Greetings, welcome to the Prologis Q4 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. Please note that this conference will be recorded. I will now turn the conference over to our host, Jill Sawyer, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin. Thanks, Diego, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Q4 2022 earnings conference call. The supplemental document is available on our website at prologis.com under Investor Relations. I'd like to state that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements under federal securities laws. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates, and projections about the market and the industry in which Prologis operates, as well as management's beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance, and actual operating results may be affected by a variety of factors. For a list of those factors, please refer to the forward-looking statement notice in our 10-K or other SEC filings. Additionally, our Q4 results, press release, and supplemental do contain financial measures such as FFO and EBITDA that are non-GAAP measures. In accordance with Regulation G, we have provided a reconciliation to those measures. I'd like to welcome Tim Arndt, our CFO, who will cover results, real-time market conditions, and guidance. Hamid Moghadam, our CEO, and our entire executive team are also with us today. With that, I'll hand the call over to Tim. Thanks, Jill. Good morning, everybody, welcome to our Q4 earnings call. Let me begin by thanking our global team for delivering an excellent quarter and year. We've had outstanding results despite challenging headwinds from the capital markets and the overall economic backdrop. In the face of this, our focus has been to serve our customers and investors, putting our heads down and executing on our long-term plan. As you see in our results, our portfolio is in excellent shape, driven by still strong demand and a continued lack of availability. This foundation for our business not only drove our nearly 13% increase in year-over-year core earnings, it also sets up the company for sustainable growth for years to come. Turning to results, Core FFO, excluding promotes, was $4.61 per share, including promotes was $5.16 per share ahead of our forecast. In the Q4, our operating results again generated several new records. Occupancy increased to 98.2% with retention of 82%. The Prologis portfolio, excluding Duke, added 30 of the 40 basis point increase over the quarter. While we tend to quote occupancy, it is notable that the portfolio is 98.6% leased, a record that underscores the tightness across our markets. Rent change for the quarter was 51% on a net effective basis. The step down from our Q3 rent change of 60% is a reflection of mix and not market rents. In fact, market rent growth exceeded expectations during the quarter, increasing our lease mark-to-market to a record 67%. These results drove same-store growth to 7.7% on a net effective basis and 9.1% on cash. The Duke portfolio, having closed on October third, is fully integrated in these results, with the exception of same-store growth, which will not be reflected until the Q1 of 2024. On the balance sheet, while access to the debt markets has remained challenging for many issuers, we successfully executed a number of transactions during the quarter, raising over $1.1 billion at an interest rate below 3%, including $700 million of new unsecured borrowings out of Japan and Canada. Our credit metrics continue to be excellent, and we've maintained over $4 billion of liquidity at year-end, with borrowing capacity across Prologis and the open-ended funds of $20 billion expanded significantly due to our balance sheet growth from the Duke acquisition. With regard to our markets and leasing activity, the bottom line is that conditions remain healthy, and there is little we see across our results or proprietary metrics that point to a meaningful slowdown. We see a normalization of demand, and when combined with low vacancy, it continues to translate to a meaningful increase in rents. Across our markets, rent growth was nearly 5% during the quarter, driving the full year to 28%. Proposal activity per available space was consistent with our recent history, and given persistent low vacancy, there is simply a very small number of units to even propose deals on. As evidenced, over 99% of our portfolio is either currently leased or in negotiation. Utilization remains high at 86%, near its all-time record. Deal gestation ticked up over the quarter, indicative of more careful consideration and time being taken in leasing decisions. While we are watching e-commerce carefully, its share of overall retail sales has increased to 22%, which is 600 basis points above its pre-pandemic level. Putting the nuance of mix, timing, and other factors aside, as measured by retention, occupancy, or rent change, it is clear that customers need to commit to space and market conditions which offer them very little choice. In terms of supply, the development pipeline across our market stands at 565 million sq ft. Our expectation for the year is that the pipeline will decline. Deliveries will put modest upward pressure on vacancies from 3.3% today toward 4% later in the year. However, new development starts are slowing in response to the market environment, which will reduce vacancies in late 2023 or 2024. In Europe, we expect deliveries to outpace absorption by approximately 30 million sq ft, expanding the current 2.6% vacancy rate to approximately 3.5%. As expected, our True Months of Supply metric grew to 25 months in the U.S. from 22 months last quarter. As a reminder, this metric has averaged roughly 36 months over the last 10 years. In capital markets, transactions continue to be slow in the Q4, making price discovery challenging. That said, return requirements are trending to the low to mid 7% range. This expansion further affected appraised values in our funds. Continued rent growth has mitigated some of the effect. Our U.S. values, which are appraised by third parties every quarter, declined 6% this quarter and 7% over the entire second half. In Europe, values declined approximately 12% during the quarter and 16% over the half. Our open-ended funds have received only modest redemption requests, less than 3% of net asset value during the quarter, totaling 5% across the second half. Our flagship funds have strong balance sheets with low leverage, largely undrawn credit facilities, cash on hand, and undrawn equity commitments. While we believe the