Greetings, and welcome to the Prologis Q1 2024 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief Q&A session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Natasha Law, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you, Natasha. You may begin. Thanks, John. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Q1 2024 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 Q1 earnings press release and supplemental do contain financial measures such as FFO and EBITDA that are non-GAAP, and in accordance with Reg 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 will hand the call over to Tim. Good morning, and thank you for joining our call. We've had a good start to the year in terms of our operating and financial results in the Q1. We delivered strong rent change, drove occupancy slightly ahead of our forecast, raised nearly $5 billion in capital, including $750 million in strategic capital, and made important headway in our energy business. That said, as we evaluate the market, persistent inflation and high interest rates have kept more customers focused on controlling costs. The resulting delay in decision-making, easily observed through the Q1's below average net absorption, will translate to lower leasing volume within the year. Accordingly, we've opted to adjust our guidance early, getting ahead of what looks like a period of occupancy below our forecast in the near term and its effect on same store in a number of our higher rent markets. This is punctuated, of course, by a more pronounced period of correction still underway in Southern California. New starts, however, continues to be surprisingly disciplined, adding to the expectation for limited new supply in the back half of 2024, but also extending deeper into 2025. When considered alongside muted demand, we arrive at a view that the operating environment has only changed modestly in aggregate and that demand is simply pushing out by a few quarters. The outcome of this may simply mean moving towards a long-term occupancy expectation more swiftly this year, which sets up for a better next year. Turning to our results for the quarter, core FFO, excluding promotes, was 1.31 per share, and including net promote expense, was 1.28 per share, essentially in line with our forecast. Occupancy in the portfolio ended the quarter at 97%. For context, the U.S. market declined 310 basis points since its peak in the summer of 2022, while our portfolio's occupancy has only declined 80 basis points, resulting in vacancy today for Prologis that is less than half of that in our markets and reflective of our portfolio quality. Net effect of rent change was 68% based on commencement and 70% based on new signings. Following this in-place increase and changes in market rents, our net effective lease mark to market stands at 50%, representing over $2.2 billion of rent to harvest without any additional market rent growth from here. Rent growth captured just for the single quarter was approximately $110 million on an annualized basis and at our share. Our same-store growth on a cash basis was 5.7%, and on a net effective basis was 4.1%. The same store from rent change alone was strong at approximately 9%, but is impacted by a 130 basis point change in year-over-year vacancy, as well as 150 basis points from fair value lease adjustments with the Duke portfolio's inclusion in our same-store pool. Additionally, there were approximately 175 basis points of items specific to the quarter, including one-time reconciling items from 2023, as well as unfavorable comps from low expenses last year. We started over $270 million of new developments in the quarter, bringing our portfolio to approximately $7.5 billion at our share, with estimated value creation of over $1.7 billion, a number we feel increasingly confident in, with value stabilizing. In our energy business, we've made meaningful progress on this year's deployment, including the signing of 405 MW of long-term storage-related contracts with investment-grade utilities. We also delivered the largest EV fleet charging project in the United States, less than 15 miles from both the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Finally, we raised $4.1 billion of debt across our balance sheet and funds at a weighted average rate of 4.7% and a term of 10 years. Our debt portfolio has an overall in-place rate of just 3.1%, with more than 9 years of average remaining life and liquidity at the end of the quarter of over $5.8 billion. Turning to market conditions. Most broad economic data, from unemployment to retail sales to the health of the consumer, remain very strong. And while our tour proposal and other proprietary metrics are similarly positive, overall leasing activity and net absorption are running below expectations. Net absorption in the U.S., for example, was very low this quarter at just 27 million sq ft. So while the macro landscape and supply chains continue to generate a need for space, we think it prudent to expect continued headwinds on overall absorption over the next few quarters. The interest rate environment and its associated volatility have weighed on customer decision making, especially as the 10-year has increased 70 basis points from its level just 90 days ago, and expectations for Fed rate cuts have moved from potentially six to now possibly zero. In parallel, sublease and space utilization rates highlight that some customers have available capacity, driven in part by the high rate of absorption through the pandemic. This dynamic of available space intersecting with the desire for cost containment is what leads to lower absorption and is playing out at different rates across some markets and customers. For example, while slow leasing has persisted so far this year for less capitalized customers and 3PLs, we see a handful of large e-commerce and retail customers further