Good morning and welcome to the Rexford Industrial's first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's remarks, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. To ask a question at this time, you will need to press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mikayla Lynch, Director, Investor Relations and Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you, and welcome to Rexford Industrial's first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. In addition to yesterday's earnings release, we posted a supplemental package and earnings presentation in the Investor Relations section on our website to support today's remarks. As a reminder, management's remarks and responses to your questions may contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws, which are based on certain assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties outlined in our 10-K and other SEC filings. As such, actual results may differ, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in the future. We will also discuss non-GAAP financial measures on today's call. Our earnings presentation and supplemental package provide GAAP reconciliations as well as an explanation of why these measures are useful to investors. Joining me today are our Chief Operating Officer, Laura Clark, and Chief Financial Officer, Mike Fitzmaurice. Our co-CEOs, Michael Frankel and Howard Schwimmer, will join us for the Q&A session following prepared remarks. It's my pleasure to now introduce Laura Clark. Laura. Thank you, Mikayla, and thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to begin by recognizing the Rexford team. Your dedication and strong execution drove first quarter performance and positioned us well to navigate today's heightened macroeconomic uncertainty. Rexford delivered solid first quarter performance in line with expectations. We executed 2.4 million sq ft of leases, achieving net effective and cash rent spreads of 24% and 15%, respectively. Embedded rent steps in our executed leases averaged 3.6%. Notably, 400,000 sq ft of new leasing activity in the quarter was from five repositioning and redevelopment projects. Overall absorption in the quarter was a positive 125,000 sq ft, and renewal activity remained strong. We achieved 82% tenant retention, the highest level over the past year. Market rents across our portfolio declined 2.8% sequentially and 9.4% year-over-year. Despite continued softness in market rents, Rexford's portfolio outperformed the overall market, which experienced a decline of 4.7% sequentially and 12.1% year-over-year, according to CBRE. The decline in Rexford's portfolio market rents was largely concentrated in spaces above 100,000 sq ft, which are experiencing some excess supply in the submarkets of Mid-Counties, North Orange County, and the Inland Empire West. In contrast, market rents for Rexford's smaller format spaces under 50,000 sq ft continue to show relative resilience, supported by limited supply comparable to our superior highly functional product. Regarding the current leasing environment, at the start of the year, leasing activity had picked up as tenant requirements in the market were increasing. At the time of our last earnings call, we had activity on approximately 90% of our vacant spaces, representing a material pickup when compared to 2024. Since the recent tariff announcements, we have seen some tenants defer decision-making amid increased economic uncertainty. We currently have leasing activity on approximately 80% of our vacant spaces, and while overall engagement remains healthy, it is difficult to predict the near-term impacts surrounding the tariffs and overall levels of uncertainty. As Fitz will discuss in more detail, our guidance anticipates the potential for increased lease-up timing. Turning to capital allocation, by stabilizing assets at above-market yields and selling properties at low cap rates, we are driving accretive cash flow growth and long-term value creation. By way of example, in the quarter, we stabilized five repositioning projects totaling 560,000 sq ft at a 7.6% unlevered yield and completed two dispositions totaling $103 million at exit cap rates in the low 4% area. Our capital allocation and recycling strategy will continue to be focused on maximizing returns and accretion. Our value-add repositioning and redevelopments are a key driver of accretive growth, with $70 million of incremental NOI expected in the near term from the 3.2 million sq ft of projects under construction or in lease-up. Regarding dispositions, we currently have approximately $30 million of dispositions under contract or accepted offer, subject to customary closing conditions. We have no acquisitions under contract or accepted offer. In closing, we are facing a heightened level of uncertainty related to the introduction of new tariffs. However, our portfolio continues to be well-positioned over the medium to longer term. We own a high-quality portfolio located in infill Southern California, where the long-term supply-demand imbalance will continue to persist, making our portfolio even more valuable into the future. Our tenants serve the nation's largest regional population base and one of the largest economies in the world, where leasing demand is driven by consumption. This is in contrast to larger format industrial product, where demand is more closely linked to global trade flows. The health and diversity of our tenant base is strong, and we are seeing demand from a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, construction, defense and aerospace, and the warehousing and distribution of consumer staples, household goods, and food and beverage, to name a few. Our value-add focus drives accretive cash flow growth. We currently have over $230 million of projected incremental NOI embedded within our portfolio, positioning us to grow shareholder value over the long term. We appreciate your continued support and look forward to sharing more progress in the quarters ahead. Now I'll turn the call over to Fitz. Thanks, Laura, and thank