value declines over the second half reflect market, investors are still adjusting to a new environment. Because we strive to be consistent in our actions and fair to all investors, we will redeem units, call equity, and resume asset contributions when price discovery has run its course. We expect that to be Q1-Q2 away, likely sooner in Europe. This will ensure certainty, fairness, and consistency to all of our investors. Turning to our outlook for 2023. While our macro forecast assumes a moderate recession, which may put headwinds on demand, our business is driven by secular forces and long-term planning by our customers that should limit the impact unless such a downturn becomes significant and protracted. As mentioned earlier, we believe vacancy will build in the market and our portfolio, both of which are unsustainably low. Putting this sentiment together with our outlook on supply and demand, our 23 rent forecast calls for approximately 10% growth in the U.S. and 9% globally. We acknowledge that our rent forecasts have proven conservative in recent years, but we are comfortable with this starting point given the environment. Specific to our portfolio and on an hour share basis, we expect average occupancy to range between 96.5% and 97.5%, roughly 50 basis points lower than the 22 midpoint. Combined with rent change, we forecast to generate net effective same-store growth of approximately 8%-9%, with cash same-store growth between 8.5% and 9.5%. Given these assumptions, we believe our lease mark-to-market will be sustained or even increase over 2023, ending the year between 65% and 70% and providing visibility to an incremental $2.9 billion of NOI after the more than $300 million that will become realized over the course of this year. We expect G&A to range between $370 million and $385 million, reflecting not only inflation in wages and other corporate costs, but also additional investments we are making in our Essentials business, particularly in the energy teams. In that regard, we expect the contribution to FFO from essentials to range between $0.07 and $0.09 this year. This reflects 70% growth in revenues and tax credits from 2022, but offset in the near term by our higher Duke related share count and the G&A investments just mentioned. In terms of operational metrics for the business, we expect to add 115 megawatts of solar power over the year, driving the portfolio to approximately 540 megawatts by year-end. It's worth noting that we closed 2022 as the second largest on-site power producer in the U.S., a position we will build upon with our plan for 1 gigawatt of production and storage by 2025. We also forecast to have over 20 EV charging clusters installed and operational by year-end. In deployment, we will continue to be disciplined in our approach to new starts. We have over $39 billion of opportunities to select from in our land bank. Between our expectations for build-to-suits and logical markets for spec, we see an active year of starts initially to range between $2.5 billion and $3 billion, with a real opportunity to grow as conditions warrant. As mentioned earlier, we plan for redemptions to be cleared out over the year and private fundraising to resume. Accordingly, we forecast contribution activity to occur primarily in the second half and resulting in combined contribution and disposition guidance of $2 billion-$3 billion. Finally, in strategic capital, we forecast revenues excluding promotes to range between $500 million and $525 million, which is impacted by valuation write-downs across 2022 and the first half of 2023. We are forecasting net promote income of $0.40 based on an assumption that values in USLF, the primary source of 23 promotes, will decline further from values at year-end. Every 1% change in asset value equates to slightly less than $0.02 of net promote income. Putting this all together, we expect Core FFO excluding promotes to range between $5.00-$5.10 per share. At the midpoint of our guidance, this represents approximately 9.5% growth over 2022. We're guiding Core FFO, including promotes, to range between $5.40-$5.50 per share. In closing, this guidance builds upon an exceptional three-year period of sector-leading earnings growth. At our 2019 Investor Day, we presented a three-year plan targeting 8.5% annual growth, yet achieved nearly 14% over this period, 550 basis points of annual outperformance. We expect 2023 to be a year where headlines continue to be disconnected from our business and ability to deliver strong growth and value creation. While there are many unknowns, generally, there are more knowns in our business that are clear, such as our lease mark-to-market, significant invisible opportunity in our land bank, a need and excitement for a new generation of sustainable energy solutions, and a dedicated team that is the best in the business and laser focused on delivering leading results. We'll now turn the call over to the operator to take your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the question queue. You may press star followed by 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. Our first question comes from Steve Sakwa with Evercore. Please state your question. Yeah, thanks. I guess good morning out there. Tim, I just wanted to clarify, in your kind of going through your guidance, you threw out a lot of numbers. I just wanna make sure on the mark-to-market numbers that are embedded in your same-store NOI growth of 8%-9% GAAP and 8.5%-9.5% cash. Just what are you expecting for cash and GAAP leasing spreads? Just wanna make sure that's different than the kinda overall portfolio mark-to-market you talked about of 65%-70%. Yeah, they're gonna be stronger. As you think about the lease mark-to-market, it's all of the leases, so it represents old leases and the leases just done. Clearly, everything that will roll next year is gonna be above the 67% we're quoting today. It's a little bit flatter than you might expect as we've looked at it. I think leasing spreads next year are gonna be in the high 70s to low 80s on a net effective basis. Then as we know, the cash basis of that is trended towards probably 1,500 basis points or so inside of that. Thank you. Our next question comes from Craig Mailman with Citi. Please state your question. Hey, good morning, everyone. I just wanna hit on the capital deployment side of things, maybe a two-parter here. Just first on the stabilization to just the kind of what you guys have stabilizing the $2.8 billion at your share. Can you just bridge that gap versus the $5.5 billion