along in this process, such as Amazon, who voiced caution 2 years ago, but is now active in several global markets and has openly discussed plans to commit to significant amounts of new space. The overall leasing slowdown is most felt in only a handful of markets, Southern California and the Inland Empire being the most acute. In fact, rents in most of our U.S. markets are generally flat, several are up, and it is mainly elongated downtime affecting near-term occupancy and NOI. While Southern California leasing has been challenging, it has not slowed the tremendous uplift we realize every single quarter from rent change on rollover, which was 120% for the market in the Q1, with the Inland Empire at 156%, nearly the highest in our portfolio. In Europe, rents grew overall during the quarter, which we believe will remain the case over the balance of the year. And of course, LatAm continues to impress with very high occupancy and market rent growth that has led the globe in recent quarters. Overall, global market rents declined slightly over 1% in the quarter, driven mostly by Southern California, and would have been slightly positive if excluded. I'd like to spend a moment on Baltimore, where we own over 18 million sq ft and has been a dynamic market of ours for decades. Our employees, customers, and properties are all safe following the bridge collapse last month, and our customers expect to be able to withstand the disruption with little impact to their businesses. Shifting to capital markets, valuations increased in all of our geographies except for China, which saw a very small decline. Over the last year and a half, global values have decreased despite increases in cash flow due to cap rate expansion. As cap rates have stabilized, cash flow growth now has the ability to translate to value growth. Even though modest, the value uplift in the U.S. and Europe are important, as strategic capital investors have been looking for values to not only bottom, but actually turn upwards before committing new capital. With Europe a bit ahead of the U.S. in this regard, it is indeed where we've seen stronger fundraising interest in recent quarters. We also had a successful equity raise in FIBRA Prologis, raising over $500 million for deployment into both assets to be contributed from our balance sheet, as well as pursuits of third-party acquisitions. Transaction volumes and activity have ticked up in recent weeks, and pricing has certainly improved. As always, we're actively looking at acquisition opportunities across all of our markets, but our focus remains on the development of our land bank, which provides an opportunity for over $38 billion of build out with a return on incremental capital of approximately 8.5%. In terms of guidance, in light of our views on demand and leasing pace in the coming quarters, we are reducing our average occupancy guidance to range between 95.75% and 96.75%. Of the 75 basis point adjustment from the midpoint, it's important to understand that approximately two-thirds of this change stems from our our higher rent markets, meaning they create a disproportionate impact on same store in 2024. Same-store growth on a net effective basis will range between 5.5% and 6.5%, a reduction of 150 basis points, which accounts for the average occupancy decline, slightly lower rent change for the year, as well as 30 basis points of annualized impact from the one-time items in the Q1 mentioned earlier. Our revised range on a cash basis is now 6.25% to 7.25%. We are maintaining our guidance for strategic capital revenue, excluding promotes, to a range of $530 million to 550 million, and reducing our G&A guidance to a range of $415 million to 430 million. We're adjusting development start guidance for the year to a revised range of $2.5 billion to 3 billion at our share, reflecting our discipline in speculative starts and the timing impact this has in the calendar year. As we've always said, we don't consider our guidance to be a target internally, and each deal ultimately needs to be rational and accretive on its own. In the end, we're forecasting GAAP earnings to range between $3.15 to 3.35 per share. Core FFO, including net promote expense, will range between $5.37 and $5.47 per share, while core FFO, excluding promotes, will range from $5.45 to 5.55 per share. Our updated guidance calls for core earnings growth of nearly 8% at the midpoint. As we close out, I'd like to underscore the message of the call, which is that while we have only a modest change of view in the intermediate term, our confidence in the long term is intact. And putting timing aside, we're encouraged by the outlook for supply in the back half of this year and 2025, have tremendously marked to market to harvest in the interim, and are pleased to see valuations, fundraising, and transaction activity all picking up. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for your questions. Thank you. We will now be conducting a Q&A 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 queue. You may press star two to remove a question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. The first question comes from the line of Caitlin Burrows with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning, everyone. It seems like, I guess, occupancy and maybe pricing are coming in a little lower than you had previously expected. So I was wondering, could you go through how much or what pieces might be more macro-driven and how much is certain markets weighing on the outlook? Tim, you did mention how some of the high rent markets are having an outsized impact. So wondering, yeah, if you could just go through what might be more macro versus market specific. Thanks. Hey, Caitlin, it's Chris Caton. I'll start by saying I think it's a combination of factors. For sure, as Tim described, Southern California and a handful of