously, we have the most, the biggest magnitude of portfolio. We continue to capitalize on that, which brings us deals that aren't otherwise marketed. The Bay Area, South San Francisco, especially with our portfolio, has been pretty healthy and continues to be. San Diego, we've seen an uptick in the past 30 days, certainly in tour activity. The bulk of that has been sub-25,000 sq ft or roughly. I think that we talked about the barbell demand going back the past several quarters. I think San Diego has the biggest barbell of demand. There's been several large deals in that market. One, obviously, got executed recently. I think our vacancy in that portfolio in that market tends to be in the sub-25,000 sq ft range from a suite perspective. I think we're in a good spot there. Boston generally continues to be low overall. The top-tier submarkets, the Cambridge and Lexington, where our portfolio has certainly seen the greatest demand. What's going to recover first and fastest? Hard to tell. I think the submarkets that we're in and the core submarkets are going to certainly recover faster and see more demand than the kind of secondary and tertiary submarkets within those broader regions. Super helpful. My second one was just going back. You provided some really helpful commentary on the 489,000 sq ft coming due this year. I guess I was just curious about the 413 coming due next year. Is there any early, is there any known vacates or any market skew, like any color on that 413 coming due next year that you know now? That could be helpful. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. I think on that, we're certainly working on the ones that are coming in the earlier half of the year. The bulk of that tends to fall in the back half of the year. It is a little bit early on that. Working on it, probably a little too early to give real great guidance on it, though. Great. Thanks so much. The next question comes from the line of Michael Stroyeck with Green Street. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. Maybe going back to tenants' capital raising. I understand 10% of your portfolio is where tenants may be having trouble raising capital. What percentage of that tenant base would you characterize as actually needing capital in the very near term, call it maybe three to six months or so? Yeah. Good question. Yeah, 10%±. That's the percentage of small cap and private biotech. That's not our watch list. I mean, there's a number of companies within that 10% that have a huge amount of cash on their balance sheet. Those are two very different things. Do not misinterpret. When I say 10% is roughly in small cap and private, that does not mean they're all at risk. Far from it. That's an important distinction. I'm glad you asked the question. There's a handful within those two buckets that we're monitoring more carefully, just given the amount of cash that they have on hand. Got it. Okay. And then just one question on rents. New lease signings in the quarter. Rents were decently below last quarter and last year's average. I guess how much of that is just a mix issue versus any real pressure on asking rents? Yeah. I think the new rents, in the sub for this quarter, the commencements, they were slightly lower than prior quarters. That's largely attributed to a larger deal we did with a robotics R&D tenant. So not necessarily wet lab space. That comes a little bit lower rent on that. That rent was a space where we did a proactive termination of another tenant to allow the expansion. And the rent we got on the new deal was a 15% increase over the in-place rent of the previous tenant. Got it. Thanks for the time. The next question comes from the line of Omotayo Okusanya with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi. Yes. Good morning. Just a couple from me. Just sticking with the question around the tenant base that may be having some cash flow problems. Could you just talk a little bit about, again, when you're kind of assessing against some of these smaller private companies, again, how you kind of take a look at cash burn, percentage of cash they have on their books related to cash burn? And how many of those tenants today, if quantifiable, actually have less than one year of cash burn as their cash balance? This is Kelvin. The way that we tend to analyze cash runway for our tenants is based on data that we receive directly from the tenant. We have a historical look, but we also communicate with them about a forward-looking estimate. It is relatively granular. With respect to the component of the portfolio, there is not a specific number that I could give you. I think Scott kind of addressed it earlier. It is really a small subset, a handful of folks that we are focused on monitoring very closely at the moment. We continue to be hopeful around the capital markets environment and these tenants' ability to raise capital for the balance of the year. Gotcha. Okay. Then turning to the CCRC front, again, I'm trying to still understand the slowdown in cash things or NOI growth this quarter, at least on a quarter-over-quarter basis. Again, when I take a look at year-over-year, occupancy was actually up, rent forward growth was still pretty good at 5.2%. It sounds like maybe there was a big jump in upward expenses, or just trying to understand a little bit more about why the slowdown to 8.6% versus 15%+ last quarter. 8.6% is pretty good. Nothing grows at 15% forever. We also have the burden of how we account for the entry fees for purposes of FFO and same-store. It's based on amortization of the entry fees on a true cash basis. The growth rate was something like 20%-25%. We're having outstanding leasing results and cash flow generation in that business. Gotcha. Okay. I guess it is that piece of the map that kind of grew, the amortization piece that grew meaningfully on a year-over-year basis. Okay. That is helpful. The last one for me, kind of post-2Q leasing, both for the life sciences portfolio and the MOB portfolio. Could you give us a better sense of how much of that is new leasing versus renewals? On the lab portfolio, our leasing activity for the quarter was about 85% renewal, and our pipeline continues to be strong with a disproportionate number of those leases on new space. That mix is very good, and it's arguably probably comparable. Our 85% retention on the outpatient medical business is consistent. 80%-85% has been kind of our normal average. We have a heavier percentage of renewals on the outpatient side, but some great new leasing activity as well in the pipeline. Okay. So. For the lab space in particular, the post-Q2 leasing, a lot of that is. New leasing rather than renewal? The pipeline skews more towards the new side. Yep. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Michael Mueller with JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Just a quick one. Back at Nayrie, I think you talked about sitting on the sidelines with acquisitions because you had a view that 6 months, 12 months, or whatever it would be, values are going to be falling and a lot more attractive. I guess based on what you're seeing, do you think that's been playing out? Do you think you're any closer to hitting the pivot point to really getting closer to deployment again? Yeah. I mean, that was two months ago. I think we're two months closer, for sure. I mean, the thesis was, "This is challenging even for very well-established incumbents with large portfolios, strong track records, good balance sheets, great tenant rosters, a lot of credibility." If it's tough for us, it's infinitely tougher for the new entrants that lack a lot of those attributes that tenants want. That was the thesis in stepping back. I think it proved to be the right thesis. There aren't too many days or weeks that go by that we don't get outreach from lenders, equity investors, etc., asking us to step into situations. The opportunity set is there. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks. That concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn it back to Scott Brinker for any closing remarks. Thanks for your time, everyone. Hope you enjoyed the last few weeks of the summer. Reach out to Kelvin, Andrew, and me with any follow-up questions. Take care. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.