that you have on page 20 of expected deliveries or completions in 2023? Maybe just give us some sense of timing on that. I know I think about 30% of those are build-to-suits. Also how you're thinking about where the pre-leasing is on the balance of that as well, and kind of how that layers into your occupancy assumption. Yeah, I'll take hey, Craig, it's Tim. I'll take the first half. Dan can help with the second. This is really a date issue, I would say. Not even an issue, but just a function of the date. We have a large amount of that group of stabilizations we believe will occur in the Q1 of 2024. I think there is a very real possibility that if we improve some of the leasing timing by just a month or two, we could see a decent amount of that actually fall back into 2023. It's just a function of crossing over a calendar year, the way of the mix of all of our projects is landing. This is Dan. I'll just pile on there. The pre-leasing in that portfolio, as you see, there's 29% of that that's in there as a build-to-suit. The pre-leasing is better than that 29%, and I would say on track with historical averages, even on a bigger data set here. We feel really good about delivering our stabilizations this year and next. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ki Bin Kim with Truist. Please state your question. Thanks, and good morning. I was curious about the investment capacity that you show in your supplemental of $1.5 billion is down from $4.2 billion. I just wanna understand what that actually represents. Tying that to your comments about contributions perhaps picking back up if conditions settle out, how does that comment compare to the $1.5 billion capacity, and how much wiggle room do you ultimately have in increasing that capacity? Thank you. Hey, Ki Bin. What I would do with regard to investment capacity is rely more on the way I'm describing it in our prepared remarks, the $20 billion and $4 billion-$5 billion across the funds. The number that's presented in the sup, which is what I think you're referring to, is a bit technical about the current amount of equity that can be drawn in the funds. That number is levered slightly, that's why it's a bit understated. The number we supplemented with in prepared remarks is looking at the overall leverage of the fund and how much more capacity sits beyond just that of committed equity post leverage. For example, our USLF venture is very low levered, just about 10%, that creates an incredible amount of debt capacity, as you can imagine. I think that winds up addressing your second question, which is, the liquidity in the funds for contributions. There's a lot there for us to tap over time. Thank you. Our next question comes from Derek Johnston with Deutsche Bank. Please state your question. Hi, everyone. How are you doing? Can you give us an update on the markets in Europe, the mark-to-market there, any leasing trends? I think you touched briefly on the private market transaction backdrop. You know, we definitely see the US mark-to-market getting wider. Just how do you view demand in Europe and the differences between the US and Europe, unfolding in 23? Thank you. Yeah, let me start with some general comments. Europe is generally a mild and more muted version of the US, both on the way up and on the way down. The market is has a lower vacancy rate than the US, if you can believe it. That's a general backdrop that's very consistent with the way Europe has behaved in the last 10 or 15 years. As to the specifics on mark-to-market and the like, Dan, you wanna cover that? Yeah, sure. Mark-to-market. Lease mark-to-market in Europe is about 28%. I would say just overall, we feel very good about the leasing demand in Europe right now. We talked about at the in the remarks about an expansion in the in the vacancy, but overall feel really good about where it's headed. You know, you might ask, what about the UK? Because that's the one you hear about all the time. Actually that's really strong too, so far. We've actually been surprised on the positive side with the UK. The other place that is really held up well is actually Germany, which you would have guessed with energy issues would be softer. It hasn't been, and there's virtually no vacancy in Germany. Some of the manufacturing coming back, particularly autos, et cetera, are really strengthening Central and Eastern Europe, the markets, particularly Poland, where there's this perennial vacancy. It's sort of tightening up. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nicholas Yulico with Scotiabank. Please state your question. Thanks. I want to dig in a little bit to the sectors that you're seeing driving leasing demand, let's say in the Q4 and so far this year. You know, whether you've seen any changes in types of customers taking space versus a year ago. I guess we think about the broader retailer bucket, where you did see some retailers reporting year-over-year sales declines in the back half of last year. You know, wondering if any pieces of that category is seeing less demand. Yeah. The only, the only category that is significantly below trend and is likely to be that way is housing, because the starts are slowing. With respect to other details, Chris, you wanna take that? Yeah, that's absolutely right. It generally, Nick, it was diverse. Whether we look at consumer products, whether we look at apparel, food and beverage customers, we have a diverse range of customers leasing space from us beyond the housing categories, which would include construction, it could include home goods, the like. Yeah. Retail sales on a real basis, notwithstanding the weaker prints in December and November are good. You know, I think it's between 2.5% and 3% up compared to the year before. Yeah, you do hear the headlines of the weaker retailers, but, I think if you look at it overall, it's actually pretty positive. It's more positive than the headlines. I wouldn't say it's super positive, but it's much better than the headlines. Our next question comes from Michael Goldsmith with UBS. Please state your question. Good morning. Good afternoon. Thanks a lot for taking my question. You clearly laid out the building blocks of your same-store NOI growth of 8.5%-9.5% in 2023, where you have a high level of visibility. Obviously a lot of macro uncertainty out there. Can you provide the specific assumptions you've used for your initial 2023 outlook? Just where and how a change in the macro environment could provide upside or downside to your initial guidance? Thanks. So let me just start that and Tim