other high rent markets, the leasing velocity has been subdued and rent growth has been a little bit below expectations. So there, there is that softness. But we also want to point to a couple of quarters of deferred decision-making, leading, aggregate customer demand across the United States to be a little bit below what we previously expected. The only thing I might add, Caitlin, it would be just nominally in sense of dollars and the impact, and same story. We do see about half of our adjustments as coming from SoCal. The next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, thanks. Good morning out there. I guess for Tim or Hamid, can you maybe just help kind of flush out sort of maybe the timing of when some of these things became a little bit more evident? I guess I'm thinking back to some of the conferences and the like in March, and my sense was the tone and concern about the business maybe wasn't as acute as it is right now. And I know you have confidence in the long term, but it sort of feels like there's a sea change in your outlook in maybe the last 30, maybe 45 days. So I guess, what is prompting that, other than maybe seeing hard data, but maybe just help flesh out kind of the timing of this and are there other, you know, factors at work here? Steve, let me take a stab at that. If you are sensing any acute change in our outlook, you're not reading our call correctly. We, we have picked a 3-year window, I think, in our Analyst Day to give you, our expectations, and the first year of that window has moved around. So our outlook for the back period of second and third year, essentially is the same and could be even better, given how much deferred demand is building up. If our proposals were down, if our tours were down, I would be more concerned. But companies are out looking at this space, and if you think nothing has changed in the last 45 or 90 days with respect to the Fed outlook, you must be reading different newspapers than I am. So, I would, I would tell you that people are just scared of pulling the trigger until the Fed gives the all-clear sign with the first rate cut. So, yes, you know, we're not instantaneous in our data on transmission to us and to you, but I can assure you that you will always hear our views immediately as we form them and as we get them from the marketplace. The next question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith with UBS. Please proceed with your question. Good morning. Thanks a lot for taking my question. It sounds like demand has been pushed out, or the rebound in demand has been pushed out of a few, a few quarters. So I was wondering if what evidence do you have that would support that? And then how do we compare that to some of the proprietary metrics that you put together, which, which seem to indicate that things are actually pretty positive or accelerating? Thank you. Hi, Michael. Chris Caton. Thanks for the question. As we've kind of covered in the script, and I think worth pointing out here, whether it's consumer resilience as revealed by economic indicators like the labor metrics or retail sales, whether you look at our own customers from supply chain momentum as revealed by our IBI, volumes through the ports and our proposal volumes, the broader economy is generating a normal amount of demand. A couple things to consider, though. One is, as you can see in utilization data and in sublease space, some customers have spare capacity that they are utilizing to accommodate some of this growth. We also have these leading indicators. We need to simply see customers convert space requirements into signed leases, so just the simple conversion of investigation into signed leasing. And indeed, we already are seeing the front edge of some leading global e-commerce companies and other retailers begin to make space. It's just not broadly yet occurring across the whole marketplace. Yeah, the only thing I would add to that is that the effect is not uniform in all markets. And I think what's going on, and this is a theory, this is not a fact, it's a theory, but it's based on 40 years of looking at this stuff. Southern California has over 30% share for 3PLs. And the rest of the U.S. market has a little under 20% share of 3PLs. 3PLs serve two purposes: one, they provide outsourcing of the logistics activities, but they also create surge space. In other words, companies use 3PLs as a way of flexing up and down. So markets that have a bigger exposure to 3PLs are likely to feel the impacts of shifts in sentiment sooner than other markets, on the way down and on the way up. Also, there are certain customers who have instantaneous access to sales data and activity, and I would say the e-commerce players, the big ones, have the best data on that because they see the trends on a daily, minute-by-minute basis. Those guys were early in terms of curtailing their demand, and I got to tell you, they're out there pretty aggressively. And don't listen to what we say, listen to what they say in their own annual reports, in their own interviews with the press, and I think you'll see that they feel pretty confident about their business and they're a bit ahead of the curve. Now, all of this is subject to, you know, missiles not flying in the Middle East and the Fed not going crazy, and God knows what else can happen in this world. So but as far as we see, the indications are really good, and this certainly does not feel like any of the other downturns that I've been part of. So, again, I don't, the word acute sounds a little bit of an overreaction to me. The next question comes from the line of Craig Mailman with Citi. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Maybe coming at this from another way, and I mean, I know you don't like the word acute, but maybe this seems a little bit more preemptive, because if you guys are seeing, you know, a lot of the metrics in line with your budget, retention was kind of in line with where you guys have been the last couple of quarters. It feels like this is an anticipation of maybe slower takedowns that you're seeing. I mean, is there anything else on the expiration side of the equation that you guys have a couple bigger known move-outs now that are gonna skew numbers? I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of this is actually what you're seeing real-time versus just, you know, giving yourself a little bit of cushion so that you don't have to kind of readjust later in the year. And also, just a question on development. You know, how much of this kind of occupancy decline is just developments coming out a little bit less leased than maybe you had thought a couple of months ago? We noticed, you know, your development margins were pretty single-digit this quarter. I don't remember the last time I've seen that. And is that a reflection of this, or is there something else going on as well? Okay, let me start that and then I'll turn it over to Chris and then to Dan to talk about development margins specifically. We like to be early and thoughtful in outlooks that we share with you, and we've always prided ourselves in doing that. And in some cases in the past, as you know, you've been following us for a long time, we've taken pretty bold statements on the way up and on the way down, and actually been proven pretty right about it. So for us to be late on this stuff is not something that we look forward to. So we always try to be on the lookout for trends that may be interesting to our investors and to you who are looking at our company on a real-time basis. So I'm, I'm not smart enough to assign percentages of how much of this is preemptive and how much of it is. But I can tell you there's nothing going on in the portfolio. There's not some news embedded deep in our customer behavior or some market that we're not sharing with you. This is just looking at the tone of the marketplace and sharing with you what we see playing out in the next two to three quarters. Nothing beyond that, and the outlook in the out-, for the long term is, is very much the same as it was before. Dan, do you want to talk about, the margins? Yeah. The margins this quarter is actually an isolated event here. We had about 15 to 17 projects stabilize. We had one project that just had a confluence of events take place, whether it be weather, some infrastructure, municipal requirements, and it just came in at a pretty negative margin, weighing down the overall average margin for the quarter. If you pull that out, our margin for the quarter would actually be a more reasonable 15% to 16%. The next question comes from the line of Camille Bonnel with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question. Hi, Camille. You mentioned how the company likes to be early on calling things, but I noticed that you only updated your outlook on operations and guidance. So can you help us understand how conservative guidance levels are? Or could we see more downward revisions, for example, if you start to pull back on the capital deployment front? Thank you. Well, on capital deployment specifically, you may remember that I'm always saying the only reason we provide guidance is because you asked us. We actually don't have a budget or a plan for deploying capital. We look at every investment opportunity one at a time. So all our elements of our guidance, and this doesn't go for just this period, it goes for any period, I would take that one with a grain of salt. We're not afraid to deploy a lot more or a lot less capital if the market conditions warrant it. With respect to conservatism, I would say we call it as close to the pin as we can get it, with a very slight bit of conservatism. Not a lot, just a bit, so that, you know, in the majority of the cases, we're pretty confident of what we're saying. But we're not 100% confident. There could be downside beyond that. But I would say, we try to call it as we see it and, be careful that we don't want to disappoint 50% of the time, which is really calling it right on the pin. We'd like to be a little more conservative than that. Now, we don't always get it right, so, you know, let's admit that. Camille, it's Tim. I might build on your first, the first part of your question as well, which is that at prevailing cap rates and the cost of debt and everything else, there's very little you could actually do in deployment in the year to affect earnings in year one or two. You know, I find that deployment changes tend to have kind of a push effect on earnings, so you should probably have that in your thinking as you watch our guidance. The next question comes from the line of Nikita Belyi with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question. Good morning, guys. The $150 million of other real estate investments, curious, what exactly was that on, on the sales? Maybe also, if you could talk about the reduction in development starts, any color on that geographic focus or spec or something else? That's, that's basically the. The 150 is some non-core assets, and we could not hear the second part of your question. Could you repeat that? Reduction in development starts for this year. Any additional information you could provide on what drove that, whether it was geographic-based or asset-specific or built to suit pullback? Yeah, thanks. This is Dan. I got a couple of thoughts on that point there around development starts. We adjusted our guidance on development consistent with the adjustment in the occupancy and the operating pool. So as we see demand shifting out, we just expect that we're going to start fewer buildings. We reduced it by about $500 million. That's about half build-to-suit, half spec. We're raising the bar on spec. As Amit said earlier, well, we put that guidance out