you, everyone, for joining. First, I'd like to thank our team for their commitment to excellence and teamwork as we continue to focus on driving long-term value. First quarter results were in line with our expectations. Core FFO was $0.62 per share, representing 7% growth both sequentially and year-over-year. We recognized $0.04 of expected termination revenue that was tied to a couple of known tenant move-outs. We are maintaining our full-year 2025 core FFO outlook of $2.37-$2.41 per share, though we are closely monitoring market dynamics and will assess our outlook to the extent conditions may evolve. Overall, our underlying 2025 guidance assumptions remain intact, including the projected $15 million net NOI contribution from repositioning and redevelopment. Although our projected lease-up timing has increased to nine months from our prior expectations of eight months due to tariff disruption, this was positively offset by some short-term lease extensions for properties otherwise planned for future repositioning or redevelopment. Reflecting recent changes in market rents, we've revised our leasing spread assumptions. We now expect net effective and cash leasing spreads of approximately 25% and 15%, respectively. This change will not have a material impact on our guidance, as only 11% of our ABR is set to expire through year-end, with most expirations weighted toward the second half of 2025. Our low-leverage investment-grade balance sheet positions us to be opportunistic while navigating market uncertainties. Today, we have more than $1.6 billion of liquidity, including $608 million of cash and nearly full availability on our $1 billion unsecured line of credit. Since last quarter, we have further bolstered our balance sheet, reducing net debt to EBITDA by over a half-turn to 3.9x due to the settlement of $400 million of forward equity that was raised at $49 per share in March 2024. During the quarter, we proactively initiated the recast of our credit facility to extend duration, lower interest expense, increase liquidity, and enhance flexibility. This includes the refinancing of our $400 million term loan, positioning us with no significant maturities until 2027. We expect to close on our recast in May, subject to customary closing conditions. We will continue to remain opportunistic with our debt maturities, focusing on duration and further lowering our cost of debt. With that, I'll turn the call back to the operator and open the line for questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time, we ask that you please limit yourselves to one question. Thank you. Our first question comes from Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks. As you mentioned, market rents accelerated downward during the quarter, down 2.8% from 1.5% in Q4. I guess maybe putting aside the potential impact of tariffs on leasing demand for a moment, do you have any better sense of how much further you'd expect rents to decline, just based on how much excess vacancy is on the market and how aggressive some of your competitors have been on pricing? I guess, if you were to factor in the tariffs, how much of an accelerant to rent moderation do you think a drawn-out trade disagreement could potentially present in your markets? Hey, Blaine. It's Laura. Thanks for joining us today. As you mentioned, we are seeing some nominal pressure on market rents, but we're certainly not giving away space in the market, and demand continues, as represented by, as I mentioned in our prepared remarks, that current level, we've got activity on about 80% of our vacant spaces. We actually have, of that leasing activity, we're actually trading paper on about 2.7 million sq ft today alone. While it's challenging to predict future rent growth in the near term, as Fitz indicated, we only have about 11% of our portfolio rolling through year-end and feel really good about the positioning of current activity given the uncertainty in the market. I also think it's important to note that demand is represented by a diverse array of tenants. That activity is made up of some of the larger drivers are the construction industries and trades, 3PLs, also including technology, manufacturing, entertainment, and apparel. That diversity, the levels of demand as well as the diversity, we're pleased with at this point in time. One more note I think that's important is our business model. Our business model has many levers of growth, embedded growth, that in a current environment, when there could be pressure and continued pressure on rents, allows us to continue to grow cash flow. We've got about $230 million of incremental NOI embedded in the portfolio today, about $60 million of that's the mark-to-market, about $70 million from our repositioning and redevelopments that are in process and in the pipeline, and then another $100 million from the annual embedded rent steps in our leases that's at 3.7%. Blaine, it's Michael. I'll just add a little bit to your question related to the impacts or potential impacts from the tariffs. I'll start with reminding everyone about, before the tariffs, the backdrop was actually looking relatively favorable. We had an increase in tenant activity, and the pent-up demand that we felt might be coming back to the market felt tangible. When the tariffs were announced, we did see a shift, as Laura mentioned earlier. Our tenants are clearly sensitive about the prospect of what tariffs could bring. The impacts of the tariffs, there's a range of potential impacts to the extent they drive a change in trade flows. Our tenant base is relatively insulated. Nobody's perfectly insulated. As you know, our tenants are disproportionately serving regional consumption, and this is the largest zone of consumption in the country. We believe that does mitigate the impacts associated with changing or shifting trade flows to the extent that tariffs drive a reduction in overall consumer demand. Clearly, that's something that our tenants are a little more worried about. I think that our tenant base, in terms of their behaviors, it is very