will take you through the specifics. Actually, the assumptions about the macro environment, other than call it defaults or something that has an immediate effect, are not gonna drive the numbers big time in 2023. A lot of the leasing that needs to take place in 2023 is already in progress or been dealt with. We're dealing with very high occupancy levels. To start with, there is not a whole lot of space to lease, and the real driver of those same-store numbers is the huge mark-to-market in the portfolio that already exists. Don't expect, even if we change the assumptions by a lot, the numbers for 2023 are not gonna move that much. They will obviously move as you get further along into the future. That's one comment I would make. The second comment I would make is that in every year, in the last three or four years, we started the year with rental assumptions that we have exceeded sometimes by a factor of 3 to 4x. I'm not saying that's gonna happen this year, but there is absolutely no reason in the world to go crazy on our assumptions with respect to rental rates, particularly they don't have an effect in 2023 anyway. We'll see how it plays and if we see evidence of stronger rental growth, and my bet would be a surprise on the upside over our assumptions, not the other way around, then we'll let you know and you can adjust the numbers accordingly. Tim. Yeah, just building on that, Michael. If you know, within the supplemental, you can see our lease expiration schedule. Out of that, you'll see we have about 13% rolling, and that's a mix of what is stated as expiring, which is another 9%, but also things that we've already addressed ahead of entering the year here. The footnotes will tell you that. You get to 13% there. As Hamid said, start with the 67% lease mark-to-market. We've got 10% market rent growth of the year. You assume we'll get that halfway through the year. One thing we see people get wrong is that'll take you to a certain amount of rent change. You actually get half that rent change this year. You get half of 2022's rent change as well. That's a mathematic thing. You need to be mindful of given the quantum of rent change we're talking about lately. That'll all get you to close to 9%. We've backed off, an assumption on occupancy loss, which we couldn't point to right now, but just feels prudent in the environment. We've taken our guidance down there a bit. Thank you. Our next question comes from Vince Tibone with Green Street. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. How should we think about the organic same-store NOI growth for the legacy Duke portfolio in 2023, given that that's, outside of guidance? Is it lower than guidance for the legacy PLD portfolio in the same ballpark? Just given the size of the Duke deal, any color you could share would be helpful. It would be lower for one reason anyway, which is that they started at the higher level of occupancy. Putting even rents aside on a same-store basis, there's less opportunity. They generally had longer-term leases because they generally had bigger spaces. That affects the mix. Tim. I think an important thing to remember here, and we've seen some people not have this entirely correct in modeling, is just understanding that on a GAAP basis, there will be very little same-store. There's potential for some, but because we marked the leases up to market now at the close, on a net effective basis, there will be very little same-store growth. That's contemplated in our guidance. On a cash basis, I expect it would look quite similar to Prologis. That's really helpful. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from- If I can continue that, one thing that you didn't ask, but it's important in this context, and Dan can elaborate, is that the rental performance of the Duke portfolio on the few spaces that have come up for re-leasing or were in progress during the time we were doing the transaction, are trending significantly higher than what we had underwritten. Dan, can you quantify that? Yeah. I'd actually go as far as saying we expect to outperform in the operating portfolio to tune, 11%-13%, call it. A to that's gonna come from market rent growth. Really 3%-5% of that comes from just operating that portfolio in the Prologis platform. Next question comes from Tom Catherwood with BTIG. Please go ahead. Thanks. Tim, you mentioned in your prepared remarks that the outlook for 2023 assumes a recession. If we look back to previous recessionary cycles, usually we get declines in consumption which drives lower demand for industrial space. We've also never started a cycle with kind of persistently low vacancy like we have right now, or tailwinds from e-commerce and supply chain reconfiguration. Kind of within that backdrop of assuming a recession, how do you think it could be different this time? Kind of what do you have baked into your numbers for that for 2023? Given that Tim was in kindergarten when cycles started, Tim and I are a little bit different on our recession outlook, but I don't think it matters. I think Tim would tell you that if there's a recession, there's a very mild recession, and my bet would be that we wouldn't have a recession, but it would be close to 0 GDP growth for a while. You know, call it recession or no recession, but the same outcome. I think what's different about other cycles, and I say that with a lot of dislike for the phrase it's different this time, is that there were really 2 situations where we had negative absorption in the U.S., which is where we have data. One was on the heel of dot-com, there you had a high vacancy rate. On top of it, you had a very low utilization rate because there was a lot of capital for these dot-com, particularly e-commerce retailers, they were taking space way ahead of demand, there was a lot of shadow space too. When you add those two, it was a very high vacancy type of market during that time, 2000, 2001 timeframe. The next time you had a pretty significant negative absorption was 2008, 2009, we all know the reasons for that. There you also started with a significantly higher vacancy rate. I think it was 7% or 8% before the music stopped. All I can tell you is that Prologis, the old Prologis with the funny L alone, had 52 million sq ft of vacant spec space that they had to lease. I think AMB at the time had, like, 8 or 9 million sq ft. Nothing like you're talking about here particularly given the different scale of the company and how leased we're starting out. Now, even in that situation where we're normally at about 95% occupancy, we