there because you asked for it. We don't need to start these projects. We own the land. We have $38 billion worth of opportunity embedded in that land bank. We have entitlements, we have the teams. They're all geared up, ready to start. We can literally pull the trigger on $10 billion to 12 billion of that tomorrow. So we just look at that, we're just trying to be consistent and tie it to our overall outlook on demand, and there's no particular location or otherwise that drags that down. Yeah, and the only thing I would add to that is that, even though we made the adjustment on both the build-to-suit and the spec part, the bias is greater on the spec part. We actually feel pretty good about our build-to-suit volume going forward. So it's really the spec, which is discretionary, and, we can advance that part at any time. The next question comes from the line of Blaine Heck with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question. Great, thanks. So you've called out Southern California as being soft again. Can you just talk about any specific segments of the market that are particularly weak, whether that's by sub-market or size? And what makes you confident in the recovery, even as it seems it might be delayed, kind of, relative to your original expectations? And secondly, just curious if you can expand on which other high-rent markets might be weighing on the outlook. Thanks. Hey, Blaine, it's Chris Caton. Thanks for the question. So Southern California is a market that continues to soften. Vacancy rates are continuing to rise. Yes, after different submarkets, the softest area of Southern California is midsize and smaller units in the Inland Empire. The strongest area is probably Orange County, and Los Angeles, while subdued, has a 4% market vacancy rate. So as demand comes into that marketplace, bear in mind, demand has been negative over the last year, a very rare occurrence. As demand comes back into that marketplace, you're likely to see the vacancy rate make a difference in Los Angeles as well. In terms of other markets where we're watchful, the soft markets in the U.S. include New Jersey, Seattle, and Savannah. Yeah, the other thing I would say about Southern California is that don't discount the effect of the port labor issue that was resolved. That took longer, a lot longer than most people thought, and that affects a lot of the people, a lot of the users in the South Bay, immediately adjacent to the ports and the like. So that market can get tight real quick if that port volume comes back. I think that the small to medium spaces in the Inland Empire are kind of a mismatch. They're by and large, the older buildings that were built there when the market was not really designed for the big 500,000- to 1 million-sq ft buildings. And those are... Somebody who wants a lot of space has to go to the Inland Empire. Somebody who wants 100, 000 to 200,000 sq ft has more choices. So, that's where the softness is, in the Inland Empire. The next question comes from the line of Vince Tibone with Green Street. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning. Could you discuss the markets of relative strength in your portfolio in terms of demand and market rents? And also, are you seeing any different level of demand by building size? You know, more broadly, we noticed that occupancy fell the most on a sequential basis for buildings, you know, less than 100,000 sq ft, but actually grew for buildings, you know, 250 to 500. So just curious if those trends, you know, and occupancy are kind of a fair representation of the demand profile today. Hi, Vince, it's Chris Caton here. So first, in terms of strength, there is a wide range, and speaking of the benefits of diversity, the strongest markets in the world include Mexico, Texas, parts of the Southeast U.S., Pennsylvania, but also looking out to the Netherlands, Germany, and Brazil. Toronto. Toronto as well, is a strong market. You also have stable markets, Chicago, Southern Florida, Baltimore, DC, and then really, it's Southern California alone is really the main weak market. So that would be the range. In terms of size categories, what you see. what you hear in the marketplace in terms of tours, and in fact, some leases that are getting made, is there's a bit more activity, particularly among self-performing e-com and retailers at the larger end of the spectrum. That would be the main, I'd say, new news in the last 90 days. The next question comes from the line of Ki Bin Kim with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question. Thanks, and good morning. So going back to your comments about the softer environment, I'm curious if you've seen any changes in CapEx or concessions that might be, that might not be so apparent in the headline, face rents? And second question, going back to your comments on strategic capital, where do you think cap rates are selling out at for good assets and good markets? And does that change your view on the level of contributions that you might make going forward? Thank you. Hey, Ki, Dan, it's Tim. I'll take the front half of your question just on free rent. We have seen an increase in free rent. I think what's important to remember there is we've had exceedingly low amounts of free rent granted in the last few years, and I would say the current rates that we've seen in this last quarter and what we're bracing for with this year would still not really be on par with long-term averages. I would say that concession is not fully back to normal, but it is turning up logically in this environment. Yeah, in terms of where deals are being priced out, I would say 9 months ago, a year ago, there was very little activity and we were pricing deals in good markets in the U.S. in the low nine IRRs, albeit not much was happening at those types of return expectations. Today, I would say those are 100 basis