sentiment-driven right now in terms of their expectations about the future, because what they told us earlier this year is they're feeling pretty good about their underlying business, actually. To the extent there is a drop-off in consumer demand, I think if we look back to prior cycles, again, we found that our infill Southern California tenant base has proven to be relatively resilient, certainly more resilient, for example, than your big box non-infill markets, where that space is more fungible. It's more of a commodity. Our tenants tend to be far more sticky through downturns because of the extreme long-term scarcity of our space, the irreplaceable nature of our space, and the fact that it's very difficult for tenants to move and find the same. They need to be near their endpoints of distribution. They need to be near the skilled labor. They need to be within the business ecosystem and services that support their products and components. A lot of factors drive the relative stability of our infill tenant base, even through cycles associated with reduced consumer demand. Our next question comes from Samir Khanal from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yeah. Good morning, everybody. I guess, Mike, I know you talked about the lease-up. I think you talked about nine months instead of eight months. Maybe help us understand a little bit more about the low end of guidance here. I think given the uncertainty, everybody's trying to figure out maybe how much room or cushion there is for sort of rents to fall, occupancy to fall as we think about kind of what PLD did. They sort of stress-test their guidance. Walk us through that, please. Thanks. Sure, Samir. Appreciate the question. Again, congrats on the new role. Like any quarter, we're always sensitizing our earnings at the top end and to the bottom end of the range. Obviously, this quarter took on a bit of a heightened focus for obvious reasons. The way we looked at it is we really sensitized our expectation to historical downturns, whether it be the pandemic, recent market rent changes in Southern California, the GFC. The variables that we focused on were projected lease-up time for our repositioning and redevelopment, also market rent decline, bad debt expense, and same property occupancy. We tracked those down to the historic downturns, the lows of the market, and we feel really, really good about where that gets us to in the bottom end of our range to $2.37. To your point, embedded in our guidance is longer projected downtime of nine months, which is a full quarter beyond what historical norms are of six months. Also, bad debt is at 75 basis points, which is about double of what this portfolio has generated over the last six, seven years since 2018, 2019. We feel really, really good about the range of possibilities on the downside. Our next question comes from John Kim from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you. Good morning. I was wondering if you could provide some more insight on the cash mark to market, or sorry, the cash leasing spreads this quarter, which went negative. Just looking at the leases that you signed this quarter, the average rent was $16.50. Comparing that versus your in-place ABR, it looks like it would suggest a negative mark to market. I am wondering if you could just provide some more color on that. Yeah, John, I'll take that question. In terms of our new leasing spreads, I think it's important to note that this quarter only included about 280,000 sq ft of comparable leases, so a very small sample set. Most of the new leasing activity we did this quarter was in our repositioning and redevelopments where you don't have comparable leasing spreads. Drilling into that negative 5% cash leasing spread for the quarter, it was primarily attributed to one lease. That lease had an above-market rent that was related to some specialized improvements that were in that space. We leased that building as is. It's really a unique circumstance with that lease, but again, a small sample size. Our next question comes from Mike Mueller from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yeah, hi. I guess, can you talk about the pace of redevelopment and repositioning starts for the next 12 months or so based on what you're seeing and expecting today and maybe how it compares to the past year or two? Sure, Mike. I'll take that question. Good morning. In terms of what's coming online this year, we have about $30 million of incremental NOI relative to 2024. In the first quarter, we experienced about $9 million of that $30 million. As we look through the remaining part of the year, and second through the fourth quarter, it's going to be more back half weighted, the additional $21 million or so. In terms of what's coming offline, that cadence has changed a bit from last quarter, where we had expected it to come offline predominantly in the first quarter, first part of the second quarter. Today, we expect that to be more ratable throughout the year. We had about $3 million come offline in the first quarter, and then it'll be ratable to get to the $15 million coming offline for the full year in 2025. When you net those two together, you get to the $15 million net NOI contribution that we expect. Our next question comes from Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good afternoon, guys. Could you talk a little bit about the lease terminations in Q1, like the nature of those tenants and how you're just kind of thinking about your watchlist today if there is one of potential tenants? Sure. Yeah. We did experience, as you just alluded to and I mentioned in the call, about $9 million or so of termination revenue. That was tied to two tenants, and that was expected in line with our expectations. Laura, do you want to talk a bit about the color? Yeah. I think it's important to note that the majority of that termination income was tied actually to an office property that we acquired as part of a redevelopment plan. That property is zoned industrial. The tenant that was occupying that space was an office