went down to about 91 in both cases. I don't see anything near that. I mean, it's mathematically impossible. Even if absorption goes to 0 right now, and we don't lease any more of the under development spec space, and absorption goes to 0, I mean, you will be under 5% vacancy, which used to be considered a great strong market. To cap it all up, we didn't have this kind of mark-to-market. I mean, the mark-to-markets in those days were in the mid-single digit range, and now we're talking about 70% almost. A very different picture. Thank you. Our next question comes from Todd Thomas with KeyBank. Please state your question. Yeah. Hi, thanks. Good morning. I just had a question about market rents actually. The 10% market rent forecast in the U.S. Can you just discuss that or break it out a little bit for us in terms of coastal versus non-coastal in terms of your expectations, just in the context of, supply growth that you're seeing and the demand backdrop in general? Yeah. Hey, it's Chris Caton. Indeed, we expect 10% in the U.S., that's gonna vary. You know, typical spread between coastal, non-coastal is 300-500 basis points. At least that's where it was running, say, pre-pandemic. We expect a wider spread in the current environment. Whether you look at vacancy, whether you look at the under construction pipeline, whether you look at the momentum in pricing in the back half of last year, including Q4, that leads you to conclude on the coastal outperformance continuing at a greater than historical average in 2023. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley. Please state your question. Hey, I just wanna go back to some of the comments on the third party management. I think you talked about valuations being down 7% in the back half of last year and potentially continuing into this year, and the redemptions potentially ending in the first Q2 s of the year. Just wanna get a sense, any more color how you're thinking about that. Is it because the valuations have been repriced that you expect sort of the redemptions to stop? What should we be looking for to get more confidence in that? Thanks. Yeah. There are 2 things that usually drive a redemption request. One is sort of the denominator effect and people needing the liquidity. Two is some folks wanna arbitrage the lag between the, how quickly the public markets adjust and the backward-looking appraisal process. In our experience in past downturns, the second has taken about Q3 to be fully reflected in appraisals. We really don't want to disadvantage 1 group of investors. By the way, the vast majority of our investors, 95% of them, because, a couple of points of people want to arbitrage that difference. We wanna make sure the valuations are right before those things transact. We think Europe has actually adjusted quicker than the U.S., and that's why we think there's maybe another quarter to go before Europe fully adjusts. So we're committed to taking care of those redemptions in the next quarter. We think the U.S. may take another quarter to adjust, and we'll take care of those in the Q2. Here is what's important, and people don't get about the structure of our funds. First of all, our leverage is in the low 20% range on these funds. There's oodles of liquidity in these funds to basically be able to handle any redemption requests, any reasonable redemption requests. Secondly, we started with a Q and we started with some cash on hand. Again, there are lots of sources for addressing those redemption requests. I think you should assume that redemptions that have been effective as of the end of this quarter, will by and large, be taken care of by the middle of the year and sooner in Europe. You can model that math beyond that. I'll tell you one other thing, which is kind of interesting. Prologis could be a buyer up in these funds. In fact, even in the global financial crisis where the old AMB was in a tighter spot with respect to leverage, we actually stepped up and bought on very attractive terms with adjusted values, a couple of hundred million dollars of real estate. You know, we actually offered it to our outside investors first, and then we stepped in and bought it. You know what? The next quarter, all the redemptions went away because people realized that, the people who know the most about this portfolio are buyers at these prices. It's really about getting the values right. You know, we started writing down these portfolios a quarter or two ago, and our appraisal process is independent. We have nothing to do about it. That's very, very different than some of the redemption situations that we've all been reading about. Thanks. Our next question comes from Camille Bonnel with Bank of America. Please state your question. Hi, good morning. On your development guidance, can you give us some color on how much conservatism is built into your development starts? Also, you're expecting another year of strong stabilizations. What assumptions are you making in terms of timing of these projects? Is any of the increase in guidance driven by projects from last year taking longer to complete due to longer construction timelines? This is Dan. Let me start with this year's development start guidance. We're coming off our largest year of starts ever, just given the macro headlines, we decided to take a little bit more balanced approach, where we slowed our starts at the end of last year. We don't expect to start up in earnest until the last half of this year. We think the build-to-suit business will pick up at the same time. Call it conservatism, I call it discipline. Just feel really good about our approach given the volumes over the last year or two. Stabilizations next year, stabilizations this year. Tim mentioned it earlier, we think we can outperform what we have in the books right now. Demand continues to be strong. We talked about the development starts plummeting in the marketplace in the Q4. We think they're gonna be slower in the first half of the year, and we think that bodes well for absorption in the last half of this year into next year. We feel very good about our guidance. Yeah, there's not been a material delay in any of our construction projects if you look at them on an aggregated basis. That has not shifted stabilizations from 22 to 23 or anything like that. Yeah, I can't even think of an example that comes close. Even on the cost side, because we've been thoughtful about procurement and securing some of these tight supplies ahead of time, that's been actually something that we've used as a competitive advantage in