points lower, and there's a lot more volume in that, a lot of transactions happening in the marketplace in the low eights. Europe, those numbers would be in the mid-7 IRRs. The reason I'm answering in IRR and not cap rate is that the mark-to-market in different locations is significantly varied. For example, for the same IRR, you would be a lot lower cap rate in Southern California than you would be in a market that is leased at market rates. The next question comes from the line of Tom Catherwood with BTIG. Please proceed with your question. Thank you, and good morning, everybody. Hamid, appreciate your comments on rates and the Fed's actions or inaction, serving as the key governor of customer activity and leasing right now. But how are you seeing supply chain disruption, you know, like in Baltimore, and geopolitical risks impacting customer behavior, if at all? I don't think Baltimore has been a big deal in terms of its impact on our business. It's obviously been a big deal to the people who died in the accident and the like, and to traffic patterns, but not to the customer. The customers have enough optionality that they can deal with those kinds of disruptions. I do think the geopolitical stuff has people a little wigged out, more, definitely more than last quarter. And look at the interest rates. I mean, we're up a good 70 to 80 basis points since the last time we all met. I think that didn't happen evenly throughout the quarter. I think in the last month that sentiment has changed pretty dramatically. So I think both of those things are weighing on decisions, particularly if the decisions are discretionary. And you know, people, when there are no choices, like there were no choices in Southern California, they always lease more space than they need because they don't want to be held short. And when the opposite is and they have some choices, they take their time because they expect better deals if they wait. And that difference, even if it's minor, even if it's 5% to the upside and 5% to the downside, can be a 10% swing, which are sort of the kind of numbers we're talking about here. So that's very much what happens in the short term. In the long term, demand has to match supply, and they can't keep doing that forever. Now, if you're gonna ask me exactly what that point is, I can't really tell you, but we think it's a matter of quarters, not years. The next question comes from the line of Jon Petersen with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Oh, great. Thank you. Maybe one more question on the Port of Baltimore. I know it's not a big container traffic port, but have you seen any knock-on demand show up in other East Coast markets given the dislocation that that's created? And then also, maybe just a part two, but you know, I know SoCal has been weak over the past year. We've, you've talked about that a lot, and the recession already happened. I guess I'm curious if you could help us contextualize, from where we stand today, if you could compare the strengths of, like, SoCal versus the East Coast markets, like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Like, from where we stand today, which one looks the best over the next year? Hey, Jon, it's Chris Caton. First, on Baltimore, you're right. The container traffic there is typically 50,000 TEUs a month. The time horizon of necessary diversions is not thought to be more than a couple months. By comparison, New York, New Jersey is a 350,000 TEU port. And a lot of these diversions have gone to Norfolk. So you've seen some leasing in Norfolk. It's not a market where we operate, so no, there are not knock-on effects. As it relates to Southern California versus the East Coast, the SoCal market remains fluid, and I believe, we believe it will underperform. This is a 6-month, 12-month view. Naturally, New Jersey, it has a completely different set of factors as it relates to rent growth that it's experienced over the last several years, in terms of the level of demand that we see in that marketplace, as well as sublease trends. Now is not the moment to get bullish on New Jersey. Let's see the port agreement, the ILA port agreement, get made. But over time, both will be very strong performers after this period of fluidity and uncertainty. Yeah, the way I would answer that question is that if you limit it to the next 12 months, I would go PA, New Jersey, SoCal, and if you ask me for the longer term, I would go SoCal, New Jersey, PA. And I would put all three of them in the upper third of markets across cycles. Maybe the upper 20% of markets across cycles. The next question comes from the line of Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Just hoping we could put some numbers on the soft demand that you seem to be messaging. So previously, you were forecasting 1.5% of stock of net absorption this year. I'm just wondering what, what that number has shifted to, given what's happened over the past 30 to 45 days, and if you can tie in where you see sort of availability rates, and next 12-month market rent growth. Thanks. Yeah, let me take. We have taken demand down for this year internally from 250 million feet in the US to 175, and fundamentally have kept demand at the same level going forward. What we debated that we were gonna do is whether we add the 75 million that we missed this year into the subsequent 2 years, and that's where the bid and ask is in our shop. And, you know, we're not clairvoyant, so that's. I'm just giving you the range of how we think about it. Now, you had a second part to your question, please. Yeah, as it relates to market vacancies, we look at vacancies, not availabilities. Availabilities will range between 150 and 250 basis points above these figures, depending on the cycle. We have vacancies peaking in the mid-sixes later this year. So that's up about 20-30 basis points versus what we