user, not your traditional industrial user. We were able to negotiate a favorable term fee there and now have the ability to move forward with the redevelopment plan in the future. In terms of bad debt, our bad debt assumptions for the year. Yeah. Yeah. Our bad debt assumptions for the year, we had outsized growth in the first or outsized performance in the first quarter of about $3.4 million, which was about 120 basis points. As we look through the remaining part of the year, it'll be between 50 basis points-55 basis points, which lines up with our 75 basis points expectation. Our next question comes from Craig Mailman from Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, everyone. This question may be a bit ironic or hypocritical, however you want to look at it, given I've kind of asked you guys about selling assets over the last couple of years, and now you are doing it and being successful. I'm just kind of curious about the timing of it, given you're sitting on $600 million. Were these more reverse inquiries that users wanted to buy these buildings, or what's driving the uptick in disposition activity when acquisitions look a little bit less likely in the near term? Hi, Craig. It's Howard. Thanks for the question. We've always looked into the portfolio and considered dispositions, but we've, in the past, had such tremendous upside in rent growth that it was hard to justify a great majority of sales. Today, yes, those two dispositions we completed were unsolicited offers. What was unique about those is that there were some owner users that came to us, and they paid an extraordinary premium for the two assets we sold. Those traded in aggregate in the range of about a 4% cap rate, which is really interesting when you consider in today's market that deals are trading in the mid-4% to 5% range or higher even, depending on what the circumstance is with above-market rent in a portfolio. Great opportunity for us in terms of being able to recycle very creatively this capital. Our next question comes from Greg McGinniss from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. Just looking at the average rent escalator signed during Q1, it was down to 3.6% as compared to 4% last year. Are you starting to see tenants push back on the 4% escalators that you've been able to achieve over the last couple of years? Hey, Greg. It's Laura. Yeah, given some of the market dynamics and pressures on rents, we're certainly seeing some other components of the leases where there is pressure, but it's really concentrated by submarket and certain size ranges. Looking into that 3.6% embedded rent steps, that was really, really focused around the spaces over 100,000 sq ft, where we saw rent steps averaging about 3.4%. Looking at our smaller format spaces, those rent steps are holding closer to 4%. Our next question comes from Anthony Hau from Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Howard, I think you have highlighted that infill locations tend to be more resilient in downturns. Can you help us better quantify that, whether through occupancy, rent growth, or leasing velocity compared to non-infill assets? Sure. Yeah. Thanks for the question. It's really more of a scarcity for space. Southern California is a fully built-out market. While we do have some construction that occurs in our tight infill markets, it's generally just to replace older dysfunctional product. We're really not introducing any more supply. Whereas you look at many other markets around the country that have land and you don't have any limits on growth in terms of construction, land values tend to drop quickly in tougher times, and competing product can enter the market at lower prices than even existing products. We don't have that dynamic in Southern California. As we've sort of mentioned earlier in the call, we're really a consumption-driven market with upwards of 24 million people here. It's really a different dynamic than you find in through cycles. We really generally haven't had a huge drop-off in occupancy. It's really more just timing of leasing and so forth. Our next question comes from Brendan Lynch from Barclays. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to just dig in a little bit on your philosophy on the pace of redevelopment and repositioning. If we're entering a period of market weakness, would you be leaning into more redevelopment now because there's a lower opportunity cost of taking assets offline? Hey, Brendan. Thanks for joining us today. When we think about capital allocation, I mean, taking it back to our capital allocation strategy, we're focused on driving accretion and then long-term value. When we're considering repositionings and redevelopments, we're doing just that. On our repositionings, we're achieving high above-market incremental returns, somewhere in the 15% area on incremental returns on the incremental capital that we're investing into those assets. Not only is that driving accretive cash flow growth, but we're also enhancing the value of these assets over time. To the extent that those repositioning and redevelopment opportunities that we have in the pipeline allow us to do that, we think that it's prudent for us to continue to move forward, and that's a significant part of how we will continue to drive outsized cash flow per share growth. One item I would note there, just by way of example, what we experienced during the quarter, we did, as Laura noted earlier in her preparatory marks, stabilize about five projects, 560,000 sq ft. Now, that stabilized deal was about 7.6%. But on an incremental return perspective, to line up with Laura's thought just a moment ago, that was 20%, which is a highest risk-adjusted return today and a great way to deploy our capital. Our next question comes from Michael Griffin from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks. Wondering if you could give just a little more commentary on occupancy expectations. If I look at your kind of same-store quarter-end occupancy versus the total portfolio, it's a delta of about 600 basis points versus 400 basis points on average the four quarters before. It seems like you're going to get toward that midpoint of the same-store average occupancy guidance. Should we see that spread narrow? Should we see it widen as we get throughout the year? If there's any numbers you can kind of put around that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for the question, Griff. Appreciate it. Yeah, we ended the quarter for same-property occupancy at, what, 95.7%? We should end at the same level. It will dip here in the second and third quarter and then increase in the fourth quarter. As we think about our portfolio occupancy, it did take a dip of about 170 basis points since last quarter, and that was primarily related to repositioning and redevelopments that we put into the active arena. That should end the year right around 90-91% or so. Our next question comes from Vikram Malhotra from Mizuho. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Morning. Thanks for the question. I guess you've alluded to sort of long-term value creation through development, but also to the private market kind of being five or sub-five. I'm just wondering, as you sell assets, how much could you sell? What about using proceeds for buybacks, given kind of where the stock is relative to what you just said the private market's trading at? Yeah. Hi, Vikram. Good morning. This is Mike. First, as you know, we're a capital-intensive business. We have many, many competing uses of capital. The highest risk-adjusted returns that we're achieving today, as we just noted on the previous question, is repositioning and redevelopments. Like I said, we have five projects earn a return on an incremental basis of about 20%. We have $15 million of net NOI contribution in 2025. This really positions Rexford up for outsized growth over the medium and long term. As we think about it, it's the $600 million of cash that we have sitting on the balance sheet. We're offensive. We're in an offensive position. We have an opportunity to be very patient. It goes back to our core tenants of how we think about our capital allocation philosophy. That's accretive to earnings, balance sheet, NAV, and portfolio quality. Reinvesting inside our assets and improving the functionality is the best return that we're getting today. Now, in terms of dispositions, today, we have about $30 million or so that is under contract. Beyond that, I think it's too early to give you guidance on what we could sell later in the year. It is an attractive use of capital, as Howard pointed out earlier, where we're able to sell in the low 4% area. Our last question today will come from Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks for taking the follow-up. Mike, it's helpful to hear you all went through a stress test on operating results and still feel good about the low end of FFO guidance. I am wondering if you can talk about some of the specific assumptions in that stress test as it relates to occupancy, rents, and bad debt, and I guess how you think that scenario would likely impact same-store numbers as well. Yeah. I can provide you with a little more insight there, and I appreciate the follow-up question, Blaine. Like I mentioned earlier, the four variables that we look at are projected and lease-up timing related to repositioning, redevelopment, market rent change, bad debt, and same-property occupancy. Now, as it relates to core FFO, if you project another month of downtime or lease-up time related to repositioning, redevelopment, that's about a penny or so. Market rent decline and a 10% and 25 basis point increase, the 100 basis points for bad debt, that's another penny. Same-property occupancy, if we went down to where we were more towards the GFC of about 50 basis points, that's another half penny to a penny. I get you to the bottom end of the range for core FFO. We will take one last question from Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi, yes. Thanks for squeezing me in. Could you guys talk a little bit about 3PL exposure within the portfolio, just kind of given your markets generally are a big Asian 3PL market? Sure. Hi, Tayo, Howard. First of all, we have very limited 3PL exposure in our portfolio. Today, we look at 3PLs in the market, and they're turning out to be a great solution for a lot of the uncertainty that tenants have, meaning that they're able to take tenants short-term. They can expand, contract their needs very quickly. To the other part of your question on some of the Asian 3PLs that are in the marketplace, we've done a great job of really being selective on any tenant coming into our portfolio, whether it's a 3PL, manufacturer, distributor. We're very thorough in our credit analysis. To be honest with you, we turn down many, many tenants that we don't actually want to bring into the portfolio. That said, we do have some Asian 3PL companies, but they're very well established in the market. They've been around for a long time. They have solid businesses. We may expand them, or we're actually negotiating a deal right now on a 190,000 sq ft building with a Chinese 3PL that's been in the market a long time and has a good credit profile. What you hear in the marketplace are some of these 3PLs coming to the market that have no credit, and people, because they have vacancy and are in dire need for occupancy, are taking some of those. Those are highly risky and are not the type of uses that we're going to ever put into the Rexford portfolio. This will conclude today's Q&A session. I would like to turn the call back over to Laura Clark for closing remarks. Rexford delivered strong first-quarter performance, and that underscores the power of our platform and the rigor of our execution. In the face of ongoing uncertainty today, our high-performing infill portfolio and significant embedded growth positions us to navigate through these near-term headwinds and to deliver long-term value. We thank you all for your time with Rexford today. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. We're now in private. Have a great day, everyone.