marketing to build-to-suits. We got a bunch of steel and we got a bunch of air conditioning units and electric panels and things that are in short supply already sitting in our warehouse waiting to be deployed into our land bank. No, there's nothing funny going on about that. By the way, the stabilizations are not just a function of completion of construction, but also leasing being stabilized at 90% or more. That factor hasn't delayed stabilizations either. We've been leasing actually ahead of plan to this day. And I expect to continue to do that. Thank you. Next question comes from John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please state your question. Thank you. On the subject of fund redemptions, there are some unlisted funds or non-traded REITs, with a different leverage profile than yours, different investor base, that are seeing a significant amount of redemption requests. I was wondering if you anticipate this will lead to increased asset sales on the block and potentially some more opportunities for you on the acquisition side? I hope it does. I'm not optimistic that it will because, if you look at, even the denominator problems for most institutions, and the fact that they generally have to reduce their exposure to real estate, they're likely not gonna wanna reduce their exposure to industrial. I think. With these, most of the open-end funds, where the, where the, they're mixed, they're different property types, the industrial is what's holding up their performance. For them to dispose of those would put them in a even a more difficult situation. I don't think there will be a lot of forced sellers in industrial because to the extent that you're dealing with a leverage issue or liquidity issue, if you sell your highest yielding asset, you keep tightening the coverage noose around your neck. As much as I'd like to, I don't think we'll see a lot of that. I think where we could see opportunities is actually within our own open-end fund availabilities. If the redemptions continue and we think the values are good, first, we'll offer that to all the third-party investors, and then we'll step in and buy. We like that real estate. We know it well, and we operate it. If it's priced right, we're all buyers. No problem. Thank you. Next question comes from Michael Carroll with RBC. Please state your question. Yeah, thanks. I guess, Hamid, I understand that PLD and the industrial space in general are pretty well positioned in the current environment despite the uncertainty. Is there anything that you're watching out for or any specific risks that you foresee for this space here in the next year plus or so? Yeah. We are watching everything really carefully. Believe me, we've been through enough cycles and enough weird things can happen that none of us predict that we wanna be vigilant. That's why we're starting out the year with very conservative assumptions on things that we can deliver. I mean, I think even on this basis, we're gonna, I think, put up unbelievably good numbers. I mean, who can think of almost double-digit kind of returns or growth off of such strong growth, 14% per year earnings growth consistently for the last three years? I think the arrow's up. Yeah, I mean, nobody predicted Putin going into Europe last year or... It's usually the stuff that you can't predict. I mean, am I worried about inflation really tanking our numbers? No. Am I really worried about recession tanking our numbers? No. Am I worried about e-commerce going out the window and people going back to shopping the old way without that percentage going up? No, I'm not worried about those things. I am worried about things that I don't even know what to worry about, if you get my drift there. Anyway. Yeah, there's always bad stuff that can happen that are out of the realm of normal projections. Our next question comes from Michael Mueller with J.P. Morgan. Please state your question. Yeah. Hi. What are the anticipated yields for your 2023 development starts? This is Dan. The anticipated yields are actually up slightly, still in the low sixes, 6.1-ish, 6.2-ish. Thank you. Our next question comes from Anthony Powell with Barclays. Please state your question. Hi, good morning. Question on utilization, which increased in the quarter. What drove that growth, given all the headlines we see about port volumes, what not declining, and how big of a driver of the higher utilization is for your outlook for this year, given your strong outlook this year? Yeah. I don't think utilization actually moved that much. I mean, the peak utilization ever all time was 87%. I think that that one point is well within the sampling bias that can take place because, it's not a perfect data set. It's a sample of a pretty, a large data set. So I don't think there's a meaningful trend and certainly not a decelerating trend in utilization. With respect to port volumes, I think port volumes are pretty meaningless in the last, so really since COVID started, because there were so many, fits and starts and, play things being in the wrong place and all that. Yeah, the West Coast ports have lower volumes today than they did before, but the East Coast and Gulf ports are getting a lot more volume than they did before. On an aggregate basis, port volumes are just fine. If you look at the lag that it takes, too many empty containers on one side of the ocean, and factories shutting down on the other side of the ocean and all that, I think until the market normalizes, you can't really draw any conclusions from port volumes. I don't see any, either one of those two trends affecting demand. Chris, you wanna. Yeah, I'll just build on that by saying, two things are also happening. One is market vacancies in the U.S. are 3.2, 3.3% lower in Europe. That in its own right creates some pent-up demand, and so there's a need to push utilization within the facilities. Second, look, inventories are up 15% on a year-over-year basis, on a nominal basis and 9, 10% on a real basis. There is real structural demand lifting new demand as well as in place customers. Yeah. Notwithstanding that increase in real inventories, we still think we're less than halfway towards equilibrium level of inventories, about 45% of the way there. We think there's a lot of tailwind behind behind inventories too. Thank you. Our next question comes from Blaine Heck with Wells Fargo. Please state your question. Great. Thanks. Related to that last question, and Hamid, your comments on that progress towards equilibrium inventory, can you just talk about your recent conversations