discussed last year. I think what's important to understand in the cycle is the recovery potential in 2025 related to each of the constituent pieces. d walked you through the demand picture, but what's important to recognize is the supply picture. That was a big factor over the last year, 18 months, and the meaningful falloff in supply is marked. It's off 80% from peak. It's off about a third from pre-COVID levels, so we're talking about 35 million sq ft of starts in the Q1. That annualizes to about 160-170 million sq ft. So you're gonna actually see this snap later this year and into next year, and those vacancy rates moving noticeably down, likely to move noticeably down, from mid-6% towards 5% over the course of next year. One other thing I would. Your response just triggered this. Vacancy rates do not linearly affect pricing power. I think when you're operating under 5%, you've got a lot of pricing power. Now, whether that's 2% or 3% doesn't matter. You have a lot of pricing power, and even though you might have two customers that really need the space, four are looking for the space because they just don't want to be caught short down the road. So it just sort of feeds on itself. When the market gets to sort of around 6%, you're at equilibrium. When it gets too much above that, you get into a soft market. That's a macro analysis. Obviously, you got to apply that market to market in each situation, but that's the way we look at it. We, we don't think we're getting into those levels of vacancy that we've seen in other cycles, even during the good times. The worst that we're projecting in this period is almost as good as the best we've seen in other cycles. So that's the, that's the key distinction. And we've just been spoiled by a market in 3 years where vacancies have been lower than they've ever been. And I think you've heard me say at times that if the normal range of a market is one to 10, we've been operating in a 12, 13, and more recently, I've said we're in an eight or a nine, and today I would say we're in a probably six point five, seven. And the next question comes from the line of John Kim with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Thank you. I just wanted to get some additional color on the weaker net absorption due to tenants becoming more cost conscious. I'm wondering if this tests the thesis that industrial rent is somewhat inelastic, given it's a small portion of the overall transport and logistics costs. And also, where are tenants going in your view? Are they simply not expanding, or are they downsizing or going to less expensive markets or submarkets? So we've actually tried to test that theory by looking at whether Southern California's loss has translated into an equal gain in adjacent markets like Vegas and Phoenix. And the answer is, while absorption has increased in those markets, it doesn't fully account for the drop off in Southern California. So some of that demand has just been deferred. And the question is: When will deferred demand convert to real demand? And that's the $64 million dollar question. Is it one quarter? Is it two quarter? Is it three quarters? Don't know. We think it's a couple of quarters. But it will happen, and particularly with the port coming back, you know, that port accounts for over 30% of imports in the U.S., and it's been basically down. So we think it's gonna, that's gonna have a dramatic effect. Now, we may have missed it already for this Christmas season. I don't know. But certainly next year, that market is gonna come back, absent a recession or some kind of geopolitical blow up. John, I might just add, I guess, the way you're putting the equation together, it is what we see that, yes, the rate environment causes this consternation. But as Chris has been highlighting a number of his answers, as we look at where utilization sits and some of the capacity that's available, it's just the first place that customers can look in terms of finding a way to continue to operate in the short term. That would ostensibly end, you know, and we'll watch for that as utilization rises, and that's what would add to new demand. The next question comes from the line of Vikram Malhotra with Mizuho. Please proceed with your question. Thanks for taking the question. Just two quick ones. First of all, just on the 3-year outlook. So it sounds like you're saying 2024 is a bit lower than you predicted, 2025 and 2026 is similar. Does that essentially mean the 3-year outlook is kind of adjusted down somewhat? And then secondly, just to give us some numbers, I think you're, what you were saying is, the rest of the market rent growth is now, I guess, flattish, but SoCal is down. Do you mind just putting some more numbers on that? Like, just how much is SoCal down quarter-over-quarter or year-over-year, versus what other markets in the U.S. are doing? Thanks. Hey, Vikram, it's Tim. You know, we're not calling anything on 25 and 26. In my prepared remarks, well, maybe I should say, you know, I think our view would be that our views are upheld. And what I tried to highlight in the opening remarks is that, you know, if we get to a little bit lower average occupancy this year, recognizing that our 3-year forecast called for a more normalized level of occupancy in the end anyway, that's where this concept of, well, maybe the adjustment to same store from an occupancy change is coming a bit more this year than it would otherwise next year. But right now, we would hold out our view for 25 and 26 in terms of aggregate NOI and same store. Now, rent change in this very immediate term, I'm sorry, market rent growth, is a little bit below expectations. That'll have some effect, but that will be relatively muted through same store, over the period. Yeah, well, let's just put some numbers, since you asked on it. I think in the Analyst Day, we talked about a 3-year