with customers? You know, what's your sense for how they're balancing this investment need and CapEx spend against concerns about the economic slowdown or recession and higher overall cost of capital? Yeah, I'll pitch it to Mike for more detailed comments on this. But my sense is that customers don't have quite as much FOMO as they did before. In other words, they're not in the hoard mentality of let's go get the space because if we don't, somebody else will, and all that. I think the market has rationalized with respect to pace of leasing demand, and people are being more thoughtful about how they go about taking space. Because forget about what they pay us in rent. I mean, every time you open a new large warehouse, there's a lot of CapEx that goes into it and all that. Real estate is the least of your worries. It's all the other stuff that you have to put in. I think people are cautious, but they also realize, particularly on the e-com side, that, this was a theoretical threat and, before the COVID. Now they see what really happened to their business during COVID. They're very anxious to build out their full e-commerce supply chain, which is oftentimes a different one than their, bricks and mortar supply chain. I would say demand has broadened. It's much less all about Amazon. It's much broader than that, but it's pretty strong. Is it the strongest it's ever been? No, it's not as strong as 2021. Compared to any 10-year period you want to look at, it's we would consider this a very strong market. Mike. Yeah, I would just to pile on, I mean, on a net basis, the activity is still very strong. Decision timelines definitely have stretched out, and people are being more cautious. Remember, these structural configurations we've been talking about for two or three years continue to march on, perhaps at a bit of a slower rate. Ultimately, it comes down to the fear of not having the right space when you need it a year from now is overriding taking space just a little bit too early. Broadly, we feel pretty good about this overall activity. Thank you. Our next question comes from Craig Mailman with Citi. Please state your question. Hey, guys. I just want to follow up on these demand discussions because this is a constant question I get from clients here, and maybe it's more of a Chris question. Hamid, feel free to jump in too. Just in terms of in this era of low vacancies where really there's nothing to lease, so net absorption is not necessarily the best leading indicator of demand. I mean, what are you guys using at least to kind of use as your forward-looking indicator on demand destruction or something that the market could look to? It just seems like retentions are still high. Availability is low, construction could fall off. Everyone is talking about inventories being higher, utilizations being higher, so people needing less of the space. It's just from your commentary, it seems like this is not really filtering through to what you guys are seeing. Just some thoughts there then, related to that, Chris, I mean, what would it take for market rents to actually turn negative? Because that's a question I get a lot as well, and I'm just kind of curious, in your modeling, kind of what inputs would have to really turn to get that from, the positive 10% you're seeing to somewhere below zero. Okay, let me start, and I'm sure Chris can give much more color. I would state this. In 40 years of doing this is the biggest disconnect that I've seen between the macroeconomy and the prospects for our business. Usually, those two things are much more aligned, and this time around, they just appear to be completely disconnected for a variety of reasons that we talked about ad nauseam. I think where pricing goes away is vacancy is going to 7%-8% and staying there. If you do the math on that, you need another, in the U.S., I don't know, $2 billion, $3 billion sq ft of unleased construction coming on, online. You can't do it overnight. Maybe $1 billion something. You know, we can do the math. It's a big number, and you're not gonna keep doing that if the space that you're if the first 100 million feet doesn't lease, you're not gonna do that. By the way, this cycle, you have a couple of big players in the business that have much more to gain from the fundamentals of the business being stronger, rents being stronger, than a few bucks they may make on additional development. There is an economic incentive to be disciplined. In prior cycles, mostly driven by merchant builders and private developers, they didn't really care what the rental market was. They just wanted to build the product and sell it to somebody else, and that would be their problem. Today, those two sides are connected to one another. I think that the motivations are really different. Absent a nuclear war type of scenario, I just don't see vacancy rates going to a level that will lead to a reduction in rents. It's either gotta be a demand collapse or a supply explosion, and I don't see either one of them happening. The other thing I would say is that we lease 1 million sq ft on a daily basis. Just let's get our heads around that. 1 million sq ft on a daily basis. You know, we throw these big numbers around without really fully appreciating what the scale of that is. I mean, that is 10x the amount of space anybody else leases in any sector in real estate. By watching these customers and their behavior, obviously we'll figure out if some bad stuff is about to happen, and won't be waiting for the quarterly report to analyze that. Chris, do you have specifics? A couple specifics. I would lead with our proprietary data leads us to these conclusions. For example, our sales force pipeline. If we look at the vacancy that we do have, 46% has deals working. That's in line or above the average that we've experienced through COVID, to say nothing of the conversations that Mike and Scott and our customer-led solutions team have. In terms of public data, which I think I heard you ask about, Craig, we do publish our IBI survey and our utilization data, and so figures like 60 on our IBI, it's a diffusion index, so that's consistent with this good or great tone that the team has struck. And 86% on utilization, which was discussed earlier, are ways that you can see that in the marketplace. As it relates to what it would take for rents to fall, Hamid described it very specifically, and I don't see commonly discussed in the marketplace, but is important to know, which is development starts rather than development completions. Starts in the U.S. were off by 1/3 