forecast for 2024, 2025 and 2026 rental growth of three to, sorry, 4%-6%. I would say we're at the lower end of that range and maybe a little bit lower than that when you look at it over a 3-year period. My number, and this is not the official number, my number would be north of 3% and around 4%, probably just shy of 4%. And then just on the detailed question on what's happening in market rent growth in the Q1, Southern California, down 6%, US, down about 1.2%. So when you multiply it through, you can see all the other markets are flat. The next question comes from the line of Nicholas Yulico with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question. Yeah. Hi, I was just hoping to get a feel for, again, going back to the occupancy guidance, if there's a way that you can give us a feel for, you know, how much decline in new leasing commencements you have been, you know, embedded in the number this year, because it sounds like the retention ratio has been better. So, you know, leasing velocity on the new side seems subdued. You talked about that leasing demand forecast being down, I think it was 30% on the numbers you gave, the 250 to 175 in the US. How much is like, new leasing in the portfolio gonna be down this year for the guidance? Well, this is Tim. I'll give it to you in this way, and this might help some of the folks who have struggled looking at the supplemental and some of the stats there and our messaging, because what you don't see in the supplemental would be things like: Well, how much lease signing occurred in the Q1? And that was down. Even though you see strong occupancy, that's on commencements. Signings were off about 12% in the Q1, so that's down. You can see that when you look through our pages in our leasing versus occupied statistic, where there's only about a 10 basis point difference in those versus a more historical norm of 40 to 50 basis points. So those are the pieces a little bit underneath the surface that are guiding our view. that, you know, the pre-leasing that we're normally looking for at this point, which is ranging, you know, 4 to 6 months ahead of commencements, is shy and why we think the average occupancy is ultimately gonna be lower. The next question comes from the line of Todd Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Hi, thanks. Two questions. I guess, first, can you discuss your rent change expectations for the full year, and whether anything has changed there as it pertains to the revisions to your outlook? You know, and it looked like rent change on signings was trending in the low 70% range through February, which was higher than the rent change in the quarter. I guess, you know, any thoughts about, you know, rent change trends relative to this quarter and for the year? But, and then my second question, in terms of the occupancy breakout by unit size and your comments about larger and smaller spaces earlier in the call, do you expect a recovery later in the year to be broad-based from a space or unit size? Or do you expect to see, you know, more strength or, or maybe more persistent weakness at either the larger or smaller unit size as conditions tighten up in a few quarters? Hey, Todd, it's Tim. Yeah, on rent change, so as mentioned, we had 67% start in the quarter. The signings were 70, so you do get a sense that, you know, it can move up and down each quarter. You may also recall we had very strong rent change on signings in Q4, which may leave you wondering, you know, why didn't that show up here in Q1 on the commencements? And that's speaking to just how long this pre-leasing period can be. It can be more than just 3 months, and for that reason, I expect we'll probably see rent change right now. My view would be it's gonna be above Q1 and Q2, and then also higher on the full year in the low-to-mid 70s over 2024 is our current view. As it relates to the contours, I think I'd first point you to the market color that was given earlier as illustrating the shape of the recovery going forward. As it pertains to different size categories, there is more vacancy and more availability in the over 500,000 category, but that's also where, in the last 90 days, we've seen a little bit of a pickup. So I think we'll see size categories advancing at a similar pace over the course of the year, and there'll be real differentiation across the different markets. Our final question comes from the line of Vince Tibone with Green Street. Please proceed with your question. Hi, thanks for the follow-up. I was just curious, are you seeing any other landlords beginning to offer more free rent or tenant allowances to try to attract tenants to their vacancies? A really interesting question. So this is what has really surprised me on this cycle. We are getting calls from merchant developers that have had financing, have completed projects, and are getting panicked. And for us to look at those opportunities, boy, we're looking at those opportunities! Because that's where a good balance sheet and that's where being on your front foot is all about. I think there were a lot of people in this business that thought, "You know, we'll just get some financing at zero cost and throw up some buildings, and then we'll lease." And I think that's what accounted for some of that overexuberance on the development side. And I think we're gonna end up being beneficiaries of that, and I'm seeing that real time. So yes, I think people who are merchant developers and do not have the financial wherewithal are acting in a somewhat distressed way sooner than I would've guessed, and we're happy about that. So that was the last question, Vince. So with that, I wanna thank you for your interest, and this is part of a long story, and we'll be there next quarter to tell you about the following chapters of it. Take care. Bye-bye. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.