in the Q4 relative to their 2022 trend. On the continent in Europe, they were off by 45%. We're seeing a sharp mark-to-market of the capital market environment, the valuation environment, and what those buildings might be worth for some of those other folks building buildings. By the way, banks are a lot more disciplined because now they have risk-based capital requirements. Putting out a lot of construction loans on buildings that don't lease, like used to happen in prior cycles, is less likely to happen. I think the market is generally smarter. There's a lot more data. Conversations like we're having today never used to take place two decades ago. The cycles were much more amplified. I think it's pretty hard for that to happen. Something can come out of left field. I'm not discounting that possibility. Something really bad could come out of left field and change all this, but I just can't think of what that thing would be. None of us predicted the pandemic, I don't think, so, things can happen. Thank you. Our next question comes from Vince Tibone with Green Street. Please state your question. Hi, thanks for taking my follow-up. I just wanted to get any color on recent market rent growth and how that may differ between suite size. like, are you seeing any differences in performance between both buildings and, smaller, more infill facilities? I would generally tell you that the smaller spaces are having a tougher time to the extent that anybody's having a tougher time. Chris is looking up the specifics. They're not radically different. Why don't we do this? Why don't we go to the next... You got it? Okay. Yeah. Hey, no, glad to help you out here. First off, market rent growth had great momentum at the end of the year with 5% growth, say, in the U.S., 3% in Europe. When we look at rent change, which is a great way to understand performance and suite size, it's strong across the board. In fact, late in the year, we saw an improvement in those smaller units, which might be where your question's coming from. It's. Oh, yeah. Diverse. Okay, that's different than I would've guessed. I bet you it's because there was more available space to absorb in those, in those categories. Those categories were less leased. By the way, we have them too. I mean, we have some smaller than 100,000 sq ft units. I would say occupancy was a little bit lower, so there was more room to lease product at the higher end. If we flip it to sub-markets, and we look at, say, infill, which tend to have those smaller units, infill outperformed in the US by 400 basis points last year. Say 34% in the US in the infill sub-markets versus 30% for the whole of the United States. Our next question comes from Jamie Feldman with Wells Fargo. Please state your question. Great. Thank you. Just a quick follow-up from Blaine and myself. Where do you expect to make the most progress on the Essentials business in 23, and how does that factor into your guidance and earnings? Also, if you could just say, where you think cap rates are today versus, the peak this cycle, how much they've moved? Thank you. Two things. I think the Essentials business, in terms of% growth, I think our mobility business would be the biggest because it's the smallest right now to start with, so any growth will be the biggest. In terms of $ contribution, I would say solar and storage are coming on the strongest today, and operations is a close second behind. I'll pitch it to Gary if he has any more to say about that after this. Second part of the question was? Oh, cap rate. Cap rates are really misleading, so we gotta be careful about that. Cap rates at market, assuming that you had the building a year and a half ago at market and you have a building at market today, I would guess it's 50 to 75 basis points, maybe 100 basis points, okay? It's call it 50 to 100 basis points. You've had all this rental growth in between. The observed cap rate for the same building this year versus last year with rents that are higher by, I don't know, 10, 15% or something, would not have moved as much. And if you get into weird situations like some building that was leased 5 years ago and it comes on the market, and the in-place rent is less than half of what market is, that building could have a lower cap rate than it would've had, a year ago. IRR is what's really important based on reasonable assumptions. My guess is that if I were gonna pick a number, I would say low 7 and a quarter-ish in the U.S., and maybe a little bit lower than that, in Europe, with growth of, say, 4-ish% across a 10-year projection. Something like that, approximately. Gary, anything on? I think you hit it exactly, Hamid. I mean, in 2023, our mix is gonna be about 50% operations and about 50%, energy and mobility. The growth rate, obviously, with mobility is gonna be much higher because it's coming off of a basically a zero base. Where are we investing? We're investing in our energy and mobility businesses, and that's where we're proving the capability because that's where we see the most significant growth over 2025 and beyond. I mean, just to put a sort of stake in this, we are very, very convicted about the potential for these businesses. We're on track to generate our $300 million in revenues and tax benefits by 2025, which we've talked about before. That is gonna deliver about $0.25 per share in FFO. That would be a little bit above our 100 base. That'll be about 100 basis points of growth per year compared to our 2019 Investor Day estimates of about 50 basis points. Net, net, look, we are in great shape. That business is growing right on plan, and we're gonna continue to make investments in that business, and this year it's gonna be in mobility and energy. By the way, that 2025 number that Gary just mentioned is gonna be with capturing maybe 15%-20% of the total opportunity within our portfolio. There'll be a huge runway for growth. Frankly, we're beginning to see more deals out of our own platform because customers are taking us to buildings that they lease from other people to do the same level of service to them in those other situations. I can't even begin to quantify that out-of-platform opportunity. We're really excited about our Essentials business. Okay, thanks. I think we're at the top of the hour. I know we have one more question, but maybe we can take that outside the call, Anthony, with our apologies. Thank you for your interest in the company, and we look forward to seeing you next quarter